Revise law to improve Japan peacekeeping operations
The government should step up efforts to deal with issues left unresolved since the enactment of the nation's U.N. Peacekeeping Activities Cooperation Law 20 years ago.
The Foreign and Defense ministries and the Cabinet Office have jointly compiled a bill to revise the PKO law. A major feature of the bill is a provision to allow the Self-Defense Forces to dispatch its members to rescue civilians in remote locations. Since several members of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan are cautious about the revision, submission of the bill to the current Diet session may be difficult. However, we expect the Cabinet to approve it as soon as possible.
Under the current PKO law, SDF members engaged in a U.N. peacekeeping operation are not allowed to use weapons except in self-defense and to avert imminent danger. Therefore, even if civilians caught in the middle of a riot, for instance, ask the SDF to rescue them, SDF members may not be able to do so.
If SDF members use weapons against "an actor equivalent to a state," such as an armed insurgent, it may constitute "an exercise of force against other nations," which is prohibited by the Constitution, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau says.
===
Legalize rescue dispatch
However, is it feasible for the SDF to turn down a rescue request made by civilians--Japanese nationals in particular--because it might violate the Constitution? Such a situation could occur at any time.
In such a case, SDF members may rush to a scene to rescue civilians but will not use weapons unless their own lives are threatened. The law, which forces SDF commanders to make a difficult decision, must be revised.
When the SDF began participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations, public opinion was divided. In the beginning, it might have made sense to place tight restrictions on the SDF's use of weapons.
Today, however, an overwhelming majority of Japanese support SDF participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Not only has this become a normal role for the SDF, but it has been upgraded to one of its primary missions.
We think it is reasonable to review restrictions on the use of weapons to improve the effectiveness of SDF activities, while taking the experience and needs of members actually involved in the activities into consideration.
===
New condition nonsensical
The bill stipulates that SDF members would be allowed to use weapons only to support and supplement security efforts by a host state.
However, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has urged that a condition be added so an SDF rescue mission would be limited to a situation where an attack by a state or an actor equivalent to a state is not expected.
This condition makes coordination of views more difficult. We have doubts about the opinions of the bureau.
Japan is the only country that interprets the use of weapons during peacekeeping operations based on a U.N. resolution as an exercise of military force. This contradicts conventional wisdom of the international community. If the Cabinet Legislation Bureau's condition is added to the envisaged revision, it could restrict SDF activities even more.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda is positive about making SDF rescue missions legally possible. We hope the prime minister will tackle this issue based on the realities of places where peacekeeping operations are needed.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 23, 2012)
(Jul. 24, 2012)
Prosecutors should advance steadily under new leadership
It is not easy to regain public trust once it has been lost. The nation's top prosecutor must have the leadership to rebuild the prosecutorial organization and conduct proper investigations.
Haruo Kasama has retired as prosecutor general and been succeeded by Hiroshi Ozu, former superintending prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office.
Following an evidence-tampering and cover-up scandal involving the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office's special investigation unit, Kasama displayed leadership over the past 1-1/2 years in establishing a system to scrutinize prosecutors' investigations, deciding on an ethics code and making audiovisual recordings of interrogations on a trial basis.
Kasama's retirement from the post came after he had set in motion a process to reform the prosecutorial organization.
Yet the true value of the reforms will be tested from now on. The responsibility of the new prosecutor general is extremely grave.
===
Dual purpose of reforms
Through the reforms, the prosecutors office not only has to eradicate internal misconduct but also fulfill its primary mission of maintaining public order by enhancing its investigative capabilities to deal with ever more complicated and sophisticated crimes.
Ozu spent much of his career at the Justice Ministry, a stark contrast to Kasama, who was consistently in the investigative field.
To carry out the prosecutorial reform, which has just started, the first task Ozu has to tackle will likely be to firmly lead prosecutors on the front line of investigations.
A major cause of the scandal was the closed nature of the prosecutors office. It is essential to correct this trait and create an organizational atmosphere that will not lapse into self-righteousness.
A supervision and guidance department, established in July last year in the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office to specialize in probes of internal misconduct, looked into about 170 cases based on information from both within and outside the prosecutors office.
Among the 170 cases, the department issued guidance for improvement in four cases, including one involving an inappropriate remark by a prosecutor during an interrogation.
Regarding the questioning of mentally disabled people, in which the voluntariness of confessions is often questioned, the top prosecutors office has regularly received advice on prosecutorial management from an external committee of experts. These efforts need to be expanded further.
===
Admit mistakes gracefully
On July 10, the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office made an unusual summation and recommendation regarding sentencing, seeking acquittal of a suspect indicted for professional embezzlement. It was made due to a bungled investigation.
We hope such a stance will spread among prosecutors working on the front line of investigations, in which they admit wrongdoing gracefully if errors are found in their attempts to prove something through evidence, without fixating on acquiring a guilty verdict.
However, bar associations and other organizations say the disclosure of evidence by prosecutors is still insufficient.
The prosecutors office was reluctant to disclose evidence during the initial trials regarding the murder of a female employee of Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the murder of a middle school girl in Fukui Prefecture, as well as during sessions of the panels examining requests for retrials in the cases.
In both cases, retrials were granted.
Evidence collected at taxpayers' expense and with public authority is "public property" that does not exclusively belong to the prosecutors office but should be utilized to reveal the truth.
It is necessary to discuss the possibility of greater disclosure of evidence, including showing lists of all evidence to defense counsel.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 23, 2012)
(Jul. 24, 2012)
0 comments:
Post a Comment