憲法９条の問題点　Problems with Article 9

憲法９条の問題点
Problems with Article 9
GHQが日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案
GHQ Sought Only to Protect the U.S. from Japanese Military Threat

http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20170513/dms1705131000008-n1.htm

【ニッポンの新常識】Common Knowledge Revisited 116

　安倍晋三首相（自民党総裁）は３日、改憲派が都内で開いた集会にビデオメッセージを寄せ、憲法９条に自衛隊の存在を明記した条文を追加したうえで、東京五輪・パラリンピックが開かれる２０２０年を「新しい憲法が施行される年にしたい」と明言した。
　On May 3rd, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Liberal Democratic Party President) sent a video message to a meeting held by a group favoring amendment of the constitution in which he clearly said that he wants to have 2020 be the year in which a “new constitution is promulgated” incorporating provisions in Article 9 recognizing the constitutional existence of the self-defense forces.

　日本国憲法全１０３条は、ＧＨＱ（連合国軍総司令部）民政局に所属する若い米国人２４人が英語で作成した草案をもとに制定された。近年この事実は広く知られるようになったが、制定時から最大の問題は９条である。
　All 103 articles of the Japanese Constitution were enacted based on a draft written in English by 24 young Americans assigned to the Government Section of GHQ (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). In recent years this fact has become well-known, but from the time of enactment of the constitution, the biggest problem has always been Article 9.

　６月出版予定の自著『米国人弁護士だから見抜けた日本国憲法の正体（仮）』（角川新書）でも詳述するが、９条に触れない憲法改正論議など無意味に等しい。だから、私はひとまず９条だけを改正し、その後10年程度の時間をかけて、全条文を見直した「自主憲法」を制定すべきと考えている。
　I have written in detail in my book “American Lawyer Reveals the Truth about the Japanese Constitution” (Kadokawa Paperback), which will be published in June, that any constitutional amendment which does not include Article 9 is basically meaningless. Therefore, it is my opinion that Article 9 should first be amended, and then over a period of 10 years or so an “Independence Constitution” should be enacted incorporating a thorough review of the content and wording of every article.

　９条の条文を再確認して問題点を論じる。
　Let’s review and analyze the provisions of Article 9.

　《１　日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する》
　“Article 9(1): 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.”

　《２　前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない》
　“Article 9(2): 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 belligerence of the state will not be recognized.”

　１項は「侵略戦争の放棄」との解釈が定着している。世界１５９カ国の憲法典に、このような「平和条項」がある現代、１項も削除すべきとの主張は少数派だ。
　Paragraph (1) has come to be interpreted as meaning the renouncement of any war of aggression. At present the constitutions of 159 countries include such a “peace provision,” and those who advocate deleting paragraph (1) are in the minority.

　問題は２項で、２つの文章に分かれる。前半は「戦力の不保持」で、後半が「交戦権の否認」である。米国人が、日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案した。
　Paragraph (2) is divided into two separate sentences. The first sentence prohibits the maintenance of armed forces, and the second sentence is a renunciation of the right to wage war. This paragraph was conceived by the Americans as a means to protect the U.S. from any military threat from Japan.

　個人的には、１項を残して、２項を「前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の必要な戦力を保持し、政府は国防に努める義務を負う」とすれば分かりやすいと思う。
　Personally, I think that paragraph (1) should be retained and that an easily understood wording of a new paragraph (2) would be: “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, the state will maintain land, sea and air forces, and the government shall have the duty to carry out national defense.”

　しかし、安倍総裁は１項と２項を両方残し、３項に自衛隊を明記することを提案した。「加憲」を主張する公明党への配慮もあると思うが、一部野党や憲法学者の７割近くが「自衛隊違憲論」を支持する現状を完璧に破壊したいのだろう。
　However, Prime Minister Abe proposed that paragraphs (1)and (2) be maintained, with a third paragraph added recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of the self-defense forces. No doubt this is a concession to the Komeito Party [part of the ruling coalition] which advocates only an addition to the constitution, but in fact Prime Minister Abe probably wants to completely overcome the present situation in which a portion of the opposition parties and 70 percent of constitutional scholars support the view that “the self-defense forces are unconstitutional.”

　私は、日本の憲法学者の大半は「日本国憲法解釈学者」に過ぎないと主張してきた。もし、９条３項の文言について、憲法学会で侃々諤々（かんかんがくがく）の議論が始まったならば、この主張は撤回する。
　I hold the view, and have expressed it at length, that the majority of Japanese constitutional scholars are merely “constitutional interpretation scholars” [scholars who only narrowly explain the meaning of the wording of the constitution]. As such, in the event that a vigorous debate begins among these scholars over the wording of Paragraph 3, they will end up being excluded from the debate [because their skills are only in interpreting existing wording, not in the formulation of constitutional policy].

　護憲派の野党は相変わらず危機感も責任感もなく、主張も的外れだ。
　The opposition parties who advocate upholding the present constitution are, as usual, irresponsible and have no sense of the danger to national security, and their assertions are completely off the mark.

　代表が口を開くたびに支持率を下げる政党がある。あの代表は政権側が送り込んだ「トロイの木馬」ではないかという疑念を、ひそかに抱いている。
　Every time their leader opens her mouth, their approval ratings drop. I have a sneaking suspicion that she was a “trojan horse” sent in by the current ruling party administration.

お陰さまで１６刷突入！