UW School of Law > > 여기

Volume 19  |  2010년 6월  |  Issue 3

인도네시아의 변화된 토지권리: 사법과 공법의 섞인 모델



법적 책임, 지적 재산, 유전자 변형 식품: 세계 농업에 끼치는 영향

Kanchana Kariyawasam


한국 텔레비전에 등장하는 할리우드 유령들: 세계시장 관점에서 보는 초상사용권

Hyung Doo Nam


공공복지, 예술적 가치, 국가 이념: 2008 일본 대법원의 Robert Mapplethorpe 외설 판정 분석

Yuri Obata


모리 대 일본: 나고야 고등법원이 평화 속에서 살수 있는 권리를 인정하다.

This piece is a translation of the Nagoya High Court's decision in Mori v. Japan, a case challenging the constitutionality of Japan's deployment of its Self-Defense Forces ("SDF") to the Middle East in connection with the United States-led occupation of Iraq.

The case turned on whether the right to live in peace is a "concrete right" [gutaiteki kenri], meaning a right that can be enforced in court. The plaintiffs argued that the Preamble, Article 9, and the individual rights provided in Chapter III of the Constitution together guarantee the right to live in peace. The government argued that the right to live in peace is merely an abstract concept, not an enforceable right, and therefore the plaintiffs lacked a legal interest in the lawsuit necessary to establish standing.

The Nagoya District Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case without addressing the constitutionality of the deployment under Article 9. However, the district court recognized a concrete aspect of the right to live in peace, reasoning that because peace is the foundation of all human rights making their enjoyment possible, the right to live in peace is enforceable when combined with other human rights provisions.

The Nagoya High Court affirmed the district court and dismissed the appeal on standing grounds, holding that the deployment did not infringe on appellants' right to live in peace. However, the high court stated in dicta that, in certain situations, the right to live in peace is a concrete right. The high court also stated that the integration of the SDF's air transport activities with the use of force by coalition forces in an international military conflict constituted the use of force by the SDF in violation of Article 9. The Nagoya High Court's finding of a violation of Article 9 was the first since the Sapporo District Court's decision in the Naganuma case thirty-five years before, and the first to be entered as a final judgment. The high court's recognition of the right to live in peace was also the first since Naganuma, breaking from a series of lower court decisions that dismissed the right to live in peace as merely an abstract concept. Less than a year later, the Okayama District Court followed the Nagoya High Court in recognizing the right to live in peace in a similar SDF Iraq Deployment case, and provided further detail regarding the right's substance. The Nagoya and Okayama decisions suggest the emergence (or revival) of a new human right in Japan: the right to live in peace.

translation by Hudson Hamilton

홍콩에서 령콕헝 (Leung Kwok Hung) 의 잘못된 적용: 원문상 절대적인 권리의 합리성 조건을 승인하다.

Albert Connor Buchman


실향민들의 이주지원 권리: 대한민국의 공평한 도시 개발을 향하여

Jihye Kim


기후 난민들의 이주지원 필요: National Adaption of Programmes of Action 에 따른 조약을 통해 적절한 토지 자산 보장

Holly D. Lange


Last updated 4/30/2012