posted a insightful comment on Japan's constitution.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Japanese government admits that Japan has the right of individual self-defence despite the article 9 of the constitution*, because it is inherent right that can not be deprived of , but she has denied the right to collective self-defence.
This is inconsistent.
If the right of both individual and collective right are inherent right, Japanese constitution as it is can be interpreted as allowing Japan to exercise the right of
Anyway, people are talking about reforming the constitution, in particular the article 9. I think what should be taken into account is which view would contribute to the peace and prosperity of Japan and the world more. Admitting the right to collective self-defence does not necessarily means Japan can not remain peace.
I need to study more.
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.