Japan should remove Article 9 of it's constitution

Premise: War as a Sovereign Right Sovereignty is defined by Oxford as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. ” (Source: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) This means that by nature, a government has various rights and powers to allow it to maintain its sovereignty. The military is the armed force of a country. Hence, the military is a part of a country’s government. With that in mind, that means that a country’s ability to mobilize and use its military is a sovereign right of a government. Furthermore, Japan acknowledged the existence of war as a sovereign right. This is implied in Article 9 as seen here: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. . . ” The fact that they had to renounce War as a sovereign directly implies that they acknowledge the use of War as a sovereign right in the first place. Hence, a country’s ability to use mobilizes military force to resolve conflicts are a sovereign right of the country. Argument: The existence of Article infringes on Japan’s sovereignty As mentioned previously, a country’s ability to resolve conflict through military force is a country’s sovereign right. Since the country acts independent of other countries/forces it is therefore necessary for sovereignty to be preserved. However, the history of Article 9 is what makes it a much larger infringement on sovereignty then simply the nature of Article 9. The Japanese constitution was rewritten in 1946 after Japan’s surrender in WWII. The constitution was made under the direct influence of the Allied Forces (more specifically the United States). The US made the Article as a way of preventing Japan’s military from remobilizing and preventing Japan from ever expanding again. Therefore the existence of Article 9 is an even larger infringement on Japan’s sovereignty since the Article was made by a foreign power. Argument 2: Self Defence Several countries and abroad organizations been shown to be a threat to Japan’s national security, many of which include ISIS and North Korea. For example: Several months ago, the terrorist ISIS had caught and beheaded two Japanese hostages (Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa). The killings of two nationals by a foreign organization such as ISIS are a justifiable reason to mobilize a military on foreign soil. However, due to Article 9, the Japanese are unable to respond militarily. Contrast that with the United States, which formed a coalition against ISIS for future military campaigns. Japan may be able to join, but would be left unable to act much upon that affiliation. As well as North Korea, a country that has on numerous occasions shown a great distaste towards the United States and its allies. Japan is a very close ally to the United States, and North Korea has threatened multiple times the possibility of declaring war against South Korea. Given North Korea’s distaste towards Western-aligned countries, it would therefore not be irrational to assume that Japan would be another potential victim to North Korean incursions. Therefore, self-defence would be necessary against North Korea, however, the existence of Article 9 impedes Japan’s self-defence. Argument 3: Unlikelihood of Expansionism. The main concern that caused the creation of Article 9 was the fear that Japan would return to Expansionism once the Allied Occupation ended. That was a well-thought concern during the late 40’s when Japan was still experiencing the effects of ardent Nationalism (which prompted Expansionist policies in the first place). However, since the end of WWII Japan’s cultural mindset changed drastically, to the point that a return to Expansionism is highly unlikely. This can be seen in the hesitation shown by Japan’s LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) in regards to altering Article 9. The LDP (also the majority party of Japan’s Parliament) has gone only as far as to reinterpret the constitution to allow the use of Self-Defense in the country. Only the Nationalist and Conservative Parties have gone as far as to call for the removal of Article 9, and they have shown little sign of wanting a return to imperialism. This hence shows that the removal of Article 9 runs very little risk of militant belligerency from Japan. If the country is so hesitant to remove Article 9, then it would be even more unlikely that Japan would return to expansionist policies. Sources: . http://japan.kantei.go.jp... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://afe.easia.columbia.edu... . http://iucn.org... . http://afe.easia.columbia.edu... . http://www.cnn.com...