From the Enemy State Clauses to Planet of the Apes
At the United Nations General Assembly, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called for the abolition of the “Enemy State Clauses,” prompting a backlash from China.
What are the “Enemy State Clauses”?
The UN Charter still contains provisions known as the “Enemy State Clauses,” which were originally directed at countries that had been defeated in World War II, such as Japan and Germany. These provisions are understood to allow, under certain circumstances, exceptional measures—including the use of force—against former enemy states without authorization from the UN Security Council.
Taken literally, these provisions appear to allow any country to attack Japan without the approval of the UN Security Council. That would be an extraordinarily alarming provision.
(Note: Today, these provisions are generally regarded as obsolete and effectively inoperative. Japan and Germany have called for their removal on the grounds that retaining them is discriminatory.)
Now, let us deliberately try an “argument from the contrary” based on these provisions.
The supposed rule: “If the target is a former enemy state, it may be attacked without Security Council authorization.”
The argument from the contrary: “If the target is not a former enemy state, an attack without Security Council authorization is unlawful.”
In other words, this line of reasoning leads to the seemingly straightforward conclusion that any attack against a country other than a former enemy state would require authorization from the UN Security Council, without exception.
(Of course, there is no real need to resort to such an argument, because Article 2(4) of the UN Charter already establishes the fundamental principle prohibiting the threat or use of force against other states.)
Now consider Ukraine, which Russia has attacked, and countries such as Venezuela and Iran, which the United States has attacked. None of these countries was a “former enemy state” in the context of World War II. Therefore, according to this deliberately constructed argument from the contrary, military attacks against these countries without authorization from the UN Security Council should not be permissible.
Yet the permanent members of the Security Council cling to provisions that may serve their own interests—such as the supposed right to use force against former enemy states—while completely ignoring the rules that would emerge from applying the same logic in reverse. They simply do whatever suits them.
If China invokes the Enemy State Clauses to criticize Japan’s actions, then, by the same logic, it should also criticize the actions of the United States and Russia. That would at least be a consistent and fair approach.
Whatever the reason, war is an unacceptable act. No matter how many noble justifications are offered, they are ultimately arguments made by political leaders who remain safely removed from the battlefield. Soldiers sent to war are treated as mere pawns by those in power, losing the lives they might otherwise have lived and the happiness they might otherwise have found.
If war really has to be fought, perhaps political leaders should settle their disputes in a one-on-one death match. Then not a single ordinary citizen would have to be harmed. Innocent people should not be dragged into the power struggles of those who govern them.
Conclusion
If one claims that the Enemy State Clauses provide a special privilege to attack certain countries, then, by the same argument from the contrary, the use of force without Security Council authorization against countries not covered by those clauses should constitute a violation of the UN Charter.
How ironic—and disturbing—that Security Council members themselves should commit such flagrant violations of the rules they helped create. Will the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, eventually follow the path toward collapse?
There is a familiar phrase: “Learn from history.” Yet today’s political leaders invoke slogans about restoring some vague “glory of the past,” without making clear which past they mean, while failing to learn the lessons of history and repeating its tragedies.
If this state of lawlessness continues, perhaps the day when our world becomes Planet of the Apes is not so far away.
