know many examples that the judiciary renounces its mission to deny its own
raison d’etre. The Sapporo District Court has lately repeated its predecessors.
The court committed in the first ruling in the country on the disputed 2015
military laws. The decision shut the door to plaintiffs, which triggers us to
feel sadness, exceeding resentment.
OF JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO OBEY ADMINISTRATION
2015 military legislation, named the Act on National Security, approved the
right of collective self-defense. It violates the constitution which ensures the
right to live in peace. The group of plaintiffs in Hokkaido includes families of active
soldiers of the Self Defense Forces (SDF), citizens and academicians on
constitutions. The said court issued a decision on April 22.
judgment of plaintiffs’ loss
Judge Okayama Tadahiro told: ‘the right to live in peace is not a legally-assured,
concrete right’, totally rejecting the litigation, and turned down the demand
to stop SDF deployment abroad as ‘an inappropriate demand’. The court smartly evaded
judgment to reflect the constitution, describing pointless arguments.
25 groups presented law suits in 22 prefectures in the country over the 2015 military
legislation. The recent decision of the Sapporo
court was the first of the legal actions, which tells us the judiciary
committed a suicide. Ignited further was rage.
consultants of the Hokkaido plaintiffs issued a statement with a harsh
criticism: ‘the decision is extraordinarily unfair as the court does not see
possibility that Japan may be involved in a war’ and ‘it was not a right
decision reached through the trial process as it was set in advance to inflict
a loss on the plaintiffs’ as the district court had not held any examinations
of plaintiffs and testifiers nor given the plaintiffs a session to state
the court remains silent on the military act, it abandons duties as its mission
is to guarantee the fundamental human rights, according to the statement. The
group appealed to the higher court, demanding the court sternly to fulfill the
right to examine unconstitutional legislation guaranteed by the constitution.
2015 military legislation which admits the right of collective self-defense is unmistakably
unconstitutional even though the government explains beautifully. Successive
administrations of the country have justified existence of the SDF within the
limit of individual right of self-defense and have rejected the right of
collective self-defense in the light of the constitution. The latter goes
beyond the constitutional boundary.
for the Sunagawa suit case, on which the Abe government, allegedly, bases in
endorsing the 2015 act, the Supreme Court referred in the ruling to the individual
right of self-defense and did not touch at all on the collective self-defense
right. Everyone knows about it.
says that the right to live in peace is not a concrete, legally-approved right.
But the Nagoya High Court told in 2008 that the right to live in peace is the
basis of fundamental human rights and it is the constitutional, legal right in
the wake of judicial action to sue SDF’s deployment in Iraq. The
latter shows a natural interpretation of the constitution. The decision in Sapporo reveals an
apparent rollback as it questions about the constitutional principle of the
right to live in peace.
mother of an active SDF soldier expressed sufferings and anxieties but the Sapporo’s ruling says
that ‘possibility is low in which soldiers should be mobilized by the orders to
execute the right of collective self-defense, and thus, uncertainties and fears
that she feels are within an intangible domain of uneasiness’. The lawyers of
the group plainly and logically repelled the description, saying ‘it is completely