Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles: ||The Japanese right of self-defense exercises discussion the boundary|
|Authors: ||林彥宏;Lin, Yen-hung|
|Keywords: ||日本憲法第九條;自衛權;Japanese constitution;Self-defense|
|Issue Date: ||2010-01-10 23:51:06 (UTC+8)|
However, the international society consists of autonomous countries;their share of fairness is equivalent. Nevertheless, when the rights and benefits of these countries clash with one another, the conflict is likely to take place. When differences occur in the international society, despite the fact that the plaintiff could appeal to the international court similar to the procedure within his own country; unfortunately, the defendant might not believe that he is obligated to appear in court. The plaintiff must agree to the power of the international court in advance, in order to enforce compliance of appearing in court on the defendant. Yet, defining the relationship of rights and obligations of these countries and effectively work out the differences is the motive of the study.
Prior to the establishment of the United Nation, the common law granted every country the right of defending and protecting the life and wealth of the people. After the legislation and organization are instituted by the international community or society, the act of military force among countries is restricted; however, the sovereign countries still reserve the right of war as a purpose of self-defense. Besides, the threat and act of military force are prohibited in general, since United Nation declared in the constitution that its ultimate goal is to retain peace continuously. In another word, whether giving the cause of war or not, the execution of armed force between the rival countries is forbidden. In addition, this principle is seen as a standard guideline in the international society. During the 19th century, positivism demanded the right to prove, the exercise of equality among countries certainly must be in accordance with the international regulation and common law. Also, such behavior has to seem sensible.
Furthermore, though the Japanese Constitution plainly claims to forsake the act of war; the right of the self-defense is not renounced. Japan holds the right of self-defense as a sovereign state according to the international law. Therefore, the establishment of Self-Defense Force is the implementation of its right to self-defense. On the other hand, the ruling further justifies the founding of Self-Defense Force by quoting the right to exist in peace from the Japanese Constitution. As known internationally, it caused controversy one after another in the aspect of constitution. What is the fundamental of the right to self-defense? What are the rights of self-defense in the international law? How does Japanese Constitution define self-defense? Why is there constant request of the ninth amendment?
|Appears in Collections:||[日本研究所] 學位論文|
All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.