Men who lived through war file suits in Hiroshima District Court against resolution permitting exercise of right of collective self-defense; arising from lives of hardship
Apr. 3, 2015
by Daisuke Neishi, Staff Writer
Two lawsuits have been filed in the Hiroshima District Court seeking to nullify a Cabinet resolution passed last July allowing the exercise the right of collective defense. The suits contend that the resolution violates the Constitution of Japan, which renounces war. The plaintiffs in both suits are men in their 70s who lived through air raids during World War II. Both men filed their suits without the assistance of a lawyer citing their sense of alarm and stating that the exercise of the right of collective defense could lead to war.
Hiroshima resident Haruyuki Sugibayashi, 75, a company employee, explained why he filed his suit last August. “Those who lived through the war know its horrors. Everything possible must be done to ensure that Japan never gets involved in another war,” he said.
Mr. Sugibayashi was a 5-year-old boy in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture, when the city was bombed on July 1, 1945. He fled to an air raid shelter and escaped injury, but the family home was completely destroyed. His father died just after the war, and the family subsisted mostly on sweet potatoes and potatoes. He eased his hunger pangs with nuts from trees in the nearby hills and delivered papers to help support his family.
After graduating from junior high school, Mr. Sugibayashi went to work. He supported his wife and three daughters with jobs at a bank and later at a real estate company. He does not support any particular political party, but as a member of the generation that lived through the war he could not accept the Cabinet resolution. He read in the newspaper that a former employee of Mie Prefecture had filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court seeking to affirm the nullity of the Cabinet resolution. Mr. Sugibayashi spoke with this person by phone and found out how to file a suit. He read the Constitution, filled out the legal complaint form and filed it with the court.
Mr. Sugibayashi lost in hearings with the Hiroshima District Court last December and with the Hiroshima High Court in February of this year. The courts threw out his suit saying that the resolution was merely a decision made by the Cabinet and that because, unlike laws, it had no direct effect on citizens’ rights and obligations it “was not a specific conflict involving the plaintiff.”
Nevertheless Mr. Sugibayashi is staying positive. “I want to preserve the peace Constitution,” he said. “I will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Sugibayashi is not the only one to oppose the government’s move. Teruhisa Kageyama, 74, a resident of Kurashiki, Okayama Prefecture, still remembers the blazing red sky he saw during an air raid. He filed a similar lawsuit last July.
Mr. Kageyama was originally a supporter of the Liberal Democratic Party, but he is opposed to the exercise of the right of collective defense. He grew tired of waiting for a citizens’ group or scholarly association to file a lawsuit and so filed one himself.
“Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow the exercise of the right [of collective defense] through a Cabinet resolution rather than amending it on the basis of a national referendum is unacceptable,” he said. He awaits a decision in his lawsuit, which is scheduled to be handed down on April 14.
Mr. Sugibayashi has also filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, which strengthened the penalties for leaks of secrets related to national defense and diplomacy, on the grounds that it infringes on the people’s right to know guaranteed by the Constitution. His concern for the next generation inspired him to take action. “I don’t want anyone to ever again suffer the pain of the loss of a loved one through war,” he said.
Keywords
Right of collective defense
Under international law, a nation has the right to engage in collective defense in the event of an armed attack against a foreign country that it is in a close relationship with, even if the nation itself is not directly attacked. Previous administrations have deemed that this exceeds the “use of the minimum necessary self-defense” permitted by Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution and have forbidden the exercise of the right of collective defense. But in July of last year the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed a Cabinet resolution changing the interpretation of the Constitution. The resolution allows exercise of the right of collective defense in the case of an attack that “threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and “when there is no other appropriate means available to repel the attack and ensure Japan’s survival and protect its people.”
(Originally published on April 1, 2015)
Two lawsuits have been filed in the Hiroshima District Court seeking to nullify a Cabinet resolution passed last July allowing the exercise the right of collective defense. The suits contend that the resolution violates the Constitution of Japan, which renounces war. The plaintiffs in both suits are men in their 70s who lived through air raids during World War II. Both men filed their suits without the assistance of a lawyer citing their sense of alarm and stating that the exercise of the right of collective defense could lead to war.
Hiroshima resident Haruyuki Sugibayashi, 75, a company employee, explained why he filed his suit last August. “Those who lived through the war know its horrors. Everything possible must be done to ensure that Japan never gets involved in another war,” he said.
Mr. Sugibayashi was a 5-year-old boy in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture, when the city was bombed on July 1, 1945. He fled to an air raid shelter and escaped injury, but the family home was completely destroyed. His father died just after the war, and the family subsisted mostly on sweet potatoes and potatoes. He eased his hunger pangs with nuts from trees in the nearby hills and delivered papers to help support his family.
After graduating from junior high school, Mr. Sugibayashi went to work. He supported his wife and three daughters with jobs at a bank and later at a real estate company. He does not support any particular political party, but as a member of the generation that lived through the war he could not accept the Cabinet resolution. He read in the newspaper that a former employee of Mie Prefecture had filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court seeking to affirm the nullity of the Cabinet resolution. Mr. Sugibayashi spoke with this person by phone and found out how to file a suit. He read the Constitution, filled out the legal complaint form and filed it with the court.
Mr. Sugibayashi lost in hearings with the Hiroshima District Court last December and with the Hiroshima High Court in February of this year. The courts threw out his suit saying that the resolution was merely a decision made by the Cabinet and that because, unlike laws, it had no direct effect on citizens’ rights and obligations it “was not a specific conflict involving the plaintiff.”
Nevertheless Mr. Sugibayashi is staying positive. “I want to preserve the peace Constitution,” he said. “I will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Sugibayashi is not the only one to oppose the government’s move. Teruhisa Kageyama, 74, a resident of Kurashiki, Okayama Prefecture, still remembers the blazing red sky he saw during an air raid. He filed a similar lawsuit last July.
Mr. Kageyama was originally a supporter of the Liberal Democratic Party, but he is opposed to the exercise of the right of collective defense. He grew tired of waiting for a citizens’ group or scholarly association to file a lawsuit and so filed one himself.
“Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow the exercise of the right [of collective defense] through a Cabinet resolution rather than amending it on the basis of a national referendum is unacceptable,” he said. He awaits a decision in his lawsuit, which is scheduled to be handed down on April 14.
Mr. Sugibayashi has also filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, which strengthened the penalties for leaks of secrets related to national defense and diplomacy, on the grounds that it infringes on the people’s right to know guaranteed by the Constitution. His concern for the next generation inspired him to take action. “I don’t want anyone to ever again suffer the pain of the loss of a loved one through war,” he said.
Keywords
Right of collective defense
Under international law, a nation has the right to engage in collective defense in the event of an armed attack against a foreign country that it is in a close relationship with, even if the nation itself is not directly attacked. Previous administrations have deemed that this exceeds the “use of the minimum necessary self-defense” permitted by Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution and have forbidden the exercise of the right of collective defense. But in July of last year the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed a Cabinet resolution changing the interpretation of the Constitution. The resolution allows exercise of the right of collective defense in the case of an attack that “threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and “when there is no other appropriate means available to repel the attack and ensure Japan’s survival and protect its people.”
(Originally published on April 1, 2015)
