Introduction
It is important to note that Japan experienced a major shift in its economy, politics, legal framework, culture, and society as a direct result of World War II. The given analysis will narrowly and specifically focus on the political-legal environment impact of WWII and changes directly linked to the conflict, not changes since WWII. The only reason why Japan remains to be the closest ally of the US is the fact that the latter introduced profound changes in how Japan has functioned legally and politically since WWII. The key implications of the findings are that the United States singlehandedly changed the trajectory of Japan’s political and legal environment from a totalitarian empire to liberal democracy. Thus, the political and legal system changes in a nation can be set up in a manner where the victor’s dominance can be ensured for decades in the future.
The main concepts employed in the given analysis include Romano-Germanic and American Laws, liberal democracy, constitutional monarchy, and parliamentary government. The competing paradigms include realism and liberalism pertaining to the question at hand. The assessment will reveal how a great victorious power in the face of the United States had a significant influence on the restructuring of the political-legal environment of Japan as a direct result of WWII. The question will be answered by providing historical evidence of changes in Japanese laws, government, and politics after the war. In sum, the argument will provide a literature review on what constitutes realism in international politics, followed by a presentation of evidence on the political-legal transformation of Japan under US supervision. Thesis: The hegemonic US occupation of Japan after WWII jumpstarted American liberal-democratic political and legal reforms in foundational Japanese legal documents reducing the Emperor’s powers built on the groundwork of Romano-Germanic and Japanese law indicating realism.
Background and Literature Review
The setting of the problem of Japan’s quick transformation from an imperialist monarchy into a liberal democracy is that the United States was the prime hegemon. It was a great power dictating how the political-legal environment of Japan must change for it to have a place in world affairs as a direct result of WWII. The international system has always been mainly anarchic and offensively realistic, which means that there is no single unified mode of authority to enforce and impose regulations, treaties, and human rights on a sovereign nation. It should be noted that the explanation to the question lies in the anarchical nature of the international system, which is reflected in the theory of offensive realism. The five tenets of the latter framework include international anarchy, offensive military capability, uncertainty of intentions, survival, and rationality (Alenezi 2). In other words, it is difficult for the international community to hold governments of sovereign states accountable for violations of treaties, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation because the system is anarchic. In addition, the great powers are the main actors and catalyzers of world politics, among which the US can be highlighted.
The key debate pertinent to the topic is between liberalism and realism. The former considers human beings to be respectful and rational, whereas the latter views societies as generally brutish conquerors. It is stated that “Mearsheimer contends that the combination of all his five assumptions pushes states to maximize their relative power as opposed to seeking an ‘appropriate’ amount of power” (Orsi et al. 35). In other words, the great actors, who possess the highest offensive military capability, will not only defend their survival but also expand their sphere of influence as hegemons. In addition, “Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, however, makes a distinction between global hegemons and regional hegemons” (Orsi et al. 35). In this case, the United States is the closest candidate for a global hegemon spreading neoliberalism, whereas Russia and China are the second closest. The latter two best fit into the description of regional hegemons, which control the sphere of influence over different parts of Asia and some African nations when it comes to China’s economic power.
Considering the fact that great powers and hegemons seek to survive and expand their sphere of influence, other nations under the influence of hegemons are unable to act solely on their interests but have to take sides with one or several hegemons. International organizations, such as United Nations or Human Rights Watch, have no power to enforce the adherence to treaties, human rights, and environmental regulations because they have no military offensive capabilities. For example, the United States can promote these issues over its spheres of influence, such as Japan, to a certain extent but cannot force Russia or China to do the same. Similarly, Russia is capable of enforcing its interests in its sphere of influence, such as Central Asia or some Eastern European nations. In other words, if human rights issues or environmental regulations do not benefit Russia’s or China’s interests due to dependence on fossil fuels, they and nations in their sphere of influence will not adhere to these matters.
Thus, war always has an adverse impact that deteriorates the livelihoods of the citizens touching all aspects of life. This reminds the next generations that war never brings profit. According to Komisarchik et al., the suffering and losses received by the nation that won the war suffered as much as the nation that lost the war (27). Of the many wars, World War II is said to have had the broadest impact in various fields, including the Japanese’s economic, social, and cultural livelihoods.
Argument
Romano-Germanic and American Laws
Firstly, the victorious United States influenced Japan as a direct result of WWII in the form of a hegemon by implementing Romano-Germanic and American laws. American law was asserted in all areas of the life of defeated Japan, in particular, the post-war Japanese joint stock law. The Monopoly Act mirrored the American antitrust acts in full and had a significant impact in the area of criminal justice. In the Code of Criminal Procedure of Japan in 1948, the application of the adversarial principle was expanded, and the institution of a preliminary hearing of cases was excluded. During this period, a set of paramount laws was adopted that regulate social relations to this day, undergoing minor changes.
Despite the total introduction of American law into the Japanese legal system, its influence was not consistent enough. The fact is that most of the institutions of the main branches of Japanese law remained on the principles of the Romano-Germanic legal family. In Japanese law, the main features of the Romano-Germanic family are both the very content of positive law and the system of sources of Japanese law, the main element of which is codified legislation. Post-war Japanese law actually represented a synthesis of Western legal systems. Purely Japanese norms in the country’s legal system were reduced to a minimum.
In Japan, a codified system has been preserved, mainly consisting of six codes. Judicial precedent, as a characteristic element of the American legal system, has not been established as a source of Japanese law. Thus, the impact of World War II on the state and legal development of Japan was colossal. Japan turned from a conquering power into a defeated country, in which all state power was, in fact, in the hands of the American occupying forces (Tanaka 55). The Japanese state was forced to develop along the American liberal-democratic path. However, in the Japanese legal system, American law, which, although it had significant influence, was synthesized with the already existing Romano-Germanic and Japanese law.
Parliament and Supreme Court
Secondly, the United States acted as a great power and hegemon by restructuring the justice and government systems of Japan. The supreme legislative body was a bicameral parliament consisting of the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. The first chamber was elected for a four-year term and the second for a six-year term, but parliament was limited in power. For example, the Supreme Court of Japan could declare a law passed by Parliament (Chen 78) unconstitutional. Even the Emperor could dissolve the House of Representatives at the request of the Cabinet. The cabinet of ministers headed by the prime minister, elected by the parliament, was proclaimed the supreme executive body of power. The emperor had to formally approve the chosen candidate for the prime minister, who then appointed the rest of the ministers. The Cabinet of Ministers is collectively responsible to the parliament that actually elected it. In the event of a vote of no confidence, the government must either resign or dissolve the House of Representatives by asking the emperor to do so.
The supreme judiciary is represented by the Supreme Court, whose judges are appointed by the cabinet for 10-year terms. The Supreme Court, in order to determine the conformity of the constitution, carried out the verification of laws and other acts. The lower-level judicial bodies were called courts of summary proceedings. Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution declared Japan’s renunciation of war and the threat or use of armed force as a means of settling international disputes (Yamamoto et al. 142). In the criminal legislation, the Law of 1947 excluded crimes against the imperial house, abolished family moral crimes and violations of marital fidelity but introduced severe punishments for war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity (Chen 241). Later, this made it possible to start trials against war criminals in Japan.
American Influence
Thirdly, the United States acted as a hegemon by directly engaging in legal and political changes in Japan by approving or rejecting specific drafts. The American occupation authorities rejected the draft of the new constitution of Japan, which was, in fact, a reworked version of the old constitution of 1889. The US imposed its own draft, which, of course, was based on the US Constitution as a model. Thus, in accordance with the American model, the Constitution of Japan provided for the institution of constitutional supervision. Since the Constitution of 1947 does not define the form of government, the presence of hereditary imperial power and a special mechanism for the interaction of the Parliament with the Cabinet of Ministers gives grounds to define this form as a parliamentary monarchy (Hata et al. 124). The emperor, although he formally remained the ruler of Japan, was significantly limited in his rights. He had the right to appoint the prime minister and supreme judges, promulgate laws, convene and dissolve parliament, and approve the highest state appointments to posts. Thus, the powers of the emperor were significantly limited by law, parliament, and the cabinet of ministers.
After the defeat of Japan in World War II, for a long period, she lost the opportunity to independently determine the vector of her development since the victorious states set the task of eliminating the possibility of the revival of Japanese militarism. And the radical restructuring of the state carried out through reforms, took place, among other things, for this purpose. The leading role in the development of these reforms was played by the United States, which was directly interested in turning Japan from an enemy into a country that shares American values and is an ally. It was necessary to create a solid democratic foundation in the country. The reforms carried out in Japan were aimed at serious democratization (Hata et al. 205). In the process of modernization, it was necessary to eliminate those features that made it possible to establish an authoritarian paramilitary regime. At the same time, the Japanese government did not have the right to independently establish and maintain contact with other states, and Japan’s foreign policy functions were in the hands of the occupation authorities.
WWII as a Foundation of Modern Japan
Fourthly, the United States acted as a great power and hegemon by setting the foundation immediately after WWII, which created modern-day Japan. For Japan, this defeat meant not just a crisis of statehood but its practical destruction. In Japan, occupied by American troops, all state powers were transferred to the commander-in-chief of the US troops, under whom an Advisory Council was organized from representatives of the USSR, Great Britain, and China. There was also a control body, which was the Far Eastern Commission, in which representatives of 11 countries that defeated Japan already took part.
The foundations of the post-war structure of Japan were predetermined by the Potsdam Declaration of the victorious powers of July 26, 1945. According to the Declaration, Japan was demilitarized, which meant that it was deprived of its army and all military structures (Tanaka 86). In October 1945, the American headquarters issued an order to restore all democratic rights and freedoms in Japan. Later, in December 1945, universal suffrage was proclaimed, which was the same for both men and women, and came from the age of 20 (Hata et al. 174). The American authorities initiated the revival of multi-party political life in Japan. The process went so actively that by 1947 there were more than 120 political parties and associations in Japan (Hata et al. 55). Among those revived were the Socialist and Communist parties as well.
Japanese Politics
Fifthly, the United States demonstrated its hegemonic position by establishing the framework for Japanese politics. World War II also had an impact on the political field since the US, which came out victorious, then became a superpower. United States-led Allied forces controlled the country after Japan’s capitulation in 1945, ending World War II and bringing about significant changes (Chong and Xiaoyang Li 200). Japan’s empire was dismantled, it became a democracy, it dismantled and rebuilt its economy, and it dismantled and dismantled its educational system. Moreover, Japanese colonies in east Asia, such as South Korea, China, and the Philippines, regained their independence after the United States oversaw the powerless Japanese, ending World War II.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the US victory over Japan jumpstarted American liberal-democratic political and legal reforms in foundational Japanese legal documents reducing the Emperor’s powers to ceremonial ones built on the groundwork of Romano-Germanic and Japanese law. Politically, Japan lost its colonial states, such as South Korea, and also its empire git disbanded. Generally, World War II saw Japan transform from a stable and independent country to one that was dilapidated.
The implications of the learned observations are that the United States singlehandedly changed the trajectory of Japan’s political and legal environment from a totalitarian empire to liberal democracy. It means that legal system changes in a nation can be set up in a manner where the victor’s dominance can be ensured for decades in the future. The sole reason why Japan remains to be the closest ally of the US is the fact that the latter introduced profound changes in how Japan has functioned legally and politically since WWII. More information and research are needed on specific legal levers of power held by the United States over its allies and partners, especially the ones defeated by it. Therefore, more studies are necessary on how superpowers of the world use nations’ political-legal frameworks to ensure their allegiance and partnership longitudinally.
Works Cited
Alenezi, Danah A. “US Rebalance Strategy to Asia and US-China Rivalry in South China Sea from The Perspective of the Offensive Realism.” Review of Economics and Political Science, vol. 1, 2020, pp. 1-14.
Chen, Albert. Public Law in East Asia. Routledge, 2017.
Chong, Terence Tai Leung, and Xiaoyang Li. “Understanding the China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Scenario.” Economic and Political Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019, pp. 185-202.
Hata, Hiroyuki, et al. Constitutional Law in Japan. Wolters Kluwer, 2022.
Komisarchik, Mayya, Maya Sen, and Yamil Velez. “The Political Consequences of Ethnically Targeted Incarceration: Evidence from Japanese-American Internment During WWII.” Historical Events, vol. 3, no. 10, 2020, Web.
Orsi, Davide, et al. Realism in Practice: An Appraisal. E-International Relations Publishing, 2018.
Tanaka, Yuki. Hidden Horrors: Japanese war Crimes in World War II. Routledge, 2019.
Yamamoto, Eric K., et al. Race, Rights, and Reparations: Law and the Japanese American Incarceration. Aspen Publishing, 2021.