Editorial: A decade after legislation, Japan’s security enhanced within constitutional limits
September 22 , 2025
Japan’s Peace and Security Legislation enters its tenth year of enactment. The world today roils in threats to our national security, not only from direct military attack but from acts of terrorism by non-state belligerents and cyber-miscreants to persistent mis- and disinformation operations.The legislation passed in September 2016 was designed to seamlessly address the entire spectrum of security needs from peacetime to war, thus enhancing Japan’s capability not only to deter a potential adversary but respond to an actual assault as well.
Relying on military force alone for deterrence will not prevent conflict—it may, in fact, spark an open arms race. Under Article 9 of its constitution, Japan is prohibited from engaging in a massive buildup of arms and participating in collective defense; it is limited solely to the defense of its homeland and internationally recognized sovereign space.
The capability to respond enhances deterrence: if Japan is attacked, then its Self-Defense Forces (SDF) will act as a shield and the US military acts as the spear, the former serving to support the latter. The Peace and Security Legislation fortified both capabilities in order to safeguard the nation from survival-threatening situations.
What would represent such a situation? If, for example, a foreign warship defending Japan is struck by an adversary in nearby waters, then it can be assumed to pose a clear and imminent threat to Japanese security. The legislation permits the SDF to respond with armed force without actually having to wait to be physically attacked.
Detractors have called the legislation unconstitutional, allegedly paving the way for it to take part in a collective defense activities. But the legislation defines a survival-threating situation as one that “poses a clear danger of fundamentally overturning people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and thus excludes any possibility of collective defense far removed from Japanese shores.
This passage was specifically adopted at Komeito’s insistence, maintaining Article 9’s limitation to the right of self-defense.
