International Law v.s Domestic (National) Laws:
(Japanese Constitution v.s. United Nations – Resolutions/Membership participation)
The role of Japan in international conflicts is a paradox of laws, rights, ideas and philosophies.
Firstly the constitution of Japan (namely article 9.) forbids Japan from participating in acts of aggression against another nation and from maintaining a military force that could participate in such acts. However Japan is a member of the U.N. And therefore as a member it is duty bound to take in some part U.N. Military mission. This is further compounded by the that Japan also wishes to become a member of the U.N. Security Council.
So Japan has a problem and some choices to make before it can full adult member of the world society.
(A) Japan chances it’s contitution so that Japanese law allows it to participate in all U.N. (military) mission fully and completely under the rule of the U.N.
(B) Japan keeps their constitution basically the same but provides only financial and, or logistical support to U.N. Missions, which what Japan basically does at present.
(C) Japan becomes a truly neutral nation like Switzerland, resign from the United Nations and just confines itself to purely humanitarian activities, which require no military support and, or participation.
Option “C” seems the best choice for Japan at the present. It avoids many the complicated issues, especially those with it’s past history with China and Korea, furthermore if Japan chooses to become a neutral nation then China and Korea have nothing to comment or complain about, and makes their concerns about the past a non-issue.
