憲法9条の問題点
ケント･ギルバートさんのブログから一部引用です｡
▽以下引用▽
憲法9条の問題点
Problems with Article 9
GHQが日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案
GHQ Sought Only to Protect the U.S. from Japanese Military Threat
日本国憲法全103条は､GHQ(連合国軍総司令部)民政局に所属する若い米国人24人が英語で作成した草案をもとに制定された｡近年この事実は広く知られるようになったが､制定時から最大の問題は9条である｡
All 103 articles of the Japanese Constitution were enacted based on a draft written in English by 24 young Americans assigned to the Government Section of GHQ (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). In recent years this fact has become well-known, but from the time of enactment of the constitution, the biggest problem has always been Article 9.
9条に触れない憲法改正論議など無意味に等しい｡だから､私はひとまず9条だけを改正し､その後10年程度の時間をかけて､全条文を見直した「自主憲法」を制定すべきと考えている｡
that any constitutional amendment which does not include Article 9 is basically meaningless. Therefore, it is my opinion that Article 9 should first be amended, and then over a period of 10 years or so an “Independence Constitution” should be enacted incorporating a thorough review of the content and wording of every article.
9条の条文を再確認して問題点を論じる｡
Let’s review and analyze the provisions of Article 9.
1項は「侵略戦争の放棄」との解釈が定着している｡世界159カ国の憲法典に､このような「平和条項」がある現代､1項も削除すべきとの主張は少数派だ｡
Paragraph (1) has come to be interpreted as meaning the renouncement of any war of aggression. At present the constitutions of 159 countries include such a “peace provision,” and those who advocate deleting paragraph (1) are in the minority.
問題は2項で､2つの文章に分かれる｡前半は「戦力の不保持」で､後半が「交戦権の否認」である｡米国人が､日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案した｡
Paragraph (2) is divided into two separate sentences. The first sentence prohibits the maintenance of armed forces, and the second sentence is a renunciation of the right to wage war. This paragraph was conceived by the Americans as a means to protect the U.S. from any military threat from Japan.
個人的には､1項を残して､2項を「前項の目的を達するため､陸海空軍その他の必要な戦力を保持し､政府は国防に努める義務を負う」とすれば分かりやすいと思う｡
Personally, I think that paragraph (1) should be retained and that an easily understood wording of a new paragraph (2) would be: “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, the state will maintain land, sea and air forces, and the government shall have the duty to carry out national defense.”
しかし､安倍総裁は1項と2項を両方残し､3項に自衛隊を明記することを提案した｡「加憲」を主張する公明党への配慮もあると思うが､一部野党や憲法学者の7割近くが「自衛隊違憲論」を支持する現状を完璧に破壊したいのだろう｡
However, Prime Minister Abe proposed that paragraphs (1)and (2) be maintained, with a third paragraph added recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of the self-defense forces. No doubt this is a concession to the Komeito Party [part of the ruling coalition] which advocates only an addition to the constitution, but in fact Prime Minister Abe probably wants to completely overcome the present situation in which a portion of the opposition parties and 70 percent of constitutional scholars support the view that “the self-defense forces are unconstitutional.”
私は､日本の憲法学者の大半は「日本国憲法解釈学者」に過ぎないと主張してきた｡もし､9条3項の文言について､憲法学会で侃々諤々(かんかんがくがく)の議論が始まったならば､この主張は撤回する｡
I hold the view, and have expressed it at length, that the majority of Japanese constitutional scholars are merely “constitutional interpretation scholars” [scholars who only narrowly explain the meaning of the wording of the constitution]. As such, in the event that a vigorous debate begins among these scholars over the wording of Paragraph 3, they will end up being excluded from the debate [because their skills are only in interpreting existing wording, not in the formulation of constitutional policy].
△以上引用△
私も2項を変えないかぎり､いくら加憲しても､それは誤魔化しでしかないと思います｡
2項は必ず足枷になると思います｡
▽以下引用▽
憲法9条の問題点
Problems with Article 9
GHQが日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案
GHQ Sought Only to Protect the U.S. from Japanese Military Threat
日本国憲法全103条は､GHQ(連合国軍総司令部)民政局に所属する若い米国人24人が英語で作成した草案をもとに制定された｡近年この事実は広く知られるようになったが､制定時から最大の問題は9条である｡
All 103 articles of the Japanese Constitution were enacted based on a draft written in English by 24 young Americans assigned to the Government Section of GHQ (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). In recent years this fact has become well-known, but from the time of enactment of the constitution, the biggest problem has always been Article 9.
9条に触れない憲法改正論議など無意味に等しい｡だから､私はひとまず9条だけを改正し､その後10年程度の時間をかけて､全条文を見直した「自主憲法」を制定すべきと考えている｡
that any constitutional amendment which does not include Article 9 is basically meaningless. Therefore, it is my opinion that Article 9 should first be amended, and then over a period of 10 years or so an “Independence Constitution” should be enacted incorporating a thorough review of the content and wording of every article.
9条の条文を再確認して問題点を論じる｡
Let’s review and analyze the provisions of Article 9.
1項は「侵略戦争の放棄」との解釈が定着している｡世界159カ国の憲法典に､このような「平和条項」がある現代､1項も削除すべきとの主張は少数派だ｡
Paragraph (1) has come to be interpreted as meaning the renouncement of any war of aggression. At present the constitutions of 159 countries include such a “peace provision,” and those who advocate deleting paragraph (1) are in the minority.
問題は2項で､2つの文章に分かれる｡前半は「戦力の不保持」で､後半が「交戦権の否認」である｡米国人が､日本の軍事的脅威から米国を守る目的で考案した｡
Paragraph (2) is divided into two separate sentences. The first sentence prohibits the maintenance of armed forces, and the second sentence is a renunciation of the right to wage war. This paragraph was conceived by the Americans as a means to protect the U.S. from any military threat from Japan.
個人的には､1項を残して､2項を「前項の目的を達するため､陸海空軍その他の必要な戦力を保持し､政府は国防に努める義務を負う」とすれば分かりやすいと思う｡
Personally, I think that paragraph (1) should be retained and that an easily understood wording of a new paragraph (2) would be: “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, the state will maintain land, sea and air forces, and the government shall have the duty to carry out national defense.”
しかし､安倍総裁は1項と2項を両方残し､3項に自衛隊を明記することを提案した｡「加憲」を主張する公明党への配慮もあると思うが､一部野党や憲法学者の7割近くが「自衛隊違憲論」を支持する現状を完璧に破壊したいのだろう｡
However, Prime Minister Abe proposed that paragraphs (1)and (2) be maintained, with a third paragraph added recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of the self-defense forces. No doubt this is a concession to the Komeito Party [part of the ruling coalition] which advocates only an addition to the constitution, but in fact Prime Minister Abe probably wants to completely overcome the present situation in which a portion of the opposition parties and 70 percent of constitutional scholars support the view that “the self-defense forces are unconstitutional.”
私は､日本の憲法学者の大半は「日本国憲法解釈学者」に過ぎないと主張してきた｡もし､9条3項の文言について､憲法学会で侃々諤々(かんかんがくがく)の議論が始まったならば､この主張は撤回する｡
I hold the view, and have expressed it at length, that the majority of Japanese constitutional scholars are merely “constitutional interpretation scholars” [scholars who only narrowly explain the meaning of the wording of the constitution]. As such, in the event that a vigorous debate begins among these scholars over the wording of Paragraph 3, they will end up being excluded from the debate [because their skills are only in interpreting existing wording, not in the formulation of constitutional policy].
△以上引用△
私も2項を変えないかぎり､いくら加憲しても､それは誤魔化しでしかないと思います｡
2項は必ず足枷になると思います｡
