Unconstitutional Deportation – Case in Which the Right to a Trial Was Found to Have Been Violated; Tokyo High Court, 22 September 2021

The appellants, who are nationals of Sri Lanka, remained in Japan beyond their period of stay, and after receiving a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status, they were issued deportation orders on the grounds that they were illegally staying in Japan. Thereafter, the appellants filed objections to the disposition of non-recognition of refugee status. However, the day after they were notified of the decision to dismiss the objections, the deportation orders were executed, and they were deported to Sri Lanka by way of collective repatriation.

The appellants sought state redress on the grounds that they did not have enough time to file suits for revocation of the decision not to grant refugee status, and that their right to a trial under Article 32 of the Constitution had been violated.

The first trial court (Tokyo District Court, 27 February 2020) dismissed the appellants’ claim on the grounds that the government did not violate Article 32 of the Constitution.

The court of appeals affirmed the appellant’s claim as follows: A deportee can file a revocation action even before the decision on the appeal against the disposition of non-recognition of refugee status is made. In addition, by obtaining a court decision to suspend the execution of the deportation order based on a petition in conjunction with the filing of a revocation action, it is possible for a deportee to suspend the execution of the deportation order and seek judicial remedies for repatriation.

It is also stipulated that the period for filing a revocation action begins to run from the date the parties are informed of the decision. This means that a revocation action can be filed even after a decision to dismiss an objection to a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status has been made.

The instruction system under Article 46 of the Administrative Case Litigation Law, introduced by the 2004 amendment, requires the administrative agency to provide the party against whom the disposition was made with appropriate information regarding the filing of the revocation action, such as the defendant and the time limit for filing the action. This system was established with the aim of effectively guaranteeing the opportunity for judicial review.

Additionally, the respondent (the government) is required by the Guidelines for the Handling of Refugee Appeals to promptly notify the deportee of the outcome of the appeal, including the decision to dismiss the appeal.

The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that deportees have time to decide whether to file a lawsuit or return to their country of nationality.

In light of the provisions and purposes of these laws and regulations (including the handling guidelines), it should be said that even if the provision of Article 52, paragraph 3 of the Immigration Control Act that deportees should be promptly sent back to their countries exists, it is unacceptable to deprive a deportee of an opportunity to undergo judicial review regarding his/her eligibility for refugee status.

Although the appellants had appeared at the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau for the procedure for renewal of the provisional release permit, they were not notified of the decision to dismiss the objection at that time. The government notified the appellants only after more than 40 days since the decisions were made. The government dared to delay the notification of the decisions to dismiss the objections until just before the repatriation in order to implement the repatriation as scheduled before the appellants filed their lawsuits.

Accordingly, the government has substantially deprived the appellants of the opportunity to have a judicial review of their status as refugees.

The government has violated the appellants’ right to a trial as guaranteed in Article 32 of the Constitution and has violated Article 31 (guarantee of due process) and Article 13, which is linked to Article 31.

The government accepted the Tokyo High Court ruling and did not appeal to the Supreme Court.

Wishma Case: Serious Problems with Japan’s Immigration Law Exposed

The death of a Sri Lankan woman in an immigration facility in March 2021 exposed a major problem in Japan’s immigration system, and this issue continues to be addressed today.

On 4 March 2022, Wishma’s mother and her two sisters filed a lawsuit in the Nagoya District Court against the government, claiming that Wishma died because the government continued to illegally detain her and failed to provide her with necessary medical care and seeking approximately 156 million yen in damages. The history of the case based on the complaint is provided below. It should be noted that this background is based on the complaint.

According to the complaint, the events leading up to the death are alleged to include (1) repeated requests for hospitalization and intravenous fluids, which were not complied with, (2) derogatory words made to Wishma.

The derogatory words included (a) “milk out your nose” for not being able to drink the beverage properly and having to take it out; (b) when she was not clear about what she was saying, the staff asked, “Are you high on drugs?”; and (c) When she said “Alo,” a staff member said, “Alon alfa?” (glue), which is inappropriate in the context.

Rathnayake Liyanage Wishma Sandamali was born on 5 December 1987, in Sri Lanka, and she is the eldest daughter of Suryalatha and her husband (who died in 2013). She arrived in Japan on 29 June 2017 and began attending a Japanese language school in Chiba Prefecture but stopped attending after May 2018. Since April 2018, she has been living in Shizuoka Prefecture with her ex-boyfriend, but with the expiration date of her stay (29 September 2018) approaching, she and her ex-boyfriend applied for refugee status on 21 April 2018.

The reason for the application was that her ex-boyfriend had “gotten into trouble with an underground organization in Sri Lanka” and had threatened her. In accordance with the application for refugee status, the change of status to “Designated Activities” was approved, but on 22 January 2019, the application for permission to extend the period of stay was denied, and she lost her status of residence. On the same day, she withdrew her application for refugee status.

On 19 August 2020, she reported to a police box stating that she had no relatives in Japan. On the same day, she was arrested for violation of the Immigration Control Act, and on the following day, she was handed over to the Nagoya Immigration Bureau and detained under a detention order.

At that time, she stated that she wanted to return to Sri Lanka because her boyfriend had kicked her out of their house, and she had nowhere else to go and no job.

She had 1,350 yen in her pocket at the time.

On 20 August 2020, when her detention at the Nagoya Immigration Office began, she was in good health.

Abolition of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act Amendment Bill

The current Immigration Control Act (Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act) is a 1982 amendment to the Immigration Control Ordinance (promulgated in 1951), which was also amended in 1990 and 2018.

However, the Immigration Control Act still faces many criticisms today. One of those criticisms is that detention without a time limit and detention without judicial review is a violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In addition, there are other issues, such as the fact that according to the Immigration and Immigration Control Agency (Immigration Bureau) Security Division, foreigners in detention have died in facilities or while on provisional release. Since 2007, there have been a total of 17 cases, consisting of 10 death cases due to illness, 5 cases of suicide, and 2 cases of unspecified causes of death. Furthermore, another issue was that there were many lawsuits related to the Immigration Control Act.

To address these problems, a bill to amend the Immigration Control Act was submitted to the Diet on 19 February 2021. However, criticisms of the amendment erupted, and the proposal was scrapped.

According to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Agency, the outline of the proposed amendment to the Immigration Control Act of 2021 was as follows:

• (1) On the premise of promptly deporting foreigners who are not allowed to stay, the Immigration Bureau will appropriately and promptly determine whether they are foreigners who should be allowed to stay or not. The procedures for granting special permission for residence will be made more appropriate. Establish procedures to protect foreign nationals who should be protected in the same way as refugees (Supplementary Protection Subjects).

• (2) Promptly deport foreigners who are not permitted to stay in Japan. Exceptions will be made to the suspension of deportation during the refugee status process. Establish a system to order foreigners who refuse to leave to take such action as deportation. Measures will be taken to encourage foreigners who should be deported to leave the country voluntarily.

• (3) Prevent prolonged detention and implement more appropriate treatment. Establish a system of supervision as an alternative to detention. Review the current requirements for provisional release. Take measures to ensure more appropriate treatment in detention facilities.

The following specific points were raised as issues with the proposed amendment to the Immigration Control Act of 2021:

• (a) No upper limit on the period of detention;

• (b) Opportunities for judicial review were not established;

• (c) The scope of persons eligible for complementary protection is narrow;

• (d) Lifting the effect of suspension of repatriation in principle for those who have applied for refugee status three or more times may violate the principle of non-refoulment;

• (e) A system of deportation orders enforced by means of punishment is not necessary;

• (f) The position of the custodian in the system of control measures is incompatible with that of a supporter or lawyer;

Regarding point (f), the Japan Federation of Bar Associations issued a statement on 26 February, pointing out the problem as follows:

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations points out the problem as follows:

Supervision measures in lieu of detention are supposed to be a system that prevents unnecessary detention and allows the subject to live in society, and supporters and lawyers are supposed to be the supervisors in this system. However, there is a serious problem in the fact that the supervisor is obliged to supervise the subject’s living conditions and compliance with the conditions of the permit and to report such conditions to the government, and the subject can be penalized for non-compliance. In other words, the above obligation to notify the government would force the supporter to play the role of a supervisor, which is incompatible with the position of a supporter, making it difficult for the supporter to become a supervisor. In addition, lawyers, as representatives of various applications to the authorities and litigants, are obliged to protect the interests of the subject and to maintain confidentiality, but this position is incompatible with the supervisor’s obligation to notify the authorities, making it difficult for lawyers to be appointed as supervisors. Thus, as a result of the strict notification requirements imposed on the custodians, it is difficult to find persons to serve as custodians, and the objective of the system to avoid unnecessary detention cannot be achieved.

Also, on 31 March, the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur and Working Group on Arbitrary Detention strongly urged the Japanese government to reconsider the case, expressing concern that it violates international human rights law.

It is as follows:

1. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that individual liberty is the principle, with the exception of detention and restrictions on individual liberty, but the proposed amendment would require that detention be mandatory and that it be “reasonable” not to detain a deportee until such time as he or she can be repatriated. The concern is that “custodial measures” would only be applied in exceptional cases where the Chief Examiner finds, in his/her discretion, that it is “reasonable” not to detain the deportee until such time as the deportee can be repatriated.

2. The proposed amendment does not envisage judicial review of the issuance of a detention order in migration (immigration control) and does not meet relevant international human rights standards, such as Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 35 on Article 9, “liberty and security of person,” states that detention in the course of proceedings for immigration control “must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time.” However, since the amendment does not clearly stipulate a maximum period of detention, it may implicitly allow for indefinite detention prior to deportation. We also believe that indefinite detention based solely on an individual’s immigration status may amount to torture and ill-treatment.

4. The proposed amendment would, in principle, lift the automatic stay of deportation proceedings, including deportation itself, for those who apply for refugee status for the third time or more, for example, those who refuse to be deported would be subject to a deportation order and penalties, including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine. Concerns have been raised regarding the principle of non-refoulment. The principle of non-refoulment is characterized by its absolute nature, without any exceptions. Also, in the context of the principle of non-refoulement, the child must be given higher consideration.

5. We note with regret that the proposed amendment does not contain an explicit prohibition on the detention of children in migration (immigration), including children without guardians or separated from their caregivers and children with their families.

On 9 April, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed “very grave concern” on this issue. Moreover, on 11 May, 124 scholars of international human rights law and constitutional law issued a statement calling for “a fundamental reconsideration, including the possibility of abolition,” on the grounds that the proposed amendment “does not meet international human rights standards.” In response to such strong opposition, the decision was made to abolish the draft in May.

Today, two years later, the act to partially amend the Immigration Control Act was again submitted to the Diet on 7 March 2023. Basically, the contents of the 2021 amendment replaced, for example, the requirement for periodic reports by supervisors in the supervisory measures system, which was strongly criticized by the Japan Bar Association in the 2021 amendment, was omitted.

The 2023 amendment to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act is based on the following basic concepts:

1. Ensure that those who should be protected are protected.

2. Establish a certification system for persons eligible for complementary protection.

3. Make the procedures for special permission for residence even more appropriate.

4. Further improve the operation of the refugee recognition system.

1. Those foreign nationals who are not allowed to stay in Japan should be deported as soon as possible.

(1) Make exceptions to the effect of suspension of repatriation during refugee status procedures. The current provisions of the Immigration Control Act that uniformly suspend deportation during refugee status procedures (effect of suspension of deportation) will be revised to allow the following persons to be deported even during refugee status procedures.

• (a) Those applying for refugee status for the third time or later;

• (b) Persons who have been sentenced to prison for 3 years or more; or

• (c) Terrorists, etc.

However, even for those applying for refugee status for the third time or later, if they submit “materials showing reasonable grounds” to be recognized as refugees or persons under complementary protection, repatriation will be suspended, so to speak, as an exception to the rule of exceptions.

(2) A system will be established to order the deportation of foreigners who have no means to be forcibly removed. Among foreigners who refuse to leave Japan, the following persons could not be deported under the current law because there is no means to force their deportation. Therefore, a system will be established to order only these persons to leave Japan within a set time limit under certain conditions.

• (a) Those whose repatriation destination is a country that does not receive its own citizens who refuse to be deported; and

• (b) Those who have committed acts of obstruction of repatriation on board aircraft in the past. By establishing penalties, and by providing that criminal penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with the order, we encourage the above-mentioned persons who refuse to leave to return to their home countries on their own.

(3) Measures will be taken to encourage foreigners who should be deported to return home voluntarily. For those foreign nationals who meet certain requirements among those who should be deported, the period until they can re-enter Japan (landing refusal period) after their deportation from Japan will be shortened. This will encourage more foreigners who should be deported to return home voluntarily.

2. Even until the alien is deported, he/she should not be unnecessarily detained, and if he/she is detained, he/she should be treated appropriately.

(1) Establish a system of “supervisory measures” as an alternative to detention. A “supervision system” will be established in which a relative, acquaintance, or other person who has consented to supervise the person is selected as a “custodian” and under his/her supervision, deportation proceedings are carried out without detention, while preventing escape, and etc.

The current Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act will be changed from the “detention in principle” rule to a “supervisor” system, whereby a decision will be made on a case-by-case basis as to whether a person should be detained or placed under supervision, taking into consideration the degree of disadvantage to the person in question as well as the degree of risk of escape. The individual placed under supervision and his/her caretaker will be required to report and notify necessary matters, but the caretaker’s obligations will be limited so as not to place too heavy a burden on the caretaker. In order to prevent prolonged detention, a system will be introduced whereby the necessity of detention will be reviewed every three months, and those who do not need to be incarcerated will be placed under supervision. The current immigration control system is sometimes referred to as the “all-case detention system,” but under the revised law, as described above, a choice between detention and supervision will be made for each individual case, and the “all-case detention system” will be fundamentally changed.

(2) Review the nature of the provisional release system. In line with the establishment of the supervision system, the provisional release system will be defined as a measure to temporarily release an inmate for health or humanitarian reasons, as was the original purpose of the system, and the distinction between the use of the provisional release system and the supervision system will be clarified. In particular, the Act clearly stipulates that a request for provisional release for health reasons should be based on a doctor’s opinion.

(3) Take measures to ensure appropriate treatment in detention facilities. In order to secure full-time doctors, special exceptions will be made to the provisions of the National Public Service Law that hinder the hiring of full-time doctors, and the requirements for dual employment will be relaxed. Other necessary provisions will be established to ensure the implementation of proper treatment in detention facilities, such as medical examinations for detainees every three months and human rights training for staff.

In response, on 18 April 2023, the Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council sent a joint letter to the Japanese government requesting a review in 2023, as they did in 2021, on the grounds that the proposed amendment violates international law.

On 3 May 2023, the Japanese government, responded as follows.

The bill to revise the Immigration Control Act submitted to the current Diet session addresses the problems of deportation evasion and long-term detention that have arisen under the current Immigration Control Act, as well as the establishment of a system to ensure the protection of those who are facing a humanitarian crisis and should truly be protected. It aims to provide an integrated solution to the issue of maintenance under the current Immigration Control Act.

This bill not only responds appropriately to the situation surrounding immigration administration, such as the acceptance of refugees caused by the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, etc. but also sincerely accepts various comments on the old bill submitted to the Diet two years ago, amended the points that should be amended in the old bill.

The amendment was passed on 9 June 2023.

Significant Increase in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets: Prime Minister Suga Announces 46% Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

On 22 April 2021, a meeting at the Global Warming Prevention Headquarters was held, and the Cabinet approved the Global Warming Prevention Plan.

Japan declared its greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 to be a 46% reduction compared to 2013, and that it will continue to challenge for a higher target of 50%.

At the Headquarters for the Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures held on 17 July 2015, the Cabinet decided on “Japan’s Draft Commitment” for a greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 of 26.0% below the 2013 level and submitted it to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on the same date. This decision represents a significant increase in the target compared to six years ago. Prime Minister Suga said, “Decarbonization is an issue that cannot wait, as we are experiencing extreme weather events around the world, such as torrential rains, forest fires, and heavy snowfall. At the same time, we have declared ‘carbon neutrality by 2050’ and have been working on it as a pillar of our growth strategy, with the belief that addressing climate change will be a driving force for the strong growth of our economy.”

And in this context, he raised the following items as priorities.

• (1) maximizing the use of renewable energy and other decarbonized power sources;

• (2) providing stimulus measures to encourage investment, and supporting regional decarbonization;

• (3) creating a “Green International Financial Center” to attract global capital estimated at 3,000 trillion yen; and

• (4) supporting the global decarbonization transition, including Asian countries.

Act on Promotion of Resource Recycling of Plastics (Act No. 60 of 2021)

This Act takes measures to promote plastic resource recycling (3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) + Renewable) by all entities including businesses, consumers, and national and local governments involved, from product design to plastic waste disposal.

The Act was enacted on 4 June 2021, promulgated on 11 June 2021 of the same year, and came into effect on 4 April 2022.

While previous acts, such as the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law and the Home Appliance Recycling Law, have focused on recycling after certain products have been disposed of, this act incorporates the idea of a circular economy, such as designing products so that they do not generate waste in the first place.

To briefly introduce this law, this law addresses the marine plastic waste problem (plastic used in all aspects of daily life becomes plastic waste and pollutes the marine environment, affecting a variety of living creatures such as sea birds, sea turtles, and fish), climate change (global warming increases the intensity and frequency of typhoons and floods), and the amount of plastic that flows into rivers and oceans has been increasing and the tightening of regulations on waste imports in other countries such as the need for domestic processing has increased due to the 2019 revision of the Basel Convention, which makes waste plastics subject to regulations. The importance of further promoting resource recycling has increased.

Businesses involved in plastic resource recycling can be categorized into manufacturers, sellers/providers, and emitters.

Manufacturers are required to meet the design guidelines for plastic-using products and obtain design certification during the design and manufacturing phases. In the emission, collection, and recycling phases, manufacturers are required to cooperate with local governments and consumers for voluntary collection and recycling.

Businesses that sell and supply products are required to rationalize the use of specified plastic-using products such as forks and spoons, drinking straws, toothbrushes, clothes hangers, etc., during the sales and supply phases. They are also required to voluntarily collect and recycle them during the emission, collection, and recycling phases.

Waste generators are required to reduce emissions and recycle during the emission, collection, and recycling phases.

Consumers must endeavor to separate and discharge plastic-use product waste. In addition, consumers must endeavor to reduce the discharge of plastic-use product waste and to use materials obtained through recycling of used plastic-use products.. or materials made from such materials (Article 4, Paragraph 2, Item 3).

The national government shall provide necessary guidance and advice to business operators who provide specified plastic-used products (Article 29). Municipalities are responsible for the sorted collection and recycling of plastic-using product waste (Chapter 5).

Looming Ocean Discharge of Treated Water from Nuclear Power Plants

Experts have been discussing the ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) treated water (water that has been purified to below regulatory standards for radioactive materials other than tritium using ALPS, etc.) resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident (11 March 2011).

On 13 April 2021, the Japanese government decided to discharge ALPS-treated water into the ocean. According to TEPCO’s plan, a large amount of seawater will be mixed with the treated water to dilute the tritium to less than 1/40th of the Japanese safety standard and then discharged about 1 km offshore via an undersea tunnel.

At that time, the start date for the ocean discharge of ALPS-processed water was set at about two years later. In fact, on 13 January 2023, at a meeting of the relevant cabinet ministers, the government said that the discharge would begin in the spring or summer of 2023.

The Japanese government states that the tritium concentration is 1/40th of the Japanese safety standard and 1/7th of the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water guideline and that the impact on the human body and the environment is extremely small.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at the request of the Japanese government assistance, is to conduct a rigorous review (assessment) of safety from before to after the release of radioactive materials. The report confirmed that TEPCO had conducted a detailed analysis of the safety of related facilities, which was the main content of the implementation plan, that precautionary measures had been precisely implemented in the design and operational procedures of the facilities, and that the radiation impact assessment was based on a comprehensive and detailed analysis, and that the radiation impact on humans was significantly lower than the level specified by the regulatory authority.

In May 2022, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi visited the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and commented, “We at the IAEA can confirm that when the treated water is released into the Pacific Ocean, it will be done in full compliance with international standards and the release will not cause any harm to the environment.”

IAEA officials visited Japan from 29 May to 2 June 2023, for a comprehensive review mission of the ocean discharge of ALPS-treated water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

However, the neighboring countries have expressed serious opposition to the ocean discharge.

On 16 March 2023, Sun Xiaobo, Director General of the Disarmament Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, held a press conference in Beijing, China, listing concerns about the safety of treated water and the reliability of post-release monitoring, and criticizing Japan, saying that “there should be other means other than ocean discharge, but they have not been fully considered.” Sun also said that if Japan were to force ocean discharge, he would oppose it in cooperation with Russia and other neighboring countries as well as South Pacific nations.

South Korea has expressed concern at the IAEA’s 2022 annual meeting that contaminated water will be discharged into the sea, and in May 2023, a delegation of South Korean experts was dispatched to the site.

The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is asking for a postponement of the ocean release until safety can be confirmed. For example, to address this PIF concern, in February 2023, Prime Minister Kishida held a meeting with the PIF delegation and stated that, as the prime minister of Japan with a responsibility to the Japanese people and the international community, he would not accept the release of contaminated water that would endanger the lives of his own citizens and those of Pacific Island nations and adversely affect human health and the marine environment.

There is also serious opposition to the release of radioactive materials in Japan.

On 30 April 2021, the “Fukushima Cooperative Council for the Promotion of Local Production for Local Consumption” (abbreviated as “Fukushima Net2,” consisting of 22 organizations of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and consumers in Fukushima Prefecture) issued a “Joint Statement on the Decision to Discharge ALPS Processed Water to the Sea.” The statement stated that they oppose the ocean discharge until they are convinced that steady progress can be made and that the reconstruction of all industries in the prefecture will not be hindered by uncertainty and harmful rumors.

Local fishing cooperatives and other groups in Japan have also opposed it. In 2015, the government and TEPCO promised in writing to the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Federation that they would not undertake any disposal (ocean release) without the understanding of all concerned parties. In the FY2021 supplementary budget, the government set aside a 30-billion-yen fund that includes the cost of purchasing fishery products in the event of harmful rumors, etc. The FY2022 supplementary budget also established a 50-billion-yen fund for fishermen to support the continuation of the fishing industry.

As of June 2023, however, preparations are steadily underway for the release of water. Over the plan to dilute the treated water that accumulates at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and discharge it into the sea, TEPCO began on 5 June 2023, to fill the undersea tunnel that sends treated water to the offshore discharge port with seawater. By filling the undersea tunnels with seawater, the diluted treated water poured in from the land side will be sent to the offshore discharge port. The Japanese government has not changed its policy to begin discharging the water into the sea by this summer.

Japan’s Position on the Entry into Force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

On 21 January 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force as a treaty aimed at the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

The preamble to the treaty mentions the unacceptable suffering suffered by Hibakusha, Japan, which has a security treaty with the United States, however, did not participate in the Nuclear Weapons Convention Negotiating Conference that adopted the treaty. Nor did it participate as an observer at the first meeting of the Conference of the States Parties (21 June 2022).

The Japanese government’s position is expressed on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as follows:

Japan is the only war-bombed country, and the government shares the goal of the Nuclear Weapons Convention to eliminate nuclear weapons. On the other hand, North Korea’s nuclear and missile development is an unprecedented, serious, and imminent threat to the peace and stability of Japan and the international community. Since it is difficult to deter an adversary like North Korea, which has hinted at the use of nuclear weapons, with conventional weapons alone, it is necessary to maintain the deterrence of the United States, which possesses nuclear weapons, under the Japan-U.S. Alliance.

It is important to consider both humanitarian and security perspectives when working for nuclear disarmament, but the Nuclear Weapons Convention does not take the security perspective into account. Participation in a treaty that immediately outlaws nuclear weapons would undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and put the lives and property of Japanese citizens at risk, which would create problems for Japan’s security. In addition, the Nuclear Weapons Convention has not gained support not only from the nuclear weapon states that possess nuclear weapons, but also from non-nuclear weapon states that, like Japan, are exposed to the threat of nuclear weapons.

The Japanese government, from the standpoint of its responsibility to protect the lives and property of its citizens, needs to pursue a path to advance nuclear disarmament in a steady and realistic manner while appropriately addressing real security threats. We will persistently pursue realistic and practical initiatives, acting as a bridge in the international community, including the nuclear weapon states and the countries that support a nuclear weapons convention.