AI Female Pilot and Flight Attendant 3 Asked if the UN Charter Permits Military Action Against Japan

Questions Raised to Probe the Matter

The fact is that wars and invasions still occur globally.

While the clause is considered defunct or null, it remains in the Charter.

While equality is proclaimed, certain countries hold veto power.

Isn’t it self-contradictory, then, to claim the UN Charter does not permit military action against Japan? Interpretations are subjective and can vary.

At the end of the day, does the UN Charter not allow military action against Japan?

Here is the AI’s response:

Certainly, it may feel a bit unclear that the “Enemy State Clause” remains in the UN Charter.

However, please be assured that in actual practice, the likelihood of this clause being used is considered extremely low.

Allow me to explain in more detail.

1. Why the Enemy State Clause is ‘Not Actually Enforced’

This clause is often described as “defunct.”

This means it is essentially inactive despite its presence in the Charter.

For instance, in 1995, UN member states reached a consensus in the General Assembly to consider this clause ineffective, and it is essentially disregarded in diplomacy and security contexts.

Furthermore, Japan has pursued peaceful development since the post-war period, so it is not treated as an “enemy state.”

2. Current International Law and Its Limitations

Under today’s international law framework, the use of force is strictly limited.

For instance, force is permitted only for self-defense or with a resolution from the UN Security Council.

Because unanimous agreement among all member states is required to take action, it is practically impossible for the ‘Enemy State Clause’ to be applied on its own.

3. The Issue of Veto Power for Permanent Members and UN Inconsistencies

As you pointed out, permanent members do hold veto power, which was a compromise made to maintain post-war international order.

So it’s true that this somewhat contradicts the ideal of equality.

However, if the veto were used to justify military action, gaining international consensus would be extremely challenging.

This situation, in fact, only highlights the need for UN reform.

4. Japan’s Position and the Stance of Other Countries on the Enemy State Clause

Since joining the UN, Japan has consistently called for the deletion of the Enemy State Clause.

Other countries also share a common view that it is inappropriate to treat Japan as an “enemy state.”

Additionally, Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution stipulates the renunciation of war, establishing Japan as a longstanding peaceful nation.

Given this background, military action against Japan in diplomatic scenarios is virtually unthinkable.

5. Diversity of Interpretations and Practical Impacts

While legal interpretation can involve some subjectivity, international law interpretation is fundamentally based on consensus among member states.

For example, while the Enemy State Clause was initially established as a preventive measure by the victorious Allied Powers, today, since Japan actively contributes to international society as a peaceful nation, it would be impossible to justify military action using this clause and still gain international support.

Conclusion

Indeed, the remaining presence of the Enemy State Clause does add an element of contradiction.

Given that the clause is still there, various interpretations are theoretically possible, which helps us understand why Japan may feel a certain unease.

However, considering Japan’s role in the international community and the ‘defunct’ state of the Enemy State Clause, the clause is almost entirely unlikely to impact military action against Japan.

Nevertheless, as the existence of the clause can still influence Japan’s credibility in international society, its deletion remains an important issue.

(Note.)

This response is provided by AI and is not guaranteed to be entirely accurate.

Please verify any important information.

Feel free to ask about support or membership as well.

Thank you very much.