전후 일본의 안보체제와 집단적 자위권 -안보조약과 신안보조약을 중심으로-

유지아 동국대학교 일본학연구소 2014 일본학 Vol.39 No.-

This paper examines under the point of view that Japan’s military actions and right to collective self-defense have been realized through Security Treaty of 1951 and New Security Treaty of 1960. San francisco Peace Treaty and Security Treaty of 1951 acknowledged “inherent right to individual and collective self-defense” at that time. Nevertheless, Japan took a position that it was impossible for Japan to exercise the right of self-defense according to the clause of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that Japan discarded possession of military power and the right of belligerency. In the end, Japan’s security issue has been left in an ambiguity by showing the action of suspension for Japan’s right to self-defense as well as rearmament because Peace treaty to Japan was the negotiation between Japan’s early peace settlement and the US’ troops stationing. After signing U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, both nations, the U.S. and Japan, desired to realize “collective defense actions” in an administrative agrement which was an implementation agreement of safeguards agreement related to the issue of taking collective military actions of both nations for emergency. However, Japan’s position of the right of collective self-defense maintained the position in which Japan did not exercise practically the right by restriction of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, although Peace treaty to Japan and U.S.-Japan Security Treaty recognized Japan’s right of collective self-defense. The full text of New security treaty defines stationing of the U.S. military troops for the right of individual and collective self-defense without the provision of premises. Furthermore, it contains Article 3 which maintains and develops the ability of each nation resisting to armed attacks and Article 5, the clause for the right of collective self-defense which could support the U.S. military troops that does not station in Japan domestic. Accordingly, the issue relating to exercise the right of collective self-defense became the matter of discussion limited to overseas dispatch of self-defense forces and Kishi did not bring in overseas activities of self-defense forces at the time. As suggested above Japan has been the position that it could not exercise the right of collective self-defense due to the restriction of Japanese Constitution, although Japan possesses precisely the right of collective self-defense thorough Peace treaty to Japan, Security Treaty, and New Security Treaty. Nevertheless, Japan currently exercises overseas dispatch through enacting the separate law related to the status and activities of self-defense forces. Now, the issue of exercising of collective self-defense that is being promoted by Abe’s administration can be said as the action to reconcile the Japan Constitution and the issue of exercising of the right of collective self-defense and as a result, is closely related to constitutional amendment of Japan. 본고는 일본의 군사적 행동과 집단적 자위권은 1951년의 안보조약과 1960년 신안보조약 개정으로 인해 점진적으로 현실화해나갔다는 관점에서 살펴보았다. 1951년 샌프란시스코 강화조약과 안보조약 당시 이미 “개별적 및 집단적 자위의 고유한 권한”을 가지고 있음을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 일본은 헌법제9조에 일본은 군력보유와 교전권을 방기한다는 조항에 의해 집단적 자위권의 행사는 불가능하다는 입장을 취하였다. 결국 대일강화조약은 일본의 조기강화와 미국의 군대주둔이라는 목적이 확실하게 이루어지는 교섭이었기 때문에 일본의 재군비를 비롯한 이러한 자위권에 대한 부분도 보류하는 모습을 모임으로써 이후 일본의 안보문제를 애매한 상태에 놓이게 한 것이다. 미일안보조약 체결 후 유사시에 미일양국이 군사적으로 어떠한 공동행동을 취할 것인가 하는 문제에 대해 안전보장협정의 실시협정인 행정협정에서 ‘집단방위조치’로 실현하고자 하였다. 그러나 집단적 자위권에 대한 입장은 대일강화조약과 미일안보조약 당시에 취했던 입장, 즉 집단전 자위권을 보유하고 있다는 것을 명확하게 인정은 하지만 헌법제9조의 제약에 의해 현실적으로 행사할 수 있는 상태는 아니라는 입장을 유지하고 있다. 신안보조약에서는 전문에 개별적 및 집단적 자위권에 대해 미국군대의 주둔이라는 전제조항 없이 서술하고 있으며, 무력공격에 저항하는 각각의 능력을 헌법상의 규정에 따르는 조건으로 유지하고 발전시킨다는 제3조와 일본국내가 아닌 지역에도 미군을 지원할 수 있다는 집단적 자위권 항목인 제5조를 담고 있다. 따라서 집단적 자위권 행사에 관한 문제는 자위대를 해외에 파병할 경우에 한해서 논의해야 할 사안이 되었으며, 기시는 당시에 자위대의 해외활동 그 자체를 상정하지 않고 있다. 이와 같이 대일강화조약부터 안보조약, 신안보조약을 거쳐 일본은 집단적 자위권에 대해서늠 명확하게 보유하고 있음을 인정하지만 헌법상의 제약으로 인하여 행사할 수 없다는 입장을 취해왔다. 반면, 자위대의 위상과 활동에 대해서는 별도의 법을 만들어 해외파병까지 실현하고 있는 상황이다. 현재 아베정권이 추진하고 있는 집단적 자위권 행사문제는 헌법과 자위대의 행동을 일치시켜려는 조치라고 할 수 있으며, 따라서 집단적 자위권 행사 문제는 개헌과도 밀접한 관련이 있다고 할 수 있다.

일본의 집단적 자위권 행사와 평화헌법의 위반 문제

이장희 ( Jang-hie Lee ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2015 외법논집 Vol.39 No.1

This article consists four parts : 1) Right of collective self-defense in international law, 2) Its exercise & review concerning Violation possibility of Preamble and Aricle 9 of Japanese constitution(1947), 3) The Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation and Its Legal issues concerning Japanese Pacifist Constitution, 4) Evaluation. In as much as the essence of the exercise of the right of self-defense is use of armed force, which may endanger the international peace and security, that should be subject to some limitations. For an exercise of armed force to be justified as self-defense, It should meet, in particular, two most important requirements: necessity and proportionality. On July 1,2014,on the 60th anniversary of establishment of Japan’s Self-defense Forces, Shinzo Abe decided on the reinterpretation of its constitution to allow its collective self-defense through a cabinet council decision. The current japanese constitution(1947) which is commonly called the pacifist constitution denies the Japanese people national forces, the use of force collective self-defense alongside in principle. According the initial interpretation of constitution by the Japanese government, even a war for ‘individual’ self-defense was renounced to dispell the disgrace of a warlike country as confirmed in the National Assembly records. Article 9 Clause 2 does not recognize any armaments and right of belligerency, thereby a war to exercise self-defense and the right of belligerency are renounced. Two Legal instruments for the exercise of the right of self-defense in Japan are The Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation(1997) and the Situations in Areas surrounding Japan Law(1997) based on the new revised guidelines in 1997. The defense guidelines set forth general roles for the U.S. military and the Self- Defense Forces to engage in joint operations. They mainly forcus on the defense of Japan and emergencies in the nearby region, presumably including the Korean Peninsula,though this not stated explicitly. Controversies arose out of its rear area support, which was questioned to be collective self-defense and thus unconstitutional. Japan and the United States released interim report quite recently (October 8, 2014) on revising their bilateral defense cooperation guidelins by the year’s end, in which they call for more global military cooperation between two countries that will benefit the Asia-pacific region and beyond.” The new interim report emphasize the “global nature” of the Japan-U.S. military alliance. But this means expansion of military role of Japanese SDF. which could be unconstitutional against the pacifist constitution. It implies that Japan pushes for collective self-defense by circumventing the amendment of the Constitution which even Japanese people oppose.

일본의 집단적 자위권 행사 문제에 관한 소고: 일본의 안보법안과 스나가와(砂川) 판결을 중심으로

오미영 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2016 평화학연구 Vol.17 No.4

On 1 July 2014 the Japanese Cabinet held ad hoc session and adopted the decision that allows exercising the right of collective self-defense through a new interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. In April 2015 amended “the Directives on Mutual Defense cooperations between the U.S.A. and Japan to support exercising the right of collective self-defense. On 16 July the same year, the House of Representatives of Japan (Japanese Parliament) adopted total 11 bills on national security (hereinafter “National Security Bills”) that make possible for Japan to exercise the right of self-defense in a collective manner. The bills were passed by the Japanese Senate on 19 September 2015 and entered into force on 29 March 2016. In addition, Abe Shinzo’s Government completed national legislation to exercise the collective self-defense. This study analyses, at first, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Snagawa to clarify whether the judgment is relevant to the issue of collective self-defense or not, and then tries to give the answer to the question: whether the right of collective self-defense is already settled as an inherent right of statehoods or not. Finally, this research deals with the unconstitutionality of the National Security Bills and the exercise of the right of collective self-defense under the current Peace Constitution of Japan. 2014년 7월 1일 일본 내각은 임시 각의를 열어 헌법 제9조를 재해석하여 ‘집단적 자위권’을 허용하는 결정문을 채택하였고 이어 2015년 4월에는 ‘집단적 자위권’ 행사를 뒷받침하는 미일방위협력지침을 개정하였다. 그리고 같은 해 7월 16일 집단적 자위권 행사를 포함한 11개 안보 관련 법안(이하 ‘안보법안’이라 함)이 중의원본회의에서 가결되었으며, 같은 해 9월 19일에는 안보법안이 참의원을 통과하였고 이 법안은 2016년 3월 29일 발효하였다. 이로써 이제 일본은 집단적 자위권을 행사할 수 있는 국내법적 장치를 완비하게 된 것이다. 일본의 안보 법안 통과는 일본의 집단적 자위권 행사가 가능해지면서 해외로의 무력행사를 무제한으로 넓힐 가능성이 있다고 생각되며, 장래 한반도에 분쟁이 발생했을 경우 자위대의 한반도 개입에 대해서도 여지를 남겼다고 볼 수 있다. 아베정권이 제창하는 집단적 자위권 행사 용인론에 대해 헌법 제9조와 입헌주의 위반이라는 비판이 거세지는 가운데 최근 들어 아베총리는 1959년 최고재판소 판결을 합헌의 근거로 들고 있다. 그러나 스나가와 사건의 최고재판소 판결은 개별적 자위권을 인정한 것일 뿐, 집단적 자위권에 대해서는 다루지 않았다는 것이 일반적 견해이다. 이 글에서는 먼저 아베정부가 합헌의 법적근거로 들고 있는 스나가와 판결이 집단적 자위권 문제와 관련이 있는지 어떻게 판시하고 있는지 살펴보고, 집단적 자위권 행사가 국제법상으로 국가의 고유한 권리로 확립되어있는지, 마지막으로 최근 발효된 안보법안과 집단적 자위권 행사의 위헌성에 대해 살펴보고자 한다.

Collective Self-Defense or Collective Security? Japan’s Reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution

Jaemin Lee 이준국제법연구원 2015 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.8 No.2

Collective Self-Defense or Collective Security? Japan’s Reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution

이재민 (사) 이준국제법연구원 2015 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.8 No.2

The concept of self-defense takes such an important place in the UN Charter and international law. The concept of collective self-defense should also be interpreted and applied within the clear parameters of stated principles of the UN Charter. This is not a concept that can be elastically applied so as to cover a wide range of instances that require military action by like-minded States acting in response to contingent situations. The discussion of collective self-defense within the specific context of Japan at the moment, however, seems to involve issues larger than or beyond the traditional concept of self-defense. Arguably, some aspects of the issues posed seem to fall under the collective security realm which is reserved to the authority of the UN Security Council or which at least requires authorization or delegation from the Security Council. Using the term collective self-defense to address a wide spectrum of military contingencies to be tackled by collective security regime may not square with the provisions of the UN Charter.

일본의 집단자위권 행사를 향한 기나긴 여정 개관

김대순 ( Kim Dae Soon ),김민서 ( Kim Min Seo ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.3

국가는 그것이 개별적인 것이든 집단적인 것이든 고유의 자위권을 가지고 있다는 것은 국제법의 기본원리 중의 하나이다. 그러나 현재 일본 내에서의 토의는 독특해 보인다. 아베 내각은 일본의 집단자위권 행사를 합밥화하기 위해 노력하고 있기 때문이다. 제2차 세계대전 이후 자위권에 대한 일본의 전통적 입장은, ‘집단’자위권에 관한 한 이 권리를 가지고는 있지만 행사할 수는 없다는 것이었다. 자칭 평화헌법 제9조가 이같은 접근법의 중앙에 위치하고 있었다. 아베 수상은 이제 일본은 보통국가가 되어야 한다는 명분 하에 지금까지의 해석을 전복시키려 시도해 오고 있다. 이 논문에서는 집단자위권에 관련한 일본의 국내적 논리가 어디로 어떻게 흘러가고 있는지를 개관해 본다. It is one of the basic principles of international law that states have the natural or inherent right to self-defense, individual or collective. Apparently, the debates within Japan look rather unique: the present cabinet headed by Prime Minister Abe is trying to legalize Japan`s exercise of collective self-defense. The traditional approach of Japan towards its self-defense since the end of World War II has been that when it comes to “collective” self-defense, it has the right thereto but cannot exercise it. Article 9 of its self-styled “Peace Constitution” lies in the heart of this approach. Prime Minister Abe is attempting to subvert the up-to-now interpretation of this Article under the pretext that now is the time for Japan to become a “normal state”. This paper surveys how and where the internal logic of Japan about its collective self-defense is moving.

미일안보협력 강화와 일본의 안보정책

김준섭 ( Joon Sub Kim ) 국방대학교 안보문제연구소 2013 국방연구 Vol.56 No.4

The Japanese government had been stating that the right of collective self-defense, but cannot exert it because of the Constitution that prohibits the country from using its force to solve international conflicts. However since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has taken office Winter 2012, the Japanese government has announced that it would review the official position on Japan`s right of collective self-defense. In 2007, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe commissioned a study by leading Japanese security experts, headed by Ambassador Shunji Yanai, to consider the limits imposed by the existing interpretation of the right of collective self-defense. The commission recommended reinterpretation of the Constitution to exert the right of collective self-defense. Though the recommendations of this commission`s report were presented to Prime Minister Abe`s successor in 2008, the Japanese government did not act upon its recommendations. This year, Prime Minister Abe has once again commissioned a panel of experts to review Japan`s position on collective self-defense. The new panel of experts has reviewed the implications of Japan`s current interpretation of the right of collective self-defense. Their recommendation are due by summer of next year. If the Japanese government change the official position on Japan`s right of collective self-defense, it means revolutionary change of the security policy of Japan. However we should also notice that this change will be supported by the United States Government.

한,일 군사전략의 추세변화 비교논의 및 함의 -한국의 "신군사전략"과 일본의 "집단적 자위권"을 중심으로-

최병학 ( Byoung Hahk Choi ),조기현 ( Gi Hyeon Cho ) 미래군사학회 2013 한국군사학논총 Vol.2 No.2

Recently, American ``Revolution (Return to Asia) to Asia`` Policy strikes Chinese expansionism through ``Anti-Access / Area - Denial (2A/2D)`` strategy. Therefore possession of Sankkaku chain of islands and selection of air defence area are getting issued. Such serious of events caused international tension around northeast asia, which includes Korea. In this situation, Abbe’ regime of Japan is calling out ``Active Pacifism`` and abolish ``An exclusively defensive security policy’s principle``. Planning Pacific constitution revision and insistencies ``The Right of Collective Self-defense``. Contrive to a ordinary country Which provides opposition of around countries and Arms Race including Korea and China. Therefore, the Japan``s ``Collective Self Defense Events and Activities`` is devising the great country of the military to influence in East Asia. So we need to discuss the problem as a strategic dimension and injustice of Japan. Our army``s ‘The Strategy of the Preemptive Right of Self-defense’ is based on UN. Each the Right of Self-defense is justice but the Japan``s ‘The strategy of Right of Collective Self-defense’ is one of the offensive strategy which effects international sociality and Korea``s Strategic confrontation logic about Japanese Collective Self Defense after discuss comparing mutually in dimension that infringe interests of marginal.

아베 정권의 집단적 자위권 헌법해석변경과 일본의 정당정치: 7·1 각의결정 과정을 둘러싼 정당정치 동학

윤석정,김성조 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2019 국제지역연구 Vol.28 No.2

The purpose of this article is to analyze the political process of Japan’s shift of constitutional interpretations on ‘collective self-defense’ based upon the context of party politics. Most of the previous studies on this issue tend to solely focus on Abe administration’s grand strategy and his conservative motive. However, the importance of other relevant actors’ opinions on collective self-defense has been still insufficiently understood in the existing studies. In this regard, this study analyzes how Prime Minister Abe Shinzo had achieved the revision of constitutional interpretations and the Cabinet opted for the limited form of collective self-defense by shaping the political interactions with a liberal group in the LDP and Komeito. This article also focuses on how to define the specific scopes of the limited collective self-defense in the context of political and legal debates driven by the dynamics of party politics. Such approach contributes to unfold Prime Minister Abe’s situated rationality about the Cabinet Decision of July 1. 본고의 목적은 아베 정권에 의한 집단적 자위권 헌법해석변경의 과정을 일본의 정당정치, 즉 자 민당의 당내 정치와 자·공 연립 정치에 주안점을 두어 분석하는 것이다. 기존 연구는 집단적 자위 권 문제의 역학을 아베 정권의 대외전략과 보수 내셔널리즘의 관점에서 밝히고 있다. 그러나 집단 적 자위권 문제에 관해 일본 정치에 존재하는 다른 목소리에 대한 고려없이 아베 신조(安倍晋三) 총리가 추구하는 대외전략과 보수주의적 의제가 그대로 실현되고 있다고 파악하는 경향을 보인다. 이에 본 연구는 집단적 자위권에 대한 아베의 최종 선택이 자민당 내부 정치 및 자·공 연립 정치 와 상호 작용하는 과정 속에 이루어진다는 점에 주목한다. 7·1 각의 결정을 중심으로 아베의 정책 적 선택이 자민당과 공명당 등 다양한 행위자의 주장과 얽히면서 집단적 자위권의 한정적 용인론 으로 귀결되는 과정을 밝히고, 집단적 자위권의 활동 범위를 둘러싼 논쟁을 정당 정치의 관점에서 분석할 것이다. 이러한 과정을 통해 본고는 집단적 자위권 헌법해석변경을 둘러싼 아베의 합리적 선택을 다른 정치적 이해관계자와 상호 작용하는 맥락에서 드러내고자 한다.

전후 일본의 방위 구상: 일본 우익 세력의 자위대 구상과 그 실천 과정

서민교 서울대학교 일본연구소 2014 일본비평 Vol.- No.10

This paper analyzes the process of rearmament in postwar Japan from 1948 to 1950s during which the Self-Defense Force was established, and tries to understand how Japan’s rearmament was designed and what characterized its practical procedures. As the rearmament process became fully in progress in the 1950s, the recruitment of the military officials of the Imperial Army, the idea which was originally rejected, became inevitable. In this sense, it is essential to pay attention to the activities of the cooperative organizations such as Hattori Group (formerly organized by Imperial Army officials) as well as military advisor to prime minister Yoshida. On the other hand, even though both army and navy were “officially” dismissed after the war ended, the minespweeper units of the Imperial Navy remained undissolved. Unlike the case of the army, the networks of the navy personnel which centered around Japan Coast Guard was administered in a unified manner, and it is noteworthy that some of the former military personnel who assumed office had close personal connection with Yoshida. That is why this paper sheds light on the role of “Commssion Y.”Japan promised a large-scale rearmament to the US after the two signed MSA agreement in March 1954, which obliged the US to provide support for its allies and the US allies to strengthen their military capabilities. The SDF, often called “military without name” or “non-militaristic military,” which was the product of this agreement, began to function as a physical apparatus to take over Japan’s defense. Recently, there have been two conflicting arguments regarding Japan’s right of collective self-defense. When we look at the overall framework of these arguments, however, most agree that Japan should provide defense to the US “in such times as the United States is under attack by a third party.” In this reasoning, however, there still remains a crucial question as to whether defending of the United States is to be classified as “individual” or “collective” self-defense. If Japan accords itself the right of “collective” self-defense, the possibility for Japan to get involved in international conflicts led by the US becomes higher, because virtually there would be no restrictions on the use of force. After all, all these issues can be resolved if Japan takes on the constitutional revision. Yet there still remains a strong anti-revisionist sentiments among the Japanese people. Under these circumstances, it is crucial to pay attention how far the “interpretational revision” can suffice in dealing with Japan’s changing defense framework.