process.”
32
It was also another attempt to put pressure on the recalcitrant CLB to
change its interpretation of Article 9.
However, this strategy has proven risky for conservative politicians as the CLB
has helped them several times in the past. For instance, the CLB provided the
ingenious interpretation of Article 9 to justify the establishment of the SDF. The
government used the interpretation by the CLB as an excuse to refuse demands
from the United States.
Future prospects
When Abe fought the 2007 House of Councilors election, insisting that the issue of
constitutional revision was very high on the political agenda, it resulted in a
devastating loss for the LDP. As a result, the two prime ministers who succeeded
Abe, Yasuo Fukuda and Taro Aso, were both reluctant to focus on the problem of
constitutional revision. The LDP eventually lost the 2009 House of Representatives
election and had to relinquish power. The movement towards constitutional
revision has temporarily lost vigor, and the results of recent public opinion polls
have been ambiguous. While a majority of people seem to support some kind of
constitutional revision, they remain ambivalent about any radical revision
of Article 9. It is difficult to predict when and how the constitutional revision of
Article 9 will regain its place on the political agenda.
Both the DPJ and the LDP still see the need to revise the Constitution or change
the current interpretation of Article 9 in order to permit Japan to engage in certain
specified collective self-defense operations. The DPJ Constitutional Commission
also issued an interim report for constitutional reform in June 2004. The last part of
the report dealt with the problem of national security. It stressed the need to
recognize that Japan could participate in collective-defense activities. It refers
to this collective defense as a form of “limited self-defense” since its exercise should
be admitted within the limits of the Charter of the UN.^33
In December 2012 , the LDP won the House of Representatives election and
returned to the position of ruling party. Since then, it has put revision of the
Constitution back on the political agenda. On April 27 , 2012 , the LDP released
another draft proposal to reform the Constitution which was more revealing of the
true intention of the LDP than the 2005 draft proposal had been. The proposed
(^32) Craig Martin, “The case against ‘Revising Interpretations’ of the Japanese Constitution,”
Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, available atwww.japanfocus.org/-Craig-Martin/ 2434
(last visited November 3 , 2011 ), p. 1.
(^33) The report of DPJ commissions imposed several limitations upon the exercise of the right
of collective self-defense. The exercise of the right of collective self-defense was permitted,
provided that ( 1 ) it was extremely necessary, ( 2 ) it was done as an interim measure until the
collective defense of the UN was in play, ( 3 ) the Japanese government should report its
activities to the UN, ( 4 ) the use of force should be restrained as much as possible.