May 12, 2013
“The definition of aggression has yet to be established academically and internationally. It differs depending on which side you are viewing from,” said Prime Minister Abe Shinzo at the Upper House Budget Committee on April 23, causing ripples in Asia and the United States.
The Korea Joongang Daily of April 24 reported, “That sounds like a negation of Japan’s accountability for the invasion of Korea and its 36-year colonial rule. Such sophistry illustrates Abe’s intention to deny Japan’s history of aggression.”
Has the definition of aggression yet to be fixed as he claims?
The UN Resolution 3314 adopted by the General Assembly in December 1974 gives this definition, “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”
In accordance with the Resolution, the Roma Statute of the International Criminal Court determined what constitutes the crime of aggression, and the Statute was modified in June 2010 to provide an even clearer definition.
Paragraph 6 of the Potsdam Declaration, which Japan accepted, stipulates, “There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest.”
Article 53 of the UN Charter confirms that Japan, Germany, and Italy implemented “aggressive policy” and states that the Organization may “be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state”.
Even the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which Abe celebrated by hosting a commemorative ceremony on April 28 (the day when it came into effect in 1952), concurs with the judgment made by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, known as the Tokyo Trials, recognizing that Japan waged “aggressive war”.
Thus, various international agreements as well as international law firmly identify Japan’s past military action as a war of aggression. If Abe continues insisting that state aggression is yet to be defined, he will be denying the very legitimacy of postwar international politics.
The Korea Joongang Daily of April 24 reported, “That sounds like a negation of Japan’s accountability for the invasion of Korea and its 36-year colonial rule. Such sophistry illustrates Abe’s intention to deny Japan’s history of aggression.”
Has the definition of aggression yet to be fixed as he claims?
The UN Resolution 3314 adopted by the General Assembly in December 1974 gives this definition, “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”
In accordance with the Resolution, the Roma Statute of the International Criminal Court determined what constitutes the crime of aggression, and the Statute was modified in June 2010 to provide an even clearer definition.
Paragraph 6 of the Potsdam Declaration, which Japan accepted, stipulates, “There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest.”
Article 53 of the UN Charter confirms that Japan, Germany, and Italy implemented “aggressive policy” and states that the Organization may “be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state”.
Even the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which Abe celebrated by hosting a commemorative ceremony on April 28 (the day when it came into effect in 1952), concurs with the judgment made by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, known as the Tokyo Trials, recognizing that Japan waged “aggressive war”.
Thus, various international agreements as well as international law firmly identify Japan’s past military action as a war of aggression. If Abe continues insisting that state aggression is yet to be defined, he will be denying the very legitimacy of postwar international politics.
