How to Overcome the Problem of “Policy Debate without Policy Effect Debate” ? Collective Security and Japan Self Defense Forces
2019 Volume 52 Pages 79-97
Details
2019 Volume 52 Pages 79-97
This paper aims to indicate that discussions on policy effects regarding dispatching Japan Self Defense Forces (SDF) abroad for collective security seem to have hardly taken place in the National Diet over the past quarter of a century. It also intends to promote the revitalization of policy debate through showing disputing points that should be concretely discussed in the Diet. In general, policy debate should include discussion of both whether implementation of the policy is legally permitted (legality debate) , and whether implementation leads to the achievement of the expected goals (policy effect debate) . This is because there are policies that are legal but ineffective and those that are effective but illegal. However, almost all discussions of joining in collective security in the Diet have been centered on a legality debate.
On collective security, experts have mainly discussed (i) whether the deployment of forces influences peacekeeping and peacebuilding in intervened states, (ii) whether the deployment of forces has a harmful effect on intervened states, and (iii) whether the definition of policy effect is appropriate in the first place.
Regarding these disputing points, the debates are still on-going. On the other hand, in the Diet, it appears that policy effects have been addressed as if they were simply obvious. If one is to support the active deployment of the SDF to missions abroad, an assessment of policy effects should be presented as its basis. However, their discussions have focused on the interpretation of Article 9. It has been a “policy debate without policy effect debate.”
Considering this, this paper recommends that the Diet start an assessment of the policy effects of SDF deployment in past cases, based on the three points of dispute mentioned above. After the assessment of past cases, it will be possible for the Diet to carry out a “policy debate with both legality debate and policy effect debate.”
