« 原発事故証言―再稼働より全容公開だ | トップページ | 裁判員制度5年 精神的負担をどう軽減するか »

2014年5月22日 (木)

与党安保協議 個別的自衛権では限界がある

The Yomiuri Shimbun 8:00 pm, May 21, 2014
Individual self-defense limited in addressing situations facing Japan
与党安保協議 個別的自衛権では限界がある

How should the government’s constitutional interpretation be changed to ensure Japan’s peace and safety, and what sort of legal frameworks are necessary to achieve this purpose? We urge the ruling parties to discuss the matter thoroughly and reach conclusions in a timely manner.
 日本の平和と安全を確保するには、どんな憲法解釈の見直しや法整備が必要なのか。与党は、しっかりと議論し、結論を出さねばなるまい。

The Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito have begun discussing key security issues, including a revision of the government’s constitutional interpretation regarding the exercise of Japan’s right to collective self-defense.
 自民、公明両党が、集団的自衛権の憲法解釈の変更などに関する協議を開始した。

The ruling parties will initially talk about so-called gray-zone situations, infringements against the country that do not involve the use of force, such as the seizure of a remote island by an armed group. The second order of business is Japan’s role in international cooperation, such as whether to allow Self-Defense Forces troops to rescue foreign troops and civilians under attack during U.N. peacekeeping operations. The final issue is Japan’s right to collective self-defense.
 武装集団による離島占拠などグレーゾーン事態、国連平和維持活動(PKO)参加中の自衛隊が他国部隊や民間人を助ける「駆けつけ警護」など国際協力、集団的自衛権の順で、論議を進める。

So far, Komeito has been receptive to the establishment of the legal framework necessary to address gray-zone situations, but remains cautious on changing the constitutional interpretation. We understand the ruling parties’ aim to lead off with issues that are likely to reach an agreement. However, the issue on collective self-defense is the linchpin of all related issues, and should not be shelved.
 公明党は、グレーゾーン事態の法整備などに前向きな一方で、憲法解釈の変更には慎重姿勢を崩していない。合意しやすいテーマから議論するのは理解できるが、焦点である集団的自衛権の論議を先送りしてはならない。

When discussing changes in the government’s constitutional interpretation, the three issues should be dealt with as a package. The same is true of preparing the necessary legal frameworks for each of the three issues.
 3分野の憲法解釈の検討や法整備は一体で進めるべきだ。

The ruling parties did not set a deadline for the discussions. The government plans to submit bills to revise laws related to collective self-defense at an extraordinary Diet session this autumn, and to revise the Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation Guidelines by year-end. We urge the LDP and Komeito to take note of these events and deal with them expeditiously.
 与党は意見集約の期限を定めていない。今秋の臨時国会での関連法改正や年末の日米防衛協力の指針(ガイドライン)改定などの日程を念頭に、適切な時期に結論をまとめることが求められる。

Flaws in Komeito’s logic

A government expert panel has called for changes to the existing constitutional interpretation concerning collective-self defense to allow the SDF to protect U.S. military vessels in seas around Japan, engage in minesweeping activities on key sea-lanes and intercept ballistic missiles heading toward the United States using a Japan-based missile defense system. Komeito has conceded the necessity of enabling Japan to handle these situations, but says it can be dealt with through the right to individual self-defense or police authority, not with the right to collective self-defense. However, we can’t help but point out the flaws in Komeito’s ideas.
 公明党は、政府の有識者会議が解釈変更を求めた米艦防護、機雷除去、ミサイル防衛などの事例に対応する必要性は認めつつ、集団的自衛権でなく個別的自衛権や警察権で対応できると主張する。だが、その理屈には無理がある。

For example, SDF vessels usually maintain a distance of several kilometers or more from U.S. vessels when sailing in a convoy. If a SDF ship tries to repel an attack on a U.S. vessel from such a distance, it would apparently exceed the permissible level of interpretation on individual self-defense.
 例えば、日米の艦船は通常、最低でも数キロ離れて航行している。遠く離れた米軍艦船への攻撃を自衛隊艦船への攻撃とみなして反撃することは、個別的自衛権の拡大解釈にほかならない。

In the case of minesweeping, individual self-defense could be seen as applicable if the mines target only Japanese ships. However, that is hardly realistic, as mines are not usually laid to target a specific country.
 機雷除去も、日本船だけを標的に敷設された場合は個別的自衛権の適用もあり得るが、機雷は不特定多数の国を対象とするのが通例で、そんな事態は非現実的だ。

Could the Japan’s right to “exercise police authority to remove dangerous objects” be used to permit the SDF to intercept ballistic missiles heading toward the United States? This is highly unlikely, as Japan’s police authority does not extend to U.S. territory.
 米国に落下する弾道ミサイルの迎撃を「警察権に基づく危険物の除去」と説明することも、日本の警察権が米国に及ばない以上、困難と言わざるを得ない。

Under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, a nation that exercises its right to self-defense must report to the U.N. Security Council. If the Security Council concludes that Japan went beyond the permissible level of interpretation on individual self-defense—a development the government panel feared—Japan could open itself up to criticism by the international community for violating international law.
 自衛権を行使した際、国連憲章51条に基づき、安全保障理事会への報告義務がある。有識者会議の指摘通り、個別的自衛権を拡大解釈したと受け取られれば、国際法違反と批判される恐れがある。

Any number of developments could arise in the protection of U.S. vessels or minesweeping. If such activities are restricted within the scope of individual self-defense and police authority, it is doubtful that the SDF will be able to respond to every eventuality flexibly and efficiently.
 そもそも米艦防護も、機雷除去も、様々な事例が想定される。個別的自衛権や警察権に限定していては、機動的で効果的な対応を行うことは望めない。

The LDP-Komeito coalition has a history of finding middle ground, even when issues put the two parties in conflict. There is no reason why they should fail to reach an agreement on the issue of Japan’s right to exercise collective self-defense.
 自公政権は、両党が対立する政策でも合意を見いだしてきた歴史がある。集団的自衛権の問題も、きちんと結論を出せるはずだ。

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 21, 2014)

|

« 原発事故証言―再稼働より全容公開だ | トップページ | 裁判員制度5年 精神的負担をどう軽減するか »

01-英字新聞(読売)」カテゴリの記事

コメント

コメントを書く



(ウェブ上には掲載しません)




« 原発事故証言―再稼働より全容公開だ | トップページ | 裁判員制度5年 精神的負担をどう軽減するか »