Therefore, theexercise of the right of collective self-defense needs to be permitted to prepare for such a case.
安倍首相は、集団的自衛権の行使容認を、なぜ勝手に決めてしまうの?
Why, in spite of this,does Prime Minister Abe want to enable theexercise of the right of collective self-defense?
集団的自衛権の行使違憲の判断は、1981年の閣議決定以来、歴代の自民党政権の下でも踏襲されてきた。
The 1981 Cabinet decision that acknowledged the unconstitutionality of Japan's exercise of the right of collective self-defense had been observed by successive LDP administrations.
ですが、集団的自衛権の行使は、日本が攻められていないのに、武力を行使することを意味します。
But theexercise of the right of collective self-defense is that Japan uses armed power although Japan is not attacked.
安倍首相が集団的自衛権の行使に固執するのはブッシュ政権に忠誠心を示したいためです。
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo is sticking to theexercise of the right of collective self-defense because he wants to display his loyalty to the U.S. Bush administration.
声明集団的自衛権の行使容認閣議決定弾劾!-国鉄千葉動力車労働組合反動安倍政権を打倒しよう!
Doro-chiba English page We denounce the cabinet decision to admit exercise of the right of collective self-defense! Down with the reactionary Abe administration!
However your cabinet has trampled on this Constitution by deciding to reinterpret the Constitution so as topermit the exercise of a right to collective self-defense.
Enabling theexercise of the right of collective self-defense would strengthen relations with other trustworthy countries and would lead to preemptively diminishing the potential for conflict by enhancing deterrence.
This interpretation of the Constitution held by the Government, that theexercise of the right of collective self-defense is not permitted at all under the Constitution, has not been changed until today.
集団的自衛権の行使は憲法上一切許されないという政府の憲法解釈は、今日に至るまで変更されていない。
This interpretation of the Constitution held by the Government, that theexercise of the right of collective self-defense is not permitted at all under the Constitution, has not been changed until today.
Enabling theexercise of the right of collective self-defense would strengthen relations with other trustworthy countries and would lead to preemptively diminishing the potential for conflict by enhancing deterrence.
Therefore, it should be interpreted that theexercise of the right of collective self-defense is also included in"the minimum extent necessary", and theexercise of the right of collective self-defense should be permitted.
Although the government insists that the exercise of a right to collective self-defense(participation in war) is necessary for the sake of a right to peaceful coexistence, there is no war without cost.
The new Abe administration does not only proclaim policies toward constitutional amendment,creation of a new“defense force” and authorizing exercise of the right of collective self-defense, but also insists on keeping and restarting nuclear power plants, even hinting at construction of new plants.
Moreover, the fact that the ruling did not distinguish the right of individual self-defense from the right of collective self-defense in terms of the inherent right of self-defense that Japan has, and accordingly,that the ruling did not prohibit theexercise of the right of collective self-defense should be taken heed of.
Since May 15, 2015 when the government proposed security bills based on the cabinet decision of July 1,2014 that permits the exercise of a right to collective self-defense, many influential individuals have pointed out that it is unconstitutional and will increase the risk of terrorism.
If the exercise of a right to collective self-defense is permitted, the tension among nations and risk of terrorism will rise, the arms race will be promoted and military forces can be used overseas following the government's arbitrary decision.
Its original rationale has been that for Japan, being constitutionally limited to possess only the minimumamount of force necessary for its national defense, to exercise the right of collective self-defense for the defense of another country would be tantamountto be doing something uncalled-for.
In the above recommendations, the Panel suggested that the interpretation of the Constitutionshould be changed to permit Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense and participate in the collective security measures of the U.N., and that such a change of interpretation can be introduced by the Government by presenting a new interpretation in an appropriate form, and an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary.
The Government, referring to both the Preamble and Article 13 of the Constitution, then went on to articulate that Japan could take measures of self-defense necessary to maintain its peace and security and to ensure its survival. At the same time, the Government came to express the opinion that such measures should be limited to the minimum extent necessary andthus theexercise of the right of collective self-defense is not permitted under the Constitution.
集団的自衛権の行使も必要。
Request for exercise of collective self defense also needed.
日本は集団的自衛権の行使という問題です。
Japan has the problem of exercising the collective self-defense right.
日本国民の過半数が集団的自衛権の行使容認に反対。
The majority of the Japanese public is against collective self-defense.
English
中文
عربى
Български
বাংলা
Český
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Suomi
Français
עִברִית
हिंदी
Hrvatski
Magyar
Bahasa indonesia
Italiano
Қазақ
한국어
മലയാളം
मराठी
Bahasa malay
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenský
Slovenski
Српски
Svenska
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Tagalog
Turkce
Українська
اردو
Tiếng việt