By reviewing the previous literature on Japanese security, it can be concluded that legal scholars have concentrated on the constitutionality of Japan’s participation in international military operations, while IR scholars have focused on how Japan’s diplomatic strategies can be analysed using IR theories. To conclude this chapter, this section will address the issues which scholars in each field of study should have considered.
The arguments of legal scholars on Japan’s participation in international military operations regard whether or not the government’s decision is constitutional.
Since the constitution is a basic norm of the country, Japan should follow its specifications.
The idea of pacifism is one of the fundamental principles specified in the JCL; therefore, many JCL scholars believe it necessary to strictly follow Article 9 of the JCL. However, other scholars adopts a different interpretation of “the limited renunciation of war,” and see the constitution as a guideline for the state that may be interpreted differently based on the situation that Japan is currently facing. Although legal scholars have developed innumerable arguments on Japan’s participation in international military operations, this dissertation focuses on the lack of consideration of the reasons for Japan’s participation in international military operations. Since international military operations occur outside
of Japan, Japan should also consider whether participation in such operations violates public international law on war rather than whether it violates Japanese domestic law.
While legal scholars have developed their discussion of Japanese security by focusing on whether Japan’s decisions violate the JCL, political scholars have analysed why the GOJ reacts in specific ways to incidents using IR theories, such as realism (neo-realism), liberalism (neo-liberalism), and constructivism. Referring to the theory of realism, political scholars have focused on why the GOJ strengthens its relationship with the US: “fear of abandonment’ and “security dilemma.” The liberalism-derived theory, on the other hand, explains why Japan participates in international military operations, particularly international reconstruction activities. Constructivism develops by combining with the knowledge based on the ideological, socio-cultural approach and the material factors, such as power and interest, so as to interact with others to reconstruct international society intersubjectivity. Although IR theories explain why the GOJ made such decisions on Japan’s security, such theories have not been used to evaluate whether the governmental diplomatic strategy is justified with a moral-philosophical standpoint.
Due to the lack of consideration of Japan’s participation in international military operations, this dissertation seeks to examine whether the GOJ took the normative principles of Just War Theory into consideration when deciding to participate in international military operations and reviews whether Japan’s participation is justified from the moral-philosophical perspective. As touched upon in the Introduction, some
politicians, particularly those in Western countries, have adopted the normative principles of Just War Theory when deciding to participate in international military operations.
Moreover, jurisprudence scholars have also reviewed governmental decisions to conduct international military operations using the normative principles of Just War Theory.
Therefore, this dissertation adopts the normative principles of Just War Theory, first developed in the Ancient Rome, to answer the research questions proposed: whether or not the GOJ took the normative principles of Just War Theory into consideration when deciding to participate in international military operations. The next chapter, which describes the methodology, will introduce the reasons why the normative principles of Just War Theory may be used to answer the research questions. It will then elaborate the normative principles of Just War Theory because multiple theories have been developed by jurists and philosophers since the Ancient Rome.
Chapter Two. Theoretical Approach
As seen in the previous chapter, a huge volume of research has focused on Japan’s participation in international military operations from the legal and political, particularly the IR, perspectives. However, previous researchers have not evaluated Japan’s commitment to international military operations from the moral-philosophical perspective, although jurisprudence scholars have examined whether or not the US’s and the UK’s decision on engaging in international military operations, such as the Afghanistan War and Iraqi War, are justified from the moral-philosophical perspective.
Thus, this dissertation aims to examine whether the GOJ has considered the moral-philosophical elements that all states should take into consideration when deciding upon participation in international military operations. To this end, this chapter explains what the moral-philosophical elements are; the criteria are necessary for all states to consider before/during/after international military operations. The moral-philosophical elements are established in tandem with an exploration of the Just War Theory, which has its origins in Ancient Rome. The first section explores how Just War Theory has influenced to international law on war. Based on this foundation, it is clarified that applying moral-philosophical criteria is a suitable method to answer the research question: whether or not the GOJ took the normative principles of Just War Theory into consideration when deciding to participate in international military operations. This chapter then proceeds to explain Just War Theory. While traditional Just War Theory was developed based on two categories, jus ad bellum (the law to war) and jus in bello (the law of war), contemporary
Just War Theory has added jus post bellum (the law after war) as a third category. As this dissertation deals with the current international situation with respect to war, the moral-philosophical criteria will be developed under these three terms. To further clarify Just War Theory, this dissertation uses two principles applied in public international law on war to judge whether war is legally justified: the principles of necessity and proportionality (Jennings, 1938; Gray, 2008, pp. 148–56; Greenwood, 2015, paras 25–9).
Therefore, this chapter develops the moral-philosophical criteria by applying these two principles to each term (jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum).