March 14, 2020
The Tokyo District Court on March 13 rejected plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces based on the controversial national security legislation, the so-called “war laws”.
In the court battle against the national government, the plaintiffs also demanded state compensation by claiming that the unconstitutional war laws trampled on their right to live in peace and caused them mental anguish. Their damage claims were rejected as well by the court which acknowledged that the right to live in peace is not a concrete right protected by law and that the war legislation did not infringe on the plaintiffs’ rights in the first place. The court stated that the mental suffering cited by the plaintiffs is something that they should endure.
The district court avoided judging whether the security legislation is unconstitutional or not.
The plaintiffs’ legal team on the same day released a statement criticizing the court ruling for paying no attention to the seriousness of the call made by the plaintiffs and how much risk the SDF dispatch can pose on Japan with regional tensions rising in the Middle East. Terai Kazuhiro, who is a member of the legal team and the chief of a nationwide network of lawyers supporting the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the war laws, said that it is disappointing that the court ruling shied away from the issue of the war laws’ constitutionality. He added that the plaintiffs will appeal to a higher court and keep working to win a victory.
Past related article:
> More than 500 citizens sue gov’t over war laws [April 27, 2016]
In the court battle against the national government, the plaintiffs also demanded state compensation by claiming that the unconstitutional war laws trampled on their right to live in peace and caused them mental anguish. Their damage claims were rejected as well by the court which acknowledged that the right to live in peace is not a concrete right protected by law and that the war legislation did not infringe on the plaintiffs’ rights in the first place. The court stated that the mental suffering cited by the plaintiffs is something that they should endure.
The district court avoided judging whether the security legislation is unconstitutional or not.
The plaintiffs’ legal team on the same day released a statement criticizing the court ruling for paying no attention to the seriousness of the call made by the plaintiffs and how much risk the SDF dispatch can pose on Japan with regional tensions rising in the Middle East. Terai Kazuhiro, who is a member of the legal team and the chief of a nationwide network of lawyers supporting the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the war laws, said that it is disappointing that the court ruling shied away from the issue of the war laws’ constitutionality. He added that the plaintiffs will appeal to a higher court and keep working to win a victory.
Past related article:
> More than 500 citizens sue gov’t over war laws [April 27, 2016]
