ASDF dispatch said unconstitutional

NAGOYA--In an unprecedented ruling, the high court here Thursday said Japan's dispatch of Air Self-Defense Force personnel to Iraq was unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs hug each other and hoist banners in front of the Nagoya High Court as they celebrate Thursday's ruling that found the dispatch of Air Self-Defense Forces troops to Iraq violated the Constitution. (THE ASAHI SHIMBUN)

However, Thursday's ruling on the SDF mission to Iraq will not lead to the immediate withdrawal of SDF troops, analysts said.

In addition, the Nagoya High Court sided with an April 2006 Nagoya District Court rejection of claims for an injunction against the SDF dispatch and demands for compensation for what plaintiffs called a violation of their right to a peaceful existence. There were 1,122 plaintiffs in the appeal before the Nagoya High Court.

After the ruling, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told reporters, "The conclusion of the verdict is that the central government has won the case. I believe there are no problems. I have no intention of doing anything special in response."

The plaintiffs said they would not appeal.

Thursday's verdict was written by Presiding Judge Kunio Aoyama, but was read in court by Judge Kenichi Takada because Aoyama has retired from the bench.

Looking at the current situation, the verdict said, "The fighting in Iraq is an extension of the attack of Iraq that began in March 2003. It is an international conflict between a multinational force and armed elements (in Iraq)." In over four years, about 3,000 ASDF members were dispatched in 15 separate deployments.

The ruling also recognized Baghdad as a "combat zone" as defined under the Iraq special measures law because it is "a region where acts are being committed to kill and maim people and destroy property as part of an international armed conflict."

Referring to ASDF's duties, the ruling said, "In modern warfare, supply activities, such as transport, are an important part of combat activities."

Thus, "ASDF airlifts of armed soldiers in the multinational force to the Baghdad combat zone were acts that could be identified as being involved in the use of force by other nations, and (the ASDF) could be said to have conducted use-of-force actions itself," the ruling said.

The high court concluded that some ASDF duties had "violated provisions of the Iraq special measures law prohibiting the use of force and Article 9 of the Constitution."

While the high court ruled the plaintiffs could seek compensation for violation of the right to a peaceful existence, it also ruled that the ASDF dispatch did not represent a situation in which "the lives and freedom of the plaintiffs were actually being violated." The high court thus rejected claims for compensation.

While lawsuits were filed in 10 other district courts seeking injunctions and compensation, no court had yet sided with the plaintiffs. Moreover, no court until now has ever touched the constitutionality issue.

* * *

Article 9 (Paragraph 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. (IHT/Asahi: April 18,2008)