July 17, 2015

On the Prime Minister’s Statement in Commemoration of the70th Anniversary of the End of World War II:
A Joint Statement by 74 Japanese Scholars ofInternational Law, History, and International Politics

Prime Minister ABE Shinzo is expected to issue a statement this summer on theoccasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. This statement has been thefocus of close attention from inside and outside of Japan.
We, scholars of international law, history, and international politics, as citizens ofJapan and as academic experts on the legal, historical, and political issues of international
concern, have long been involved in research on the problems and concerns that may beaddressed in and affected by the Prime Minister’s statement.
As individual scholars, we differ in our academic standpoints and political beliefs.
Despite these differences, we share the common perspective stated below. We have cometo believe that it is our social responsibility as academic professionals to announce thisstatement and share it with Japanese citizens and political leaders, as well as concerned
individuals overseas. Thus we express the following viewpoints.
(1) A statement by the Prime Minister must first and foremost express deep gratitude
to our predecessors who endeavored, from the days of 1945 when many of ourcities had been burnt to the ground and our people faced starvation, to establish
the peace and prosperity that Japan enjoys today. As the nation’s chief executive,
the Prime Minister is called upon to express his resolve to the public that he will
make every conceivable effort to pass this peaceful and prosperous Japan on to
the next generation. In our view, there exists broad agreement in our society that
it is the responsibility of any generation to its preceding and succeeding
generations to do so. It makes no difference whether it is the 50th, 60th, or 70th
anniversary.

(2) Postwar Japan’s rehabilitation and prosperity were achieved not only by theendeavors of the Japanese people, but also with the understanding, highexpectations, and support of foreign nations. They were generous when Japan rejoined the international community after the war. They took steps such as
renouncing their demand for war reparations from Japan at the time of the peace
settlement and diplomatic normalization. In addition, they maintained Japan’ssecurity and supported its economic reconstruction through various means. Thesefacts are all now common knowledge thanks to research accumulated over theyears. The Prime Minister’s statement should express deep appreciation to thepeople of these foreign nations.
(3) The sustained endeavors by the Japanese people that brought about rehabilitationand prosperity in the postwar era were furthermore based on deep self-reflection
with regard to Japan’s earlier behavior. This includes the recognition thatcolonizing Taiwan and Korea and the wars of 1931–1945 had been grievous
mistakes, as well as the deep remorse that more than three million Japanese andseveral times as many Chinese and other foreign citizens were killed. The postwar
efforts by the Japanese people were also a product of our determination, based on
this self-reflection, to never again repeat the mistakes of the past. A strong feelingof atonement and repentance toward the people who lost their lives because of thewar was the driving force that sustained Japan’s postwar economic development
and its focus on peace. It may be impossible to keep this feeling from fading as
seventy, eighty, or ninety years pass after the war ended. Nevertheless, it was thissentiment that was the source of postwar Japan’s peace and prosperity. It mustnever be forgotten how this self-reflection served as the basis for our nation’s
postwar accomplishments.
(4) The previous point is also connected to the ongoing discussions of whether tokeep phrases such as “feelings of deep remorse” and “heartfelt apology”
concerning “colonial rule” and “aggression,” which first appeared in theMurayama Statement on the 50th anniversary and then again in the Koizumi
Statement on the 60th anniversary of the end of the war. Many professionals andthe general public may agree that the quality of the Prime Minister’s statement
should not be judged by its specific wording, much less on whether it preserves
each of those terms used in specific statements like the Murayama Statement.
They may feel that these should not be the criteria by which to judge the quality

of subsequent Prime Ministers’ statements. Nevertheless, the wording matters,
because documents that carry the weight of great international influence will bejudged, across countries and over time, on the language they use. Leaders of anation who bear the responsibility to run it are expected to consider deeply theimportance of words. As specialists in history, law, and politics, we especiallywant to emphasize this to our officials and leaders.
(5) It has become a focus of discussion as well as a political issue both within andoutside Japan whether and how the “Abe Statement” will uphold the Murayama
Statement and/or the Koizumi Statement, including their specific wording, partly
because of the Prime Minister’s past speeches and actions on these problems. We
have observed this debate not just in Japan, but also in countries that have close
relations with our own, such as China, the Republic of Korea, and the UnitedStates. Were the “Abe Statement” not to adopt the key terms that constitute theMurayama and Koizumi Statements, it would not only invite keen international
attention to that decision and be judged harshly. We are also concerned about therisk that it could produce misunderstanding and mistrust among these and othernations about the remorse for the past that has been repeatedly stressed byJapanese Prime Ministers and Chief Cabinet Secretaries in their previousstatements. We therefore strongly urge Prime Minister Abe to clarify specificallywhat he means when he says that he intends to uphold the Murayama and Koizumi
Statements “as a whole.”(6) Our requests focus on the “Statement by the Prime Minister” on the 70th
anniversary of the end of the war, regardless of whether the statement is madethrough a cabinet decision. The Prime Minister is in a position to represent Japanas the chief executive of the state, and whether his statement is made through acabinet decision will hardly be of interest to the Japanese people, let alone topeople elsewhere. What matters most is the content of the statement. It should notinclude words that will be received negatively by international society, nor should
it disgrace the Japanese people of the past, present and future. And the Prime
Minister’s statement should neither provoke harsh international reaction nor
impair Japan’s national interests in the present or future. We hope that Prime
Minister Abe will wisely contemplate these concerns before selecting the words
that will constitute his statement.

(7) It is not easy for the Japanese people to admit that the wars our nation waged
between 1931 and 1945 constituted wars of aggression in violation ofinternational law. The Japanese people of that era faced more difficult ordeals andmade greater sacrifices than perhaps Japanese people of any other time. We, thesubsequent generation of Japanese citizens, should not simply say in the hindsightthat everything our people did at that time was wrong. Nevertheless, we must
recognize that Japan was never invaded, and that the wars — in which Japan
attacked China, Southeast Asian countries, and Pearl Harbor; in which more than
three million Japanese lives were sacrificed; and in which far greater numbers ofpeople in the other involved countries were killed — were a grave and inexcusable
mistake. It is moreover an undeniable fact that Japan colonized Taiwan and Korea.
Every nation has made mistakes in the past, and Japan should squarely admit its
own mistakes in that era. We believe that sincerity and integrity here will be key
to Japan’s moral stature in international society, and that it is of this attitude that
we Japanese citizens should be proud.
(8) Our Prime Ministers, and Prime Minister Abe in particular, have repeatedly madestatements in response to questions in the Diet to the effect that the definition ofaggression has yet to be established. This, however, is not necessarily correct froman academic perspective. Worse still, remarks like these may arouse suspicionsthat the Prime Minister intends to deny what has been established in internationalsociety: that the war Japan initiated in 1931 was clearly an aggressive war thatviolated international law. Inviting such suspicions would seriously impair Japan’snational interest.
In the first half of the 20th century, and in the aftermath of the devastation
wrought by World War I, international society made tremendous efforts for theillegalization of war. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, to which Japan was party,
was one of the results of these efforts; the Pact banned every type of war except
for self-defense. Historical research has proved that the Manchurian Incident in1931 was caused by a conspiracy of the Kwantung Army, which was also
responsible for the Huanggutun Incident in 1928. The Imperial Japanese
government claimed that the Manchurian Incident justified further acts of selfdefense, while the League of Nations did not accept this position. Whateverreasons the Japanese government might have claimed for the wars that followedfrom 1931–1945, including the second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War, it
is well established from the perspectives of international law as well as history

that they were all illegal, aggressive wars conducted by Japan. Given thatinternational society has consistently sustained this recognition, denying thiswould be to deny an understanding commonly shared by not only China and theRepublic of Korea, but also by an overwhelming number of nations, including theUnited States. We cannot allow Japan’s excellent international reputation, which
the Japanese people have striven to build over the past 70 years, to be ruined byvague language that obscures the unjust and illegal nature of the wars. This is what
we believe as professional scholars, and we are convinced that this understandingis shared by many Japanese people.
In 1924, the Chinese revolutionary statesman SUN Yat-sen made a famous speechin Kobe, Japan, advocating a “Pan-Asian Doctrine.” In his speech, Sun asked the Japanesepeople “whether Japan would be an instrument for promoting the Western rule of Mightor a defender of the Oriental rule of Right.” We do not necessarily agree with Sun’sopinion that the West represented the rule of Might and that the “Orient” reflected to therule of Right, but in the days when China was nearly colonized by the Western powersand Japan, his challenge was on the mark. Regrettably, Japan chose the path of the ruleof Might, and, as a result, nearly destroyed herself.
Japan in the postwar era paid close attention to this lesson and sought a path toward
peace and prosperity of which we can be proud. We wish for Japan to continue the pathof the rule of Right: to further develop as a peaceful, economically prosperous, and safe
society; to share these values through economic, technological and cultural cooperation
with other nations; and to maintain its position as a nation that can serve internationallyas a model, and of which its people can be proud. As scholars of international law, history,
and international politics, and, first and foremost, as members of Japan, we believe that
this is the path on which Japan should proudly continue.
We sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will issue a statement that gives serious
thought to the understanding of people around the world regarding Japan’s prewar andpostwar history: a statement that the Japanese people, present and future, can be proud toquote as “our Prime Minister’s Statement” to anyone, anywhere in the world.

--ONUMA Yasuaki (Distinguished Professor, Meiji University, International Law)
MITANI Taichiro (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, Japanese Political andDiplomatic History)

ABE Kohki (Professor, Kanagawa University, International Law)
AGO Shinichi (Professor, Ritsumeikan University, International Law)
AMAKO Satoshi (Professor, Waseda University, Contemporary Chinese Studies)
ASADA Masahiko (Professor, Kyoto University, International Law)
ASANO Toyomi (Professor, Waseda University, Japanese Political and DiplomaticHistory)
AWAYA Kentaro (Professor Emeritus, Ritsumeikan University, Contemporary andModern History)
ENDO Seiji (Professor, Seikei University, International Politics)
FUJIWARA Kiichi (Professor, the University of Tokyo, International Politics)
GOTO Kenichi (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University, Southeast Asian Contemporaryand Modern History)
HANDO Kazutoshi (Historian)
Akira HARA (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, Japanese Economic History)
HARA Yoshihisa (Professor Emeritus, Tokyo International University, InternationalPolitics)
HATANO Sumio (Professor Emeritus, Tsukuba University, Japanese Political andDiplomatic History)
HATSUSE Ryuhei (Visiting Professor, Kyoto Women’s University, International Politics)
HIRANO Kenichiro (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University, History of East AsianInternational Relations)
HIROSE Kazuko (Professor Emeritus, Sophia University, International Law)
HOSAKA Masayasu (Historian)
IDA Ryuichi (Professor, Doshisha University, International Law)
IRIE Akira (Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, American Diplomatic History)
ISHIDA Atsushi (Professor, the University of Tokyo, International Politics)
ISHIDA Ken (Professor, Chiba University, International Political History)
ISHII Kanji (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, Japanese Economic History)
KATO Yoko (Professor, the University of Tokyo, Japanese Modern History)KIBATA Yoichi (Professor, Seijo University, History of International Relations)
KIKKAWA Gen (Professor, Hiroshima City University, International Politics)
KIMIYA Tadashi (Professor, the University of Tokyo, International Politics)
KOSUGE Nobuko Margaret (Professor, Yamanashi Gakuin University, Contemporaryand Modern History)
KOZAI Shigeru (Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University, International Law)
KURASAWA Aiko (Professor Emeritus, Keio University, Southeast Asian History)KUROSAWA Fumitaka (Professor, Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, JapaneseModern History)KUROSAWA Mitsuru (Professor, Osaka Jogakuin University, International Law)
MATSUI Yoshiro (Professor Emeritus, Nagoya University, International Law)
MATSUMOTO Sannosuke (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, History ofJapanese Political Thought)
MAYAMA Akira (Professor, Osaka University, International Law)
MATSUO Fumio (Historian)
MATSUURA Masataka (Professor, Rikkyo University, Japanese Politics and DiplomaticHistory)
MITANI Hiroshi (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, Japanese ContemporaryHistory)
MIYANO Hirokazu (Professor, Chuo University, International Law)
MOGAMI Toshiki (Professor, Waseda University, International Law)
MORI Kazuko (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University, Chinese Politics)
MORIYAMA Shigenori (Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Modern
Japanese-Korean History)
NAKAKITA Koji (Professor, Hitotsubashi University, Japanese Political and DiplomaticHistory)
NAKAJIMA Takeshi (Associate Professor, Hokkaido University, Politics)
NAKAMI Mari (Professor, Seisen University, Classical Theory of InternationalRelations)
NAKAMI Tatsuo (Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, History of East AsianInternational Relations)
NAKATANI Kazuhiro (Professor, the University of Tokyo, International Law)
NAYA Masatsugu (Professor, Sophia University, International Politics)
Maki NISHIUMI (Professor, Chuo University, International Law)NISHIZAKI Fumiko (Professor, the University of Tokyo, American Political andDiplomatic History)
NOMURA Koichi (Professor Emeritus, Rikkyo University, Chinese Contemporary andModern History)
OBATA Kaoru (Professor, Nagoya University, International Law)
OGATA Sadako (Former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, History ofInternational Relations)
OKONOGI Masao (Professor Emeritus, Keio University, Korean Politics)
SAITO Tamitomo (Professor, Kinjo Gakuin University, International Law)

SATO Tetsuo (Professor, Hitotsubashi University, International Law)
SHIN Hae Bong (Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University, International Law)
SHINOHARA Hatsue (Professor, Waseda University, History of International Relations)
SOEYA Yoshihide (Professor, Keio University, International Politics)
SUGIHARA Takane (Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University, International Law)
SUGIYAMA Shinya (Professor Emeritus, Keio University, Japanese Economic History)
TAKAHARA Akio (Professor, the University of Tokyo, International Politics)
TANAKA Hiroshi (Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University, Japanese Social Theory)
TANAKA Takahiko (Professor, Waseda University, History of International Relations)TONOMURA Masaru (Professor, the University of Tokyo, Japanese Contemporary andModern History)
TOYODA Tetsuya (Associate Professor, Akita International University, InternationalLaw)
UTSUMI Aiko (Professor Emeritus, Keisen University, Japan - Asian Relations)
WADA Haruki (Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo, History)
YAMAGATA Hideo (Professor, Nagoya University, International Law)YAMAKAGE Susumu (Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University, International Relations)
YAMAMURO Shinichi (Professor, Kyoto University, Classical Theory of Modern Lawand Politics)
YOSHIDA Yutaka (Professor, Hitotsubashi University, Japanese Contemporary andModern History)
YUI Daizaburo (Professor, Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, History of JapaneseU.S. Relations)