This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 3, 2004, May 3, 2005, May 3, 2006, May 3, 2007, May 3, 2008, May 3, 2009, and May 3, 2010. |
The Emperor is the de facto head of state? Shouldn't that be de jure? -- 213.8.105.60 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article? It is clearly a political client/puppet regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.244.143 ( talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish, the constitution could have been changed at anytime if the people didn`t agree with it. Most of the constitution guarantees the Japanese people fundamental human rights, something the LDP have said they want to take away, who exactly would that help aside from the governing elite?-- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a section of this article (apparently) in Japanese? (This being, of course, the English-language Wikipedia.) If it is necessary, it should be appropriately placed in context for non-Japanese readers, e.g. "The following text X, Y and Z." As it is, being an English-language computer user with no Japanese language support installed on his computer, all I see is an irregular series of ? characters. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this section from the article and reproduced it below. If anyone wants to translate it or provide context for it, please add it back in. It was submitted by an anonymous user whose IP has no other edits, and I don't know Japanese well enough to translate it myself. The section title translates as "preamble", so I'm assuming this is the preamble to the constitution. Colin M. 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It is the preamble. As such it is a fairly good summary of the spirit of the document but it is not worth mentioning or translating any more than any other part of the constitution. I think it odd that it should be pasted in the article. Smoove K 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
日本国民は,正当に選挙された国会における代表者を通じて行動し,われらとわれらの子孫のために,諸国民との協和による成果と,わが国全土にわたつて自由のもたらす恵沢を確保し,政府の行為によつて再び戦争の惨禍が起ることのないやうにすることを決意し,ここに主権が国民に存することを宣言し,この憲法を確定する。そもそも国政は,国民の厳粛な信託によるものであつて,その権威は国民に由来し,その権力は国民の代表者がこれを行使し,その福利は国民がこれを享受する。これは人類普遍の原理であり,この憲法は,かかる原理に基くものである。われらは,これに反する一切の憲法,法令及び詔勅を排除する。
日本国民は,恒久の平和を念願し,人間相互の関係を支配する崇高な理想を深く自覚するのであつて,平和を愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して,われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意した。われらは,平和を維持し,専制と隷従,圧迫と偏狭を地上から永遠に除去しようと努めてゐる国際社会において,名誉ある地位を占めたいと思ふ。われらは,全世界の国民が,ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ,平和のうちに生存する権利を有することを確認する。
われらは,いづれの国家も,自国のことのみに専念して他国を無視してはならないのであつて,政治道徳の法則は,普遍的なものであり,この法則に従ふことは,自国の主権を維持し,他国と対等関係に立たうとする各国の責務であると信ずる。
日本国民は,国家の名誉にかけ,全力をあげてこの崇高な理想と目的を達成することを誓ふ。
Don't. Article 9 is a complex topic all in it self and Wikipedia does well to have a separated article for it. -- Mkill 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Both Supreme court and lower courts have ruled that discrimination against foreign nationals is an article 14 (equality under the law) issue.
Public bathing facility ruling of Sapporo District Court (2002.11.11) National election rights(Supreme Court H5.2.26) Local election rights(Supreme Court 2000.6.27)
All ruling applies article 14 (indirectly with the Bathing facility case) to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the 1994.2.28 ruling states, that legislation, granting permanent foreign residents local election rights, would not violate article 15, although article 15 does not guarantee it as a constitutional right.
The Public bathing facility ruling, through the interpretation of Civil code article 709 'illegal acts'、state that refusing a foreigner to enter a public bathing facility is against Article 14 and international human rights B treaty article 26, and constitute an 'illegal act'. The point being, yes, there is no legislation specifically making discrimination against foreigners an offence, but, no, discrimination against foreigners are illegal, and will result in civil compensation.(in this case US$29,000)
As far as I know, the majority interpretation and the supreme court, does grant the right of equality to foreigners. Social benefits however, are a different matter. Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Supreme Court has now set precedent with the recent ruling on foreigners receiving welfare that the law states that only citizens may receive benefits. The text of the Public Assistance act uses the word 'kokumin', which is the basis of their ruling. This means that 'kokumin' is once again confirmed to mean 'citizen' and thus article 14's provisions against discrimination, which also use the word 'kokumin', refer only to citizens. It cannot be interpreted in any other way legally speaking - if the government wishes to selectively apply or enforce the law, that does not make that selective application the de jure status, but rather the de facto status. Any protections against discrimination which foreigners enjoy thus cannot be said to derive from article 14, as it has now been unquestionably asserted by the Supreme Court that foreigners are not included in the scope of the wording used.
As of this date, the only court ruling that has ruled on the constitutionality of the Self-Defence Force is a district court ruling (Naganuma case, Sapporo District court 1974.9.7). It ruled that the SDF is a force prohibited by article 9 paragraph 2, and is unconstitutional.
The Supreme court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the SDF.
So, what court ruling states that Japan can raise an army (a force with greater ability than SDF), which is a clear violation of article 9 paragraph 2? There is a ruling that suggests that Japan has the right to defend it's country, a prerequisite to possessing any kind of force (Sunagawa Supreme Court 1960.12.16), but that's it.
I strongly recommend deleting the portion that suggests an existence of a court ruling, unless the writer can name the case and date of the ruling. Supreme Court of Japan Home Page with Selected Judgments in English
Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Article 38 bans conviction solely based on confessions. Article 319 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure law states "A defendant cannot be found guilty, if the only evidence against him is a confession before the court or otherwise". With corroborating evidence for the confession, however, a conviction would not violate article 38-3 of the constitution.(Check Nerima Case 1959.5.28) -- Fortifiedchicken 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to my update tag, it was requested that I post a clarification here. No, I hadn't heard anything specific, but the section on the 2005 proposal left me wanting to hear the rest of the story. Did this fizzle or is it moving forward? It seems like this was added in reaction to events in the news, but it needs to be put in better historical perspective. -- Beland 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This part of the Adoption section
Under Article 73 the new
has been overlayed by the Imperial Signature and Seal picture. I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.118.60.172 ( talk) 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
This section has been in desparate need of updating for almost a year, and apparently no-one interested in tending to it, so I just went ahead and did it, relying on the reischauer institute [1], the BBC and the Japan Times. It still needs a lot of work, and you're all welcome to it, but think I got the main points in and arranged the section according to a timeline. This is a hot issue in Japanese politics and could use constant updating, more contextualization, and details (e.g. on the main players in the debate). Also, there are structural issues- the 'early debates' section needs to be somehow connected to this section. But I'm probably not the right person for that. Bine maya 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been some edits to the "Human rights guarantees in practice" section. This section started of as a lot of assertions claiming — without Wikipedia:Verifiability — how actual Japanese practice is bad human rights and goes against what the Constitution says. Over time some edits have reversed the meaning of the claims. Parts of the article now say — again, without Wikipedia:Verifiability — that Japanese practice does follow the Constitution. For instance, at 19:48, April 9, 2005, User:Iota added one sentence which read "defendants are routinely convicted solely on the basis of a signed confession" (with no citation). Then at 00:54, May 25, 2006, User:Fortifiedchicken changed it to read "defendants are routinely convicted on the basis of a signed confession with corroborating evidence" (still with no citation). Then at 15:54, March 31, 2008 User:Vapour correctly pointed the logical error in Fortifiedchicken's wording, but changed the meaning of the sentence yet again (still with no citation). This is silly. The phrase has been in Wikipedia for years, violating the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy the whole time, so I'm deleting it. It would be great to add it back in, but only if there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. -- Jdlh | Talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole section appear to be created by a Whinging westerner (a variation of whinning pom) who wanted to bent his frustration at wikipedia. Specific criticism of Japanese judicial practice (often from Amnesty) do exist, like in any other countries. Instead, the whole over tone of the article was based on typical Japanese exceptionalism. "Unlike western countries, Japan keep suspect detained for 3/4 days" part was just ridiculous considering that some western countries keep suspect much longer (in u.k. <20 days, for example and in some case, indefinitely). Plus coerced confession is a problem in the West not just in Japan. Plus, most criticism seems to centre around judicial practice. There is a separate article for that not to mention the fact that these issue has never been a constitutional issue. If whoever originally wrote this section bother to (or could) read Japanese newspapers and magazine, s/he would have known that specific constitutional issue involves Peace article, Position of Emperor as the "Symbol", Constitutional Amendment, Freedom of expression (textbook, pornography), Freedom of Publication (as opposed to freedom of press), Enforcing national anthem singing in school etc. The whole article should be wiped and rewrote as "Constitutional Controversies" Vapour ( talk) 01:49, April 3, 2008
I noticed that the way the Occupation was set up gave Americans an opportunity to make Japan's political system more like their own, perhaps in the belief that it would help people (or maybe that's because that's what Americans considered to be a good political system). So church and state were separated, more people given the vote, Japan became less monarchial (the monarch became more of a mascot for the country), and various other Americanizations were implemented... I suppose that if Japan had been partitioned as originally intended, the political differences would have been very interesting. For starters, there'd be at least a North Japan and a South Japan when all was said and done, and perhaps three or four "Japans" (depending on whether the Republic of China and/or the People's Republic were willing to play along). Furthermore, the PRC/ROC tensions would result in some Cold War drama, in addition to the Soviet/Western tensions. There might have even been a Japanese War along the lines of the Korean one. Can you imagine a Stalinist skyline gracing Sapporo? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is probably a problem of interpretation and then translation.(not purely translation.)
The original (Japanese) text of the Article 98 (2) doesn't say ratified international treaties be immediately domestic law or be treated as such, more accurately it cannot be read that way. It is more of a very very strong recommendation but not a mandate. The expression of the text doesn't make it mandatory. Having said that, I am not a constitutional scholar, just having the native command of the language.
What I believe is this is one of the interpretation (not the verbal translation, not to be confused) of the expression (nuance). I have come across, so many times, misinterpretations or mistranslations even by very much experienced translators(none-native in Japanese though), which is where the text can be interpreted in two or more ways and some of which the natives never, ever dream of.
If anyone reading the original text, I would like your comments.
While at it, in that cute diagram, it says 'appointment' of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is more like 'assent' just a rubber stamp. It's not like the President appoints the Supreme Court Justice and the Senate confirms it. In fact, the Emperor has not power to choose or alter the "appointment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.236.159 ( talk) 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The Japanese language is much more subtle than English when it comes to the difference of meanings in expressions but it's there, and I even have to write this way to better articulate it, hahaha.
Hi, I'm doing research on the Japanese Constitution for a college course and I found that sections of this article are almost entirely plagiarized from the book Theory of the World Constitution by Dreek Oberoi. Specifically the section "Drafting Process" which plagiarizes the phrasing "the initial post-surrender measures taken by Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they wished to encourage Japan's new leaders to initiate democratic reforms on their own. But by early 1946, MacArthur's staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution" comes from page 253 of that book. I don't know how to edit it out properly without leaving a huge hole in the article, if I get time when I finish my research I will change it myself if needed. The book is available on ebrary to anyone with database access. Thanks. Ninja337 ( talk) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This site http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/outline/03outline.html clearly states that MaxArthur's men (and women) had started their own draft BEFORE they got the one from the Japanese goverment, so they did it in two weeks, not one. 134.93.77.131 ( talk) 10:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Japan is not officially or constitutionally a monarchy since 1945/1952, because unlike actual monarchies, the 1947 japanese constitution doesn't in any way define the "state of Japan" (日本国) as being a monarchy, or having a monarch, sovereign, or indeed any head of state, while also explicitly defining the people as sovereign and the prime minister as the chief executive. This is especially important because the previous constitution explicitly defined the country as a monarchy as the tennou as a sovereign and supreme authority. The tennou after 1945 is best understood as a hereditary religious figure, a chief priest if you will, rather than a monarch.
Furthermore, in Japan, there is generally an agreement that the definition of the tennou as only a "symbol" (象徴) also defines them as NOT a monarch (君主) or head of state/sovereign (元首). Many japanese constitutional experts consider Japan to not have a formal head of state. Countries don't need a formal head of state, for that matter.
Let's look at *actual* constitutional monarchies:
Kingdom of Denmark
"The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power shall be inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953."
"The legislative power shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. The executive power shall be vested in the King. The judicial power shall be vested in the courts of justice."
"Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers."
"The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."
Kingdom of Norway
"The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."
"The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King."
"The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."
Kingdom of Sweden
"The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State.
"The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State."
Kingdom of the Netherlands
"The King shall be President of the Council of State. The heir presumptive shall be legally entitled to have a seat on the Council on attaining the age of eighteen. Other members of the Royal House may be granted a seat on the Council by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament."
"The members of the Council shall be appointed for life by Royal Decree."
"A Bill shall become an Act of Parliament once it has been passed by the States General and ratified by the King."
"The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers."
"The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government."
"State Secretaries may be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree."
Kingdom of Belgium
"The federal legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives and the Senate."
"The federal executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs to the King."
"The King has the right to convene the Houses to an extraordinary meeting."
"The King can adjourn the Houses. However, the adjournment cannot be for longer than one month, nor can it be repeated in the same session without the consent of the Houses."
Kingdom of Spain
"The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy."
"The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitutionand the laws."
"The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2)."
"The King freely appoints and dismisses civil and military members of his Household"
62.248.181.187 ( talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The main points of concern have been addressed and I have no current proposals for specific changes to this article. 62.248.181.187 ( talk) 21:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Note - 62.248.181.187 is a sock of someone. GoodDay ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Fellow Editors,
Recent changes to the Infobox have been made based on a single NYT analysis/opinion source: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/weekinreview/the-world-japan-s-state-symbols-now-you-see-them.html
While the NYT is a reliable source for news reporting, I do not believe that this particular piece is sufficiently reliable, not sufficiently representative of the consensus of academic research for us to use it as the basis for the contents of the Infobox.
Use of this source alone is contrary to WP:DUE. For such a mainstream topic as the subject of this article is, I would be looking for tertiary sources as the basis for summary information.
Nor am I certain that the source directly supports some top the recent inclusions, as required by WP:V
Thoughts? - Ryk72 talk 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Unitary parliamentary de facto[1] constitutional monarchy
Not defined in constitution. The Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people", but can carry out many functions of a head of state.[1]
The Emperor was demoted at the end of the war from a "living god" to a mere "symbol of the state" under the Constitution approved by the occupiers, and the Government is afraid that it would seem provocative now to declare him the head of state., which text from the source directly supports this statement?
quick reference guide.
Many dictionaries, including Wiktionary, Oxford dictionary etc. agree that a monarch is a "ruler", "sovereign", or at least a "head of state". So, unless we are to reject most dictionaries as reliable references for the english language, the tennou is not a "monarch" in the proper sense (or 君主/元首) under the 1947 constitution, because they are not an official head of state.and
In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol", the form of government is often defined as a monarchy, and the country is officially referred to as a "kingdom" etc.is original research. And the same reasoning would reject Elizabeth II as head of state of many of her Commonwealth Realms, the King of Belgium as head of state of Belgium, President Trump as head of state of the USA. None of those are "officially" (i.e. explicitly) defined as "head of state" in their respective constitutions. (It's also circular reasoning).
For example, an official head of state virtually universally has at least nominal executive or legislative authority. In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol"is original research. And the same reasoning would reject the King of Sweden, whose role is purely symbolic, as head of state of Sweden. Notwithstanding that, the Emperor of Japan does have executive powers; defined in Article 7.
There is basically a consensus in Japan that the tennou is not a head of state (国家元首), at least not officially or under the constitution.Source?
What should the Infobox contain for the fields "System" and "Head of State"?: Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
References
See previous discussions above. Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Option A - system: No sources
directly support describing Japan as a "de facto constitutional monarchy"; a construct which appears only on Wikipedia, and is an
original interpretation of opinion pieces. Additionally, the position of the monarch, The Emperor, is defined in the Constitution, and Japan is, therefore, a de jure constitutional monarchy, not merely a de facto one. head of state: The position of the Emperor, the "head of state" (as that term is understood in English), is defined in Articles 1-8 of the Constitution; it strictly false to assert that this is not so. but can carry out many functions of a head of state
is also not directly supported by the referenced source.
-
Ryk72
talk
02:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend reading the surrounding discussions on this page and the sources currently used in the article (B). Experts on japanese law and constitution generally do not consider the tennou an official head of state under the constitution, and the constitution does not define any kind of monarchical form of government, while the preamble declares that the constitution establishes a government by the sovereign people for the sovereign people. A "monarchy" by definition has a specific kind of head of state; if there is no official head of state, there can't be an official "monarchy" as the form of government. I also advise everyone to take a look at the Japanese version of this article, which reflects the scholarly and popular consensus in Japan and directly says "the present constitution does not have provisions relating to a head of state of Japan" (現行憲法には日本の元首に関する規定はない). I support B and object to A. Mnd5trm ( talk) 21:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that the constitution is included as a "source" for the option A, but that's clearly misleading; the constitution does not say the form of government is a "monarchy" or that there is any head of state, which is specifically what the option B intends to inform the reader about. Also, both CIA World Factbook and the "UN protocol list" are quick reference guides and conveniently include a "head of state" for all countries based also on de facto considerations without regard for the specifics of each country's constitution. This is the article "Constitution of Japan", and should not use such quick reference lists to falsely suggest the constitution unambiguously defines the form of government as a "monarchy" or the tennou as a "head of state" (or 国家元首). Mnd5trm ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
defined as "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People"; not for
The Emperor, which is referenced by the other two sources. As previously, the Infobox is also intended to be a "quick reference guide", similar to the CIA & UN sources. The Constitution does define the Emperor, and their role in the government of Japan, in Articles 1-8; it would, therefore, be false & misleading for us to suggest that the position and role of the Emperor is not defined by the Constitution. - Ryk72 talk 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The constitution doesn't define a 元首is also not the only, nor perhaps the best, translation of "天皇を元首と定める条項はない". "定める条項" is closer to "defining clause" or "prescribing clause"; the meaning then being that there is not an explicit statement in the Constitution, which is not in dispute). The Kisaragi Law Office and Hanamizuki Law Office are personal blogs by lawyers at private legal firms, I see no reason why they should be considered experts on the Constitution. The Hanamizuki Law Office blog, being primarily concerned with advocating for a rationalisation of the two date systems (Emperor & CE), also only provides a passing mention; and fails WP:RSCONTEXT. All three pieces are also clearly advocacy pieces, urging for or against change of some type; and have the same issues as David Smith's commentary on the Australian Constitution; they argue a point of view as basis for a desired outcome.
Some want it to be clearly stated that the emperor is the head of state, but the emperor is already the head of state according to the current constitution[7]. If an unknown Shizuoka lawyer's blog is an expert source, then why not Ozawa? - Ryk72 talk 04:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
opposes revision of Article 9, popular election of the Prime Minister, structural revision of the Prefectural Governments, and the process of constitutional revision[12] [13]. Kakinohana did participate in an open session, in 2002 at Naha, for the House of Representatives Commission on the Constitution [14]. But an open session is an open session, where anyone can participate. I don't see why we should favour his opinion over any of the other participants in the 5 year process, and there are definitely divergent opinions.
consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is coveringand to attribute biased sources. An officially published government source (not vague statements attributed to unknown "officials") might be considered authoritative; at least for an official position. An advocacy piece, written by an advocate (there's a lawyer pun there) and published by an advocacy organisation is an attribute-able source, and is not good enough for an authoritative statement of fact, such as the Infobox should contain. There must be better sources; either authoritative enough to be dispositive of any argument, or clearly describing it.
We should restore Option A, as the emperor is a constitutional monarch. GoodDay ( talk) 09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that an additional source has since been added to the current version of the article (B). Mnd5trm ( talk) 10:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Option A It's clearly a constitutional monarchy, however it's officially described, and there's no reason to qualify it as "de facto." Being explicitly called a constitutional monarchy isn't needed for it to be one; the British monarchy is one of the archetypal examples, and they don't even have a written constitution (technically if Elizabeth II went mad, she has all sorts of powers she could use as a quasi-absolute monarch; it's just understood that if she did, they'd immediately be taken away from her by parliament). If there is concern about the technicalities of the head of state role, you could replace the "Head of State" line with a "see the section on the emperor link," and expand that section somewhat (with better sourcing than a Nick Kristoff "did you know" blurb). See, e.g. the "Results" section of the Battle of the Coral Sea info box; the results of that battle were too complicated to describe in the normal "X victory" style for that entry, so it just says "See Significance" and links there. Just a Rube ( talk) 01:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that deleting accurate information supported by expert sources in favor of a simplistic version based on convenient quick reference guides such as "UN protocol list" is a quite drastic act. Before supporting such an act, please familiarize yourself with the currently used sources (including the japanese one), and explain in detail why both of them should be completely ignored and removed in favor of said quick reference guides, and how doing so would improve the article and present the reader with more accurate information about the Constitution of Japan. It should also be remembered that editors favoring the current version (B) are much less likely to come here to comment even if they are the majority. Mnd5trm ( talk) 04:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I support the B and object the A. I wasn't major in jurisprudence, but Constitution of Japan lecture was a must. In japanophone jurisprudence, the current state is called "Tennosei" (Tenno System) just because they think the current Constitution offers no basis for think the Emperor as the monarch. hence the status of the state as constitutional monarchy. It might be treated as such de facto specially by other countries and organizations, since constitutionally defined roles of the Emperor quite resemble as such of other constitutional monarchs, but when we argue on precise wording and definition, Japanese legal system don't offer any basis. "The Emperor is the HoS of Japan" is just custom and interpretation, no legal definition. -- Aphaia ( talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose splitting the Amendments and revisions section of this page to a new page titled Constitutional reform in Japan, this has been requested multiple times in Wikiproject Japan and with the controversies surrounding it, I believe it deserves its own page. If you think otherwise, please reply and we can have a conversation to sort it out. Anime King 🎌 ( 💬) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Kristof
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 3, 2004, May 3, 2005, May 3, 2006, May 3, 2007, May 3, 2008, May 3, 2009, and May 3, 2010. |
The Emperor is the de facto head of state? Shouldn't that be de jure? -- 213.8.105.60 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article? It is clearly a political client/puppet regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.244.143 ( talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish, the constitution could have been changed at anytime if the people didn`t agree with it. Most of the constitution guarantees the Japanese people fundamental human rights, something the LDP have said they want to take away, who exactly would that help aside from the governing elite?-- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a section of this article (apparently) in Japanese? (This being, of course, the English-language Wikipedia.) If it is necessary, it should be appropriately placed in context for non-Japanese readers, e.g. "The following text X, Y and Z." As it is, being an English-language computer user with no Japanese language support installed on his computer, all I see is an irregular series of ? characters. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this section from the article and reproduced it below. If anyone wants to translate it or provide context for it, please add it back in. It was submitted by an anonymous user whose IP has no other edits, and I don't know Japanese well enough to translate it myself. The section title translates as "preamble", so I'm assuming this is the preamble to the constitution. Colin M. 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It is the preamble. As such it is a fairly good summary of the spirit of the document but it is not worth mentioning or translating any more than any other part of the constitution. I think it odd that it should be pasted in the article. Smoove K 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
日本国民は,正当に選挙された国会における代表者を通じて行動し,われらとわれらの子孫のために,諸国民との協和による成果と,わが国全土にわたつて自由のもたらす恵沢を確保し,政府の行為によつて再び戦争の惨禍が起ることのないやうにすることを決意し,ここに主権が国民に存することを宣言し,この憲法を確定する。そもそも国政は,国民の厳粛な信託によるものであつて,その権威は国民に由来し,その権力は国民の代表者がこれを行使し,その福利は国民がこれを享受する。これは人類普遍の原理であり,この憲法は,かかる原理に基くものである。われらは,これに反する一切の憲法,法令及び詔勅を排除する。
日本国民は,恒久の平和を念願し,人間相互の関係を支配する崇高な理想を深く自覚するのであつて,平和を愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して,われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意した。われらは,平和を維持し,専制と隷従,圧迫と偏狭を地上から永遠に除去しようと努めてゐる国際社会において,名誉ある地位を占めたいと思ふ。われらは,全世界の国民が,ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ,平和のうちに生存する権利を有することを確認する。
われらは,いづれの国家も,自国のことのみに専念して他国を無視してはならないのであつて,政治道徳の法則は,普遍的なものであり,この法則に従ふことは,自国の主権を維持し,他国と対等関係に立たうとする各国の責務であると信ずる。
日本国民は,国家の名誉にかけ,全力をあげてこの崇高な理想と目的を達成することを誓ふ。
Don't. Article 9 is a complex topic all in it self and Wikipedia does well to have a separated article for it. -- Mkill 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Both Supreme court and lower courts have ruled that discrimination against foreign nationals is an article 14 (equality under the law) issue.
Public bathing facility ruling of Sapporo District Court (2002.11.11) National election rights(Supreme Court H5.2.26) Local election rights(Supreme Court 2000.6.27)
All ruling applies article 14 (indirectly with the Bathing facility case) to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the 1994.2.28 ruling states, that legislation, granting permanent foreign residents local election rights, would not violate article 15, although article 15 does not guarantee it as a constitutional right.
The Public bathing facility ruling, through the interpretation of Civil code article 709 'illegal acts'、state that refusing a foreigner to enter a public bathing facility is against Article 14 and international human rights B treaty article 26, and constitute an 'illegal act'. The point being, yes, there is no legislation specifically making discrimination against foreigners an offence, but, no, discrimination against foreigners are illegal, and will result in civil compensation.(in this case US$29,000)
As far as I know, the majority interpretation and the supreme court, does grant the right of equality to foreigners. Social benefits however, are a different matter. Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Supreme Court has now set precedent with the recent ruling on foreigners receiving welfare that the law states that only citizens may receive benefits. The text of the Public Assistance act uses the word 'kokumin', which is the basis of their ruling. This means that 'kokumin' is once again confirmed to mean 'citizen' and thus article 14's provisions against discrimination, which also use the word 'kokumin', refer only to citizens. It cannot be interpreted in any other way legally speaking - if the government wishes to selectively apply or enforce the law, that does not make that selective application the de jure status, but rather the de facto status. Any protections against discrimination which foreigners enjoy thus cannot be said to derive from article 14, as it has now been unquestionably asserted by the Supreme Court that foreigners are not included in the scope of the wording used.
As of this date, the only court ruling that has ruled on the constitutionality of the Self-Defence Force is a district court ruling (Naganuma case, Sapporo District court 1974.9.7). It ruled that the SDF is a force prohibited by article 9 paragraph 2, and is unconstitutional.
The Supreme court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the SDF.
So, what court ruling states that Japan can raise an army (a force with greater ability than SDF), which is a clear violation of article 9 paragraph 2? There is a ruling that suggests that Japan has the right to defend it's country, a prerequisite to possessing any kind of force (Sunagawa Supreme Court 1960.12.16), but that's it.
I strongly recommend deleting the portion that suggests an existence of a court ruling, unless the writer can name the case and date of the ruling. Supreme Court of Japan Home Page with Selected Judgments in English
Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Article 38 bans conviction solely based on confessions. Article 319 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure law states "A defendant cannot be found guilty, if the only evidence against him is a confession before the court or otherwise". With corroborating evidence for the confession, however, a conviction would not violate article 38-3 of the constitution.(Check Nerima Case 1959.5.28) -- Fortifiedchicken 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to my update tag, it was requested that I post a clarification here. No, I hadn't heard anything specific, but the section on the 2005 proposal left me wanting to hear the rest of the story. Did this fizzle or is it moving forward? It seems like this was added in reaction to events in the news, but it needs to be put in better historical perspective. -- Beland 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This part of the Adoption section
Under Article 73 the new
has been overlayed by the Imperial Signature and Seal picture. I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.118.60.172 ( talk) 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
This section has been in desparate need of updating for almost a year, and apparently no-one interested in tending to it, so I just went ahead and did it, relying on the reischauer institute [1], the BBC and the Japan Times. It still needs a lot of work, and you're all welcome to it, but think I got the main points in and arranged the section according to a timeline. This is a hot issue in Japanese politics and could use constant updating, more contextualization, and details (e.g. on the main players in the debate). Also, there are structural issues- the 'early debates' section needs to be somehow connected to this section. But I'm probably not the right person for that. Bine maya 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been some edits to the "Human rights guarantees in practice" section. This section started of as a lot of assertions claiming — without Wikipedia:Verifiability — how actual Japanese practice is bad human rights and goes against what the Constitution says. Over time some edits have reversed the meaning of the claims. Parts of the article now say — again, without Wikipedia:Verifiability — that Japanese practice does follow the Constitution. For instance, at 19:48, April 9, 2005, User:Iota added one sentence which read "defendants are routinely convicted solely on the basis of a signed confession" (with no citation). Then at 00:54, May 25, 2006, User:Fortifiedchicken changed it to read "defendants are routinely convicted on the basis of a signed confession with corroborating evidence" (still with no citation). Then at 15:54, March 31, 2008 User:Vapour correctly pointed the logical error in Fortifiedchicken's wording, but changed the meaning of the sentence yet again (still with no citation). This is silly. The phrase has been in Wikipedia for years, violating the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy the whole time, so I'm deleting it. It would be great to add it back in, but only if there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. -- Jdlh | Talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole section appear to be created by a Whinging westerner (a variation of whinning pom) who wanted to bent his frustration at wikipedia. Specific criticism of Japanese judicial practice (often from Amnesty) do exist, like in any other countries. Instead, the whole over tone of the article was based on typical Japanese exceptionalism. "Unlike western countries, Japan keep suspect detained for 3/4 days" part was just ridiculous considering that some western countries keep suspect much longer (in u.k. <20 days, for example and in some case, indefinitely). Plus coerced confession is a problem in the West not just in Japan. Plus, most criticism seems to centre around judicial practice. There is a separate article for that not to mention the fact that these issue has never been a constitutional issue. If whoever originally wrote this section bother to (or could) read Japanese newspapers and magazine, s/he would have known that specific constitutional issue involves Peace article, Position of Emperor as the "Symbol", Constitutional Amendment, Freedom of expression (textbook, pornography), Freedom of Publication (as opposed to freedom of press), Enforcing national anthem singing in school etc. The whole article should be wiped and rewrote as "Constitutional Controversies" Vapour ( talk) 01:49, April 3, 2008
I noticed that the way the Occupation was set up gave Americans an opportunity to make Japan's political system more like their own, perhaps in the belief that it would help people (or maybe that's because that's what Americans considered to be a good political system). So church and state were separated, more people given the vote, Japan became less monarchial (the monarch became more of a mascot for the country), and various other Americanizations were implemented... I suppose that if Japan had been partitioned as originally intended, the political differences would have been very interesting. For starters, there'd be at least a North Japan and a South Japan when all was said and done, and perhaps three or four "Japans" (depending on whether the Republic of China and/or the People's Republic were willing to play along). Furthermore, the PRC/ROC tensions would result in some Cold War drama, in addition to the Soviet/Western tensions. There might have even been a Japanese War along the lines of the Korean one. Can you imagine a Stalinist skyline gracing Sapporo? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is probably a problem of interpretation and then translation.(not purely translation.)
The original (Japanese) text of the Article 98 (2) doesn't say ratified international treaties be immediately domestic law or be treated as such, more accurately it cannot be read that way. It is more of a very very strong recommendation but not a mandate. The expression of the text doesn't make it mandatory. Having said that, I am not a constitutional scholar, just having the native command of the language.
What I believe is this is one of the interpretation (not the verbal translation, not to be confused) of the expression (nuance). I have come across, so many times, misinterpretations or mistranslations even by very much experienced translators(none-native in Japanese though), which is where the text can be interpreted in two or more ways and some of which the natives never, ever dream of.
If anyone reading the original text, I would like your comments.
While at it, in that cute diagram, it says 'appointment' of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is more like 'assent' just a rubber stamp. It's not like the President appoints the Supreme Court Justice and the Senate confirms it. In fact, the Emperor has not power to choose or alter the "appointment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.236.159 ( talk) 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The Japanese language is much more subtle than English when it comes to the difference of meanings in expressions but it's there, and I even have to write this way to better articulate it, hahaha.
Hi, I'm doing research on the Japanese Constitution for a college course and I found that sections of this article are almost entirely plagiarized from the book Theory of the World Constitution by Dreek Oberoi. Specifically the section "Drafting Process" which plagiarizes the phrasing "the initial post-surrender measures taken by Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they wished to encourage Japan's new leaders to initiate democratic reforms on their own. But by early 1946, MacArthur's staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution" comes from page 253 of that book. I don't know how to edit it out properly without leaving a huge hole in the article, if I get time when I finish my research I will change it myself if needed. The book is available on ebrary to anyone with database access. Thanks. Ninja337 ( talk) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This site http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/outline/03outline.html clearly states that MaxArthur's men (and women) had started their own draft BEFORE they got the one from the Japanese goverment, so they did it in two weeks, not one. 134.93.77.131 ( talk) 10:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Japan is not officially or constitutionally a monarchy since 1945/1952, because unlike actual monarchies, the 1947 japanese constitution doesn't in any way define the "state of Japan" (日本国) as being a monarchy, or having a monarch, sovereign, or indeed any head of state, while also explicitly defining the people as sovereign and the prime minister as the chief executive. This is especially important because the previous constitution explicitly defined the country as a monarchy as the tennou as a sovereign and supreme authority. The tennou after 1945 is best understood as a hereditary religious figure, a chief priest if you will, rather than a monarch.
Furthermore, in Japan, there is generally an agreement that the definition of the tennou as only a "symbol" (象徴) also defines them as NOT a monarch (君主) or head of state/sovereign (元首). Many japanese constitutional experts consider Japan to not have a formal head of state. Countries don't need a formal head of state, for that matter.
Let's look at *actual* constitutional monarchies:
Kingdom of Denmark
"The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power shall be inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953."
"The legislative power shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. The executive power shall be vested in the King. The judicial power shall be vested in the courts of justice."
"Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers."
"The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."
Kingdom of Norway
"The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."
"The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King."
"The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."
Kingdom of Sweden
"The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State.
"The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State."
Kingdom of the Netherlands
"The King shall be President of the Council of State. The heir presumptive shall be legally entitled to have a seat on the Council on attaining the age of eighteen. Other members of the Royal House may be granted a seat on the Council by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament."
"The members of the Council shall be appointed for life by Royal Decree."
"A Bill shall become an Act of Parliament once it has been passed by the States General and ratified by the King."
"The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers."
"The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government."
"State Secretaries may be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree."
Kingdom of Belgium
"The federal legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives and the Senate."
"The federal executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs to the King."
"The King has the right to convene the Houses to an extraordinary meeting."
"The King can adjourn the Houses. However, the adjournment cannot be for longer than one month, nor can it be repeated in the same session without the consent of the Houses."
Kingdom of Spain
"The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy."
"The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitutionand the laws."
"The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2)."
"The King freely appoints and dismisses civil and military members of his Household"
62.248.181.187 ( talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The main points of concern have been addressed and I have no current proposals for specific changes to this article. 62.248.181.187 ( talk) 21:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Note - 62.248.181.187 is a sock of someone. GoodDay ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Fellow Editors,
Recent changes to the Infobox have been made based on a single NYT analysis/opinion source: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/weekinreview/the-world-japan-s-state-symbols-now-you-see-them.html
While the NYT is a reliable source for news reporting, I do not believe that this particular piece is sufficiently reliable, not sufficiently representative of the consensus of academic research for us to use it as the basis for the contents of the Infobox.
Use of this source alone is contrary to WP:DUE. For such a mainstream topic as the subject of this article is, I would be looking for tertiary sources as the basis for summary information.
Nor am I certain that the source directly supports some top the recent inclusions, as required by WP:V
Thoughts? - Ryk72 talk 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Unitary parliamentary de facto[1] constitutional monarchy
Not defined in constitution. The Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people", but can carry out many functions of a head of state.[1]
The Emperor was demoted at the end of the war from a "living god" to a mere "symbol of the state" under the Constitution approved by the occupiers, and the Government is afraid that it would seem provocative now to declare him the head of state., which text from the source directly supports this statement?
quick reference guide.
Many dictionaries, including Wiktionary, Oxford dictionary etc. agree that a monarch is a "ruler", "sovereign", or at least a "head of state". So, unless we are to reject most dictionaries as reliable references for the english language, the tennou is not a "monarch" in the proper sense (or 君主/元首) under the 1947 constitution, because they are not an official head of state.and
In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol", the form of government is often defined as a monarchy, and the country is officially referred to as a "kingdom" etc.is original research. And the same reasoning would reject Elizabeth II as head of state of many of her Commonwealth Realms, the King of Belgium as head of state of Belgium, President Trump as head of state of the USA. None of those are "officially" (i.e. explicitly) defined as "head of state" in their respective constitutions. (It's also circular reasoning).
For example, an official head of state virtually universally has at least nominal executive or legislative authority. In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol"is original research. And the same reasoning would reject the King of Sweden, whose role is purely symbolic, as head of state of Sweden. Notwithstanding that, the Emperor of Japan does have executive powers; defined in Article 7.
There is basically a consensus in Japan that the tennou is not a head of state (国家元首), at least not officially or under the constitution.Source?
What should the Infobox contain for the fields "System" and "Head of State"?: Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
References
See previous discussions above. Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Option A - system: No sources
directly support describing Japan as a "de facto constitutional monarchy"; a construct which appears only on Wikipedia, and is an
original interpretation of opinion pieces. Additionally, the position of the monarch, The Emperor, is defined in the Constitution, and Japan is, therefore, a de jure constitutional monarchy, not merely a de facto one. head of state: The position of the Emperor, the "head of state" (as that term is understood in English), is defined in Articles 1-8 of the Constitution; it strictly false to assert that this is not so. but can carry out many functions of a head of state
is also not directly supported by the referenced source.
-
Ryk72
talk
02:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend reading the surrounding discussions on this page and the sources currently used in the article (B). Experts on japanese law and constitution generally do not consider the tennou an official head of state under the constitution, and the constitution does not define any kind of monarchical form of government, while the preamble declares that the constitution establishes a government by the sovereign people for the sovereign people. A "monarchy" by definition has a specific kind of head of state; if there is no official head of state, there can't be an official "monarchy" as the form of government. I also advise everyone to take a look at the Japanese version of this article, which reflects the scholarly and popular consensus in Japan and directly says "the present constitution does not have provisions relating to a head of state of Japan" (現行憲法には日本の元首に関する規定はない). I support B and object to A. Mnd5trm ( talk) 21:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that the constitution is included as a "source" for the option A, but that's clearly misleading; the constitution does not say the form of government is a "monarchy" or that there is any head of state, which is specifically what the option B intends to inform the reader about. Also, both CIA World Factbook and the "UN protocol list" are quick reference guides and conveniently include a "head of state" for all countries based also on de facto considerations without regard for the specifics of each country's constitution. This is the article "Constitution of Japan", and should not use such quick reference lists to falsely suggest the constitution unambiguously defines the form of government as a "monarchy" or the tennou as a "head of state" (or 国家元首). Mnd5trm ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
defined as "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People"; not for
The Emperor, which is referenced by the other two sources. As previously, the Infobox is also intended to be a "quick reference guide", similar to the CIA & UN sources. The Constitution does define the Emperor, and their role in the government of Japan, in Articles 1-8; it would, therefore, be false & misleading for us to suggest that the position and role of the Emperor is not defined by the Constitution. - Ryk72 talk 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The constitution doesn't define a 元首is also not the only, nor perhaps the best, translation of "天皇を元首と定める条項はない". "定める条項" is closer to "defining clause" or "prescribing clause"; the meaning then being that there is not an explicit statement in the Constitution, which is not in dispute). The Kisaragi Law Office and Hanamizuki Law Office are personal blogs by lawyers at private legal firms, I see no reason why they should be considered experts on the Constitution. The Hanamizuki Law Office blog, being primarily concerned with advocating for a rationalisation of the two date systems (Emperor & CE), also only provides a passing mention; and fails WP:RSCONTEXT. All three pieces are also clearly advocacy pieces, urging for or against change of some type; and have the same issues as David Smith's commentary on the Australian Constitution; they argue a point of view as basis for a desired outcome.
Some want it to be clearly stated that the emperor is the head of state, but the emperor is already the head of state according to the current constitution[7]. If an unknown Shizuoka lawyer's blog is an expert source, then why not Ozawa? - Ryk72 talk 04:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
opposes revision of Article 9, popular election of the Prime Minister, structural revision of the Prefectural Governments, and the process of constitutional revision[12] [13]. Kakinohana did participate in an open session, in 2002 at Naha, for the House of Representatives Commission on the Constitution [14]. But an open session is an open session, where anyone can participate. I don't see why we should favour his opinion over any of the other participants in the 5 year process, and there are definitely divergent opinions.
consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is coveringand to attribute biased sources. An officially published government source (not vague statements attributed to unknown "officials") might be considered authoritative; at least for an official position. An advocacy piece, written by an advocate (there's a lawyer pun there) and published by an advocacy organisation is an attribute-able source, and is not good enough for an authoritative statement of fact, such as the Infobox should contain. There must be better sources; either authoritative enough to be dispositive of any argument, or clearly describing it.
We should restore Option A, as the emperor is a constitutional monarch. GoodDay ( talk) 09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that an additional source has since been added to the current version of the article (B). Mnd5trm ( talk) 10:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Option A It's clearly a constitutional monarchy, however it's officially described, and there's no reason to qualify it as "de facto." Being explicitly called a constitutional monarchy isn't needed for it to be one; the British monarchy is one of the archetypal examples, and they don't even have a written constitution (technically if Elizabeth II went mad, she has all sorts of powers she could use as a quasi-absolute monarch; it's just understood that if she did, they'd immediately be taken away from her by parliament). If there is concern about the technicalities of the head of state role, you could replace the "Head of State" line with a "see the section on the emperor link," and expand that section somewhat (with better sourcing than a Nick Kristoff "did you know" blurb). See, e.g. the "Results" section of the Battle of the Coral Sea info box; the results of that battle were too complicated to describe in the normal "X victory" style for that entry, so it just says "See Significance" and links there. Just a Rube ( talk) 01:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that deleting accurate information supported by expert sources in favor of a simplistic version based on convenient quick reference guides such as "UN protocol list" is a quite drastic act. Before supporting such an act, please familiarize yourself with the currently used sources (including the japanese one), and explain in detail why both of them should be completely ignored and removed in favor of said quick reference guides, and how doing so would improve the article and present the reader with more accurate information about the Constitution of Japan. It should also be remembered that editors favoring the current version (B) are much less likely to come here to comment even if they are the majority. Mnd5trm ( talk) 04:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I support the B and object the A. I wasn't major in jurisprudence, but Constitution of Japan lecture was a must. In japanophone jurisprudence, the current state is called "Tennosei" (Tenno System) just because they think the current Constitution offers no basis for think the Emperor as the monarch. hence the status of the state as constitutional monarchy. It might be treated as such de facto specially by other countries and organizations, since constitutionally defined roles of the Emperor quite resemble as such of other constitutional monarchs, but when we argue on precise wording and definition, Japanese legal system don't offer any basis. "The Emperor is the HoS of Japan" is just custom and interpretation, no legal definition. -- Aphaia ( talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose splitting the Amendments and revisions section of this page to a new page titled Constitutional reform in Japan, this has been requested multiple times in Wikiproject Japan and with the controversies surrounding it, I believe it deserves its own page. If you think otherwise, please reply and we can have a conversation to sort it out. Anime King 🎌 ( 💬) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Kristof
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).