Talk:Constitution of Japan

The Emperor is the de facto head of state? Shouldn't that be de jure? --213.8.105.60 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really. No law says he is the head of state so he is not "de jure" (i.e., based on law) at least. -- Taku 00:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In Japanese?

Why is there a section of this article (apparently) in Japanese? (This being, of course, the English-language Wikipedia.) If it is necessary, it should be appropriately placed in context for non-Japanese readers, e.g. "The following text X, Y and Z." As it is, being an English-language computer user with no Japanese language support installed on his computer, all I see is an irregular series of ? characters. --Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article and reproduced it below. If anyone wants to translate it or provide context for it, please add it back in. It was submitted by an anonymous user whose IP has no other edits, and I don't know Japanese well enough to translate it myself. The section title translates as "preamble", so I'm assuming this is the preamble to the constitution. Colin M. 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the preamble. As such it is a fairly good summary of the spirit of the document but it is not worth mentioning or translating any more than any other part of the constitution. I think it odd that it should be pasted in the article. Smoove K 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

前文

　日本国民は，正当に選挙された国会における代表者を通じて行動し，われらとわれらの子孫のために，諸国民との協和による成果と，わが国全土にわたつて自由のもたらす恵沢を確保し，政府の行為によつて再び戦争の惨禍が起ることのないやうにすることを決意し，ここに主権が国民に存することを宣言し，この憲法を確定する。そもそも国政は，国民の厳粛な信託によるものであつて，その権威は国民に由来し，その権力は国民の代表者がこれを行使し，その福利は国民がこれを享受する。これは人類普遍の原理であり，この憲法は，かかる原理に基くものである。われらは，これに反する一切の憲法，法令及び詔勅を排除する。

　日本国民は，恒久の平和を念願し，人間相互の関係を支配する崇高な理想を深く自覚するのであつて，平和を愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して，われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意した。われらは，平和を維持し，専制と隷従，圧迫と偏狭を地上から永遠に除去しようと努めてゐる国際社会において，名誉ある地位を占めたいと思ふ。われらは，全世界の国民が，ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ，平和のうちに生存する権利を有することを確認する。

　われらは，いづれの国家も，自国のことのみに専念して他国を無視してはならないのであつて，政治道徳の法則は，普遍的なものであり，この法則に従ふことは，自国の主権を維持し，他国と対等関係に立たうとする各国の責務であると信ずる。

　日本国民は，国家の名誉にかけ，全力をあげてこの崇高な理想と目的を達成することを誓ふ。

Merge in of Article 9 Lemma

Don't. Article 9 is a complex topic all in it self and Wikipedia does well to have a separated article for it. -- Mkill 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Article 14 does apply to foreign nationals

Both Supreme court and lower courts have ruled that discrimination against foreign nationals is an article 14 (equality under the law) issue.

Public bathing facility ruling of Sapporo District Court (2002.11.11) National election rights(Supreme Court H5.2.26) Local election rights(Supreme Court 2000.6.27)

All ruling applies article 14 (indirectly with the Bathing facility case) to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the 1994.2.28 ruling states, that legislation, granting permanent foreign residents local election rights, would not violate article 15, although article 15 does not guarantee it as a constitutional right.

The Public bathing facility ruling, through the interpretation of Civil code article 709 'illegal acts'、state that refusing a foreigner to enter a public bathing facility is against Article 14 and international human rights B treaty article 26, and constitute an 'illegal act'. The point being, yes, there is no legislation specifically making discrimination against foreigners an offence, but, no, discrimination against foreigners are illegal, and will result in civil compensation.(in this case US$29,000)

As far as I know, the majority interpretation and the supreme court, does grant the right of equality to foreigners. Social benefits however, are a different matter. Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What court ruled that Japan can raise an army?

As of this date, the only court ruling that has ruled on the constitutionality of the Self-Defence Force is a district court ruling (Naganuma case, Sapporo District court 1974.9.7). It ruled that the SDF is a force prohibited by article 9 paragraph 2, and is unconstitutional.

The Supreme court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the SDF.

So, what court ruling states that Japan can raise an army (a force with greater ability than SDF), which is a clear violation of article 9 paragraph 2? There is a ruling that suggests that Japan has the right to defend it's country, a prerequisite to possessing any kind of force (Sunagawa Supreme Court 1960.12.16), but that's it.

I strongly recommend deleting the portion that suggests an existence of a court ruling, unless the writer can name the case and date of the ruling. Supreme Court of Japan Home Page with Selected Judgments in English

Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article 38 Confession

Article 38 bans conviction solely based on confessions. Article 319 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure law states "A defendant cannot be found guilty, if the only evidence against him is a confession before the court or otherwise". With corroborating evidence for the confession, however, a conviction would not violate article 38-3 of the constitution.(Check Nerima Case 1959.5.28) --Fortifiedchicken 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Amendment update

In response to my update tag, it was requested that I post a clarification here. No, I hadn't heard anything specific, but the section on the 2005 proposal left me wanting to hear the rest of the story. Did this fizzle or is it moving forward? It seems like this was added in reaction to events in the news, but it needs to be put in better historical perspective. -- Beland 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture overlaps text in Adoption section

This part of the Adoption section

Under Article 73 the new

has been overlayed by the Imperial Signature and Seal picture. I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.118.60.172 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't see this overlay. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.3.9. What browser are you using? Do you see the same problem as you make your browser window larger or smaller? Also, I changed the section heading above from "Adoption" to "Picture overlaps text in Adoption section" --Jdlh | Talk 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

june 2007 updates to amendments and revision section

This section has been in desparate need of updating for almost a year, and apparently no-one interested in tending to it, so I just went ahead and did it, relying on the reischauer institute [1], the BBC and the Japan Times. It still needs a lot of work, and you're all welcome to it, but think I got the main points in and arranged the section according to a timeline. This is a hot issue in Japanese politics and could use constant updating, more contextualization, and details (e.g. on the main players in the debate). Also, there are structural issues- the 'early debates' section needs to be somehow connected to this section. But I'm probably not the right person for that. Bine maya 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Human rights guarantees in practice", unverifiable statements

There have been some edits to the "Human rights guarantees in practice" section. This section started of as a lot of assertions claiming — without Wikipedia:Verifiability — how actual Japanese practice is bad human rights and goes against what the Constitution says. Over time some edits have reversed the meaning of the claims. Parts of the article now say — again, without Wikipedia:Verifiability — that Japanese practice does follow the Constitution. For instance, at 19:48, April 9, 2005, User:Iota added one sentence which read "defendants are routinely convicted solely on the basis of a signed confession" (with no citation). Then at 00:54, May 25, 2006, User:Fortifiedchicken changed it to read "defendants are routinely convicted on the basis of a signed confession with corroborating evidence" (still with no citation). Then at 15:54, March 31, 2008 User:Vapour correctly pointed the logical error in Fortifiedchicken's wording, but changed the meaning of the sentence yet again (still with no citation). This is silly. The phrase has been in Wikipedia for years, violating the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy the whole time, so I'm deleting it. It would be great to add it back in, but only if there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. --Jdlh | Talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole section appear to be created by a Whinging westerner (a variation of whinning pom) who wanted to bent his frustration at wikipedia. Specific criticism of Japanese judicial practice (often from Amnesty) do exist, like in any other countries. Instead, the whole over tone of the article was based on typical Japanese exceptionalism. "Unlike western countries, Japan keep suspect detained for 3/4 days" part was just ridiculous considering that some western countries keep suspect much longer (in u.k. <20 days, for example and in some case, indefinitely). Plus coerced confession is a problem in the West not just in Japan. Plus, most criticism seems to centre around judicial practice. There is a separate article for that not to mention the fact that these issue has never been a constitutional issue. If whoever originally wrote this section bother to (or could) read Japanese newspapers and magazine, s/he would have known that specific constitutional issue involves Peace article, Position of Emperor as the "Symbol", Constitutional Amendment, Freedom of expression (textbook, pornography), Freedom of Publication (as opposed to freedom of press), Enforcing national anthem singing in school etc. The whole article should be wiped and rewrote as "Constitutional Controversies" Vapour (talk) 01:49, April 3, 2008

That's all very well, but the important policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the statements can be verified in a Wikipedia:Reliable source they stay. If not, they (eventually) go. If whinging Westerners can get their whinging published in a reliable source, an editor is justified in adding them to Wikipedia. --Jdlh | Talk 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

America's influence on the Constitution of Japan

I noticed that the way the Occupation was set up gave Americans an opportunity to make Japan's political system more like their own, perhaps in the belief that it would help people (or maybe that's because that's what Americans considered to be a good political system). So church and state were separated, more people given the vote, Japan became less monarchial (the monarch became more of a mascot for the country), and various other Americanizations were implemented... I suppose that if Japan had been partitioned as originally intended, the political differences would have been very interesting. For starters, there'd be at least a North Japan and a South Japan when all was said and done, and perhaps three or four "Japans" (depending on whether the Republic of China and/or the People's Republic were willing to play along). Furthermore, the PRC/ROC tensions would result in some Cold War drama, in addition to the Soviet/Western tensions. There might have even been a Japanese War along the lines of the Korean one. Can you imagine a Stalinist skyline gracing Sapporo? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Other provisions / International Law

It is probably a problem of interpretation and then translation.(not purely translation.)

The original (Japanese) text of the Article 98 (2) doesn't say ratified international treaties be immediately domestic law or be treated as such, more accurately it cannot be read that way. It is more of a very very strong recommendation but not a mandate. The expression of the text doesn't make it mandatory. Having said that, I am not a constitutional scholar, just having the native command of the language.

What I believe is this is one of the interpretation (not the verbal translation, not to be confused) of the expression (nuance). I have come across, so many times, misinterpretations or mistranslations even by very much experienced translators(none-native in Japanese though), which is where the text can be interpreted in two or more ways and some of which the natives never, ever dream of.

If anyone reading the original text, I would like your comments.

The Japanese language is much more subtle than English when it comes to the difference of meanings in expressions but it's there, and I even have to write this way to better articulate it, hahaha.