Japanese media acknowledge slim prospects for removing the 'enemy state clause'
The Daily Yomiuri published an Q&A format article on October 10, featuring expert interpretations of the 'enemy state clause.'
Q: What did Sanae Takaichi mean when she called for the abolition of the 'enemy state clause' during her speech at the September UN General Assembly?
A: The clause refers to a provision in the United Nations Charter, which came into effect in October 1945 following World War II. It permits victorious powers to launch military action against an 'enemy state' without requiring approval from the UN Security Council. The provision was designed to enable the quickest possible response should a defeated nation (an enemy state) initiate aggression against another country.
Q: Is Japan still considered an enemy state?
A: The United Nations was established by the Allied powers after World War II with the aim of shaping a new international order. As a defeated nation, Japan was classified as an 'enemy state,' and this designation remains formally embedded in the Charter. However, in 1995, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the clause effectively 'abolished,' rendering it functionally obsolete. At the 2005 UN Summit, the principle of eliminating policies targeting 'enemy states' was incorporated into the summit’s outcome document.
Q: Then why hasn’t it been removed?
A: Because amending the UN Charter is exceptionally difficult. Any amendment requires approval by two-thirds of all member states, domestic ratification procedures in affected countries, and consent from the five permanent members of the Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The 'enemy state clause' also underpins the legitimacy of postwar arrangements, including the presence of foreign military forces in Japan and Russia’s de facto control over the Southern Kuril Islands (known in Japan as the Northern Territories). China and other nations have shown little willingness to support its removal.
Q: Japan hopes for its prompt removal.
A: Removal remains unlikely at present. China’s Foreign Ministry responded critically to Takaichi’s UN address calling for the clause’s deletion, stating that the current Japanese government not only denies its wartime aggression but is also accelerating the development of new militarism, thereby threatening regional peace. China and Russia maintain that the clause is essential to preserving the postwar international order. Russia, in particular, cites the clause as a legal basis for its continued occupation of the South Kuril Islands.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878630858584192/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.