print PRINT


Differences between gov’t security legislation and opposition’s counterproposals

  • 2016-02-22 15:00:00
  • , Asahi
  • Translation

(Asahi: February 22, 2016 – p. 3)


 The opposition camp last week submitted to the Diet two sets of proposals to counter the security legislation, which will go into effect at the end of March. The five parties forged a united front in putting forth a bill that calls for scrapping the security legislation by claiming that allowing Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense constitutes a violation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party of Japan and the Japan Innovation Party co-sponsored three bills that focus on the Self-Defense Forces’ aid to the U.S. forces in areas surrounding Japan and peacekeeping operations. The moves are a response to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s demand during the Diet deliberations on the security legislation that the opposition parties present counterproposals. But the government has no plan to discuss the bills, as it concludes the issue has been already settled. (Abridged)


Government’s security legislation vs. joint counterproposals by DPJ and JIP



“Revised Armed Attack Situation Response Act”



Can use force to launch a counterattack even if Japan does not come under direct attack but its survival is at risk

Exercise of


collective self-defense

“Bill to scrap security legislation”



Based on Japan’s defense-oriented policy, the exercise of collective self-defense is unconstitutional and cannot be allowed

“International Peace Support Act”



Enable the dispatch of SDF personnel overseas at any time to assist other countries’ militaries conducting operations for international peace

Dispatch of SDFs for logistical support of other countries’ militaries

“Bill to scrap security legislation”



To deal with the dispatch of SDFs overseas by setting forth special legislation of limited duration.

“Revised Law Concerning Measures to Ensure Peace and Security of Japan in Situations that will Have an Important Influence on Japan’s Peace and Security “



Enable SDF’s worldwide logistical support to U.S. forces and other militaries responding to a situation that will have a significant impact on Japan’s security. This includes provision of ammunition and refueling of military aircraft ready to take off.

Logistical support to the U.S. force and others

“Bill to revise Law Concerning to Measures to Ensure Peace and Security of Japan in Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan”



Limit logistical support to contingencies in areas surrounding Japan. SDF can extend logistical support to the U.S. forces and other militaries operating with the U.S., but cannot provide ammunition or fuel.

“Revised International Peace Cooperation Law”



Enable protection of other militaries’ personnel and civilians in danger. Most of these activities do not require prior consent of the Diet.

Peacekeeping operations

“Bill to revise International Peace Cooperation Law”



Enable protection of civilians in danger. All activities require prior consent of the Diet without exception.

Deal with gray-zone situations without revising law



Japan Coast Guard will respond to gray-zone situations. Operations are revised for the government to order the SDF to take maritime policing action through a cabinet meeting convened by phone when the dispatch of SDF personnel becomes necessary.

Response to “gray-zone situations” including landing on remote islands by unidentified groups

“Territorial defense bill”



Allow SDF to deal with gray-zone situations together with the Japan Coast Guard even doing peacetime. Enable SDF to respond to situations without cabinet approval.

  • Ambassador
  • Ukraine
  • COVID-19
  • Trending Japan