On the evening of September 24, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement asserting: “China has once again reiterated its position regarding the so-called ‘enemy states clause’ in the United Nations Charter, as if the provision remains in effect. This stance contradicts prior United Nations resolutions—already adopted and supported by China—that have addressed the matter.”
The core reference cited by Japan’s foreign ministry is the 1995 UN General Assembly Resolution 50/52 and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. However, the facts are clear: neither of these documents has removed the ‘enemy states clause’ from the UN Charter. The provision remains explicitly enshrined in the Charter to this day. While Resolution 50/52 did include language stating that the clause is outdated, and China did vote in favor, such resolutions are merely recommendations. Under Article 108 of the Charter, any amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of all UN member states in the General Assembly, ratification by two-thirds of members through their national legal processes, and must include the consent of all five permanent members of the Security Council.
These conditions have never been fulfilled. Therefore, the ‘enemy states clause’ remains fully operative in the UN Charter. China’s vote in favor was an expression of support for initiating a constitutional review process—not a declaration that the clause has already lost legal validity. This distinction is crucial: voting in favor of discussing potential legal reform does not equate to declaring the law obsolete. Japan’s deliberate conflation of these two concepts constitutes a misrepresentation intended to mislead international public opinion.
The clause was originally designed to prevent the resurgence of fascist militarism. Today, Japanese authorities not only deny their wartime aggression and glorify past war crimes, but also pursue continuous military expansion, accelerate rearmament, seek to abandon the three non-nuclear principles, and openly advocate revisions to the pacifist constitution—actions that challenge the post-war international order. Under these circumstances, retaining the ‘enemy states clause’ remains both necessary and justified. It is ironic, then, that Japan now attempts a tactic of legal obfuscation, aiming to deceive global audiences and public perception—an endeavor that is fundamentally unrealistic.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877266814519300/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.