The Japanese government’s proposal to introduce an “emergency clause” aimed at responding to disasters or possible armed attacks was one of the points discussed during talks between the main political forces in Parliament, in the context of Prime Minister Sanae Takaishi’s recent rise to power. The measure, which is being discussed in a scenario characterized by regional tensions and marked social polarization, reopens the debate on the possible amendment of Article 9 of the country’s constitution, one of the foundations of the peaceful period that defined Japan after World War II.
According to media, Takaishi resumed initiatives promoted by former conservative figures, including the late Shinzo Abe, to adapt Japan’s legal framework to growing challenges in international politics and strengthen national defense capacity. According to published information, the president has begun negotiations with the Japan Innovation Party (JIP), her main government partner, with the aim of moving towards a reform that would allow the country to modify restrictions on its military.
Japan’s current constitution, in place since 1947 and drafted by a US committee during the postwar occupation, has never been amended. The text significantly limits the role of the armed forces – called the Self-Defense Forces – and stipulates the permanent renunciation of war as a mechanism for state action. According to the media, the Liberal Democratic Party, led by Takaishi, reaffirmed during the election campaign its intention to amend the Magna Carta, claiming that “foreign policy challenges” required a review of restrictions imposed for nearly eighty years.
Article 9, as described by the source, explicitly prohibits the possession of military forces or military capabilities, a provision that the conservative sector in Parliament considers an imposition after the war. Some LDP lawmakers have insisted on the need to “clarify the legal status of Japanese forces” and overcome the interpretation that the military’s current presence is unconstitutional. The constitutional text, approved by Parliament on October 7, 1946, also included the accountability of the Emperor to the citizens and enshrined peace as a guiding principle, while abolishing the historical privileges of the nobility.
Over the past few decades, several attempts at reform have failed, due to a lack of political support and social rejection. As reported in detail by the media, the initiative led by Shinzo Abe in 2014 proposed exercising the right of collective self-defense in cases of an existential threat to the country, which would have allowed Japanese forces to participate in international peacekeeping operations under the UN flag. However, this measure did not receive the necessary support in Parliament or in Japanese society, as more than 60% of the population expressed their rejection of it.
Also, the current parliamentary landscape does not guarantee immediate amendability. The media reported that the Democratic Liberation Party and its allies enjoy the necessary majority in the Senate to approve the constitutional change, although in the House of Representatives they do not exceed the required two-thirds threshold. Japanese law also requires that any reform must first be approved by both chambers and then submitted to a national referendum, where a majority must ratify the proposed text.
The discussion on constitutional change is particularly important in the context of growing tensions with China and North Korea. According to published information, Takaichi raised the possibility of taking retaliatory measures in the event of a major Chinese military action around Taiwan, considering that such a scenario would harm the balance and security of the entire region. This stance generated a strong reaction from the Chinese government, whose spokesmen described the potential reform as a “provocation,” even threatening to “cut the throat” of the Japanese prime minister. The authorities in Beijing added that the military escalation would only mean a “new defeat” for Japan, a country they urged to “learn the historical lesson” from its past.
Internally, the proposed amendment to Article 9 is an ongoing point of contention in Japanese society. According to the media, the population is divided between sectors that fear turning towards provoking war, versus those who see it as necessary to adapt legislation to current challenges regarding regional security. International pressure, especially from the United States and other allies, is also shaping the discussion and exerting influence in determining Japan’s defense strategy.
The complex institutional structure of amending the constitution, as well as the geopolitical context and internal social dynamics, reflect the multiple challenges the Takaishi government faces in its efforts to reform the legal framework that has defined Japan’s foreign and defense policy for more than seven decades.
About The Author
