One can conceptually distinguish the security of the state from the security of its nationals by defining the security of an entity as the absence of threats to the values it upholds. There is no doubt that the former is in serious tension with the latter. Would not this tension undermine not only the expectation of defense behavior but also the security of the state and that of its nationals? This article aims at theoretically examining the conditions under which these two conflicting securities can be reconciled with each other from the viewpoint of expected defense behavior.

The first section provides an overview of competing reasoning, seemingly in tension, between the protection of the life, person, and properties of the nationals as in “the national security strategy” and the endurance of the sacrifice to the life, person, and properties of the nationals as in “the theory of endurance” articulated by the court. The second section shows that Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented policy, a declaratory policy under which Japan pledges not to use force except in the phase of expelling armed attack, is not free from the problem of trade-off between credible threat and credible promise. It follows that internal legal-institutional arrangements (compensation for the sacrifice to the life, person, and properties of the nationals, as a result of use of force in deviation from exclusively defense-oriented policy, in particular) would contribute to avoiding irrational war by making it impossible to arbitrarily deviate from the external commitment. And the third section discusses the remaining limits of expected defense behavior.

Security studies have traditionally focused on the national security with military concerns. However, since the end of the Cold War, there has been deepening and broadening in the scope of security studies, including views such as human security. Today and in the future, when the various assumptions of society are being reexamined, whose and which security issue is important? In order to answer this question, the classification of “human” and “non-human” is important. Traditional security studies have generally focused on threats assuming that humans become threats. Today, however, it will be necessary to discuss “non-human” in the context of security, as opposed to traditional “human.” Environmental issues and technology, such as AI, should be positioned as “non-human” to reveal a structural expansion of security matters. Based on the above problem, the research question is: What are the threats to national security and human security today and in the future? The paper argues that environmental issues and technology, such as AI, could pose a threat to national security and human security. It aims to bridge these security ideas by discussing national security and human security in the same context, which have traditionally been discussed separately. The paper aims to update the security paradigm in light of the characteristics of contemporary or future challenges. It will question the assumptions of national security and human security and examine threats to security from environmental issues and AI.

This paper examines the transnational struggles for solidarity among Indigenous peoples in the United States, African Americans, and people in Palestine, who have all lived through the violence and injustice of settler colonialism and racial capitalism over time. Given current increasing tensions in the Middle East, the paper focuses mainly on the grassroots activism initiated by an Indigenous non-profit organization, The Red Nation (TRN), and its participants’activities through various forms of media, including, for example, their podcasts and a teach-in event. I would argue that the national security policies established by the settler-colonial states represent ongoing political-economic projects to maintain colonialism and racism. Those projects have reproduced fundamental structures of violence and oppression, dehumanizing and criminalizing the Indigenous populations fighting to protect their homelands. As TRN’s activism clearly indicates, Indigenous peoples and their allies, in the present and the past, have developed solidarities in their daily lives, social and civil rights movements, and academic endeavors. By developing a diverse range of dialogues, they have been trying to learn from each other, while sharing the different contexts of stories of resistance. Ultimately, they challenge the historical and structural issues that are intertwined at and across different geographic scales. Their dialogues have represented and conveyed the “intersectionality of struggles,” an important concept articulated by radical feminist scholar Angela Davis.

For a century, the Marshall Islands was ruled by Germany, Japan and the United States and was subjected to militarization. Following the Japanese military occupation in 1914, the Marshall Islands became the League of Nations mandate where Japan was granted the Mandated Power in 1921. In 1944, the U.S. military through the Pacific War occupied the Marshall Islands that later became the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands where the U.S. was granted the Trusteeship in 1947. During 1946 and 1958, 67 nuclear weapons were experimented on Bikini and Enewetak atolls of the Marshall Islands, followed by numerous inter-continental missiles tested in Kwajalein atoll since 1959. These military operations prevailed for decades, despite repeated petitions to the United Nations organizations by representatives of the Marshallese victims who were suffering from serious health, environmental, and socio-cultural adversities. This phenomenon represents a case of structural, direct, and cultural violence by the post-war international architectures and their notion of “security”. I examine how victims from Rongelap and Kwajalein confronted the violence and mobilized the support of the Nuclear Free Independent Pacific Movement (NFIP). I also inquire into the roles played by the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC). Employing the sociological concept of “Public Religion” by Jose Casanova, I explain the role of “transnational” public religion performed by the PCC and WCC, which provided organizational and spiritual pillars to the victims and NFIP. Distinct from the old religion that legitimizes State and Authority, the PCC and the WCC, as transnational public religion, performed a new role of religion embedded in civil societies. The voiceless victims, through the PCC and the WCC, gained access to, and voices in, the international arena.

Feminist peace education researcher, Betty A. Reardon, dedicated her pioneer work to addressing peace and security through the lenses of peace education and feminism, with an aim of promoting transformative changes in society and individuals’ thinking and behavior.

This paper elucidates the theories and practices of security based on feminist peace research that emphasizes transformation and learning. It delves into Reardon’s endeavors as an educator and researcher, to change the militarized security paradigm, encompassing educational initiatives, redefinition of security, and direct actions for systemic change.

Feminist peace research identifies militarized national security as an oppressive system perpetuating gender oppression and war, by reinforcing hierarchical relations and fostering “otherness.” It recognizes the inseparable and interlinked nature of militarism and gender power dynamics.

The feminist framework of security is founded on the principle of realizing “the well-being of persons, communities, and the planet which sustain them,” prioritizing the cultivation of constructive relationships that neither harm nor create “others.”

At its theoretical core lies the concept of “organic peace,” as articulated by Reardon, representing a dynamic learning process of transforming conflict into a source of growth that respects the dignity and well-being of all life.

Grounded in a holistic perspective, it acknowledges the interconnectedness and equal value of all life within a single system; as well as the interconnected nature of the challenges we encounter.

This article further examines practices of feminist security by analyzing the activities of a U.S. feminist peace movement, Women for Genuine Security (WGS) that emphasize context and relationships to transform unequal structures from within the movement. Termed “organic security,” these feminist theories and practices constitute an ongoing process of learning and building a peace system that avoids reproducing violence or potential threat.

The Japanese government is pursuing an unprecedented military buildup in the name of “fundamentally reinforcing defense capability” under the three security documents, including the National Security Strategy approved by the cabinet in December 2022. The long-held “exclusively defense-oriented policy” under Article 9, the war-renouncing clause of the 1946 Constitution, was fundamentally changed.

Nearly eighty years since Japan’s defeat in WW2, the positive recognition of the military “deterrence” concept has largely been mainstreamed in the country. Against this, the author aims to critically examine the concept of military-centered security therein, and explore potential ways out from it.

Based on the recommendations and statements put forward by the Heiwa Koso Teigen Kaigi, or the Peace Plans Panel, an independent experts’ panel launched in October 2022 co-chaired by the author, this article firstly discusses how a military buildup does not lower but rather raises the risk of war. It then examines the devastating consequences of a possible war in East Asia, and stresses the need to avoid such a war by disarmament, tension easing, and confidence building measures.

The author then offers five dimensions of fundamental criticisms of military power: (1) the arms race and security dilemma, (2) opportunity costs of the military, (3) the relationship between deterrence and threat of use of force, (4) militarism versus human rights and democracy, and (5) inability of the military to bring any resolution of underlying problems.

For a way out, paths should include, firstly, the democratization of policy making processes in the field of defense and security; secondly, the promotion of dialogue to build confidence in East Asia; and, thirdly, reclaiming basic principles such as the human right to live in peace and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

It is dangerous for Japan, based on a binary perception of the world as “the West versus the rest”, to merely rush down the single pathway of “strengthening the alliance” with the U.S. Japan should instead strengthen its ties with Asian neighbors and non-aligned countries, and pursue an open, multidimensional security in which civil society participates.

This paper points out the dangers of military alliances concerning the regional security concept proposed by the Peace Plan.

Although the causes of the current heightened military tension in the region are rarely reported in the Japanese media, it is important to understand the mutual influence of the many U.S.-South Korean military exercises that have taken place since President Yun took office, and the missile and satellite launch tests conducted by North Korea in response to these exercises. The Taiwan issue also emphasizes the possibility of a Chinese armed invasion, but it is also true that U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan have intensified due to provocations against China, such as the visit of House Speaker Pelosi and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Of course, Japan's buildup to an enemy base attack capability has also played a part in the intensification of tensions.

The U.S. military alliance assumes China, North Korea, and Russia to be adversaries, a cause of mutual distrust. As for the OSCE in Western Europe and Russia, its neutrality was questioned in the war in Ukraine and it did not function to deter conflict. In the case of Asia, not only Japan and South Korea but also the Philippines and Thailand have military alliances with the U.S. The AUKUS and QUAD networks are also creating tensions in the South China Sea. The challenge for the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) is to implement effective policies against the military alliances.

Regional security initiatives also need to work with the BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement, whose central concept is nonalignment and multilateralism, and which is distinct from military alliances. Regarding the involvement of civil society in regional security, this paper also emphasizes the creation of international networks among multilateral citizens and the human rights approach of the right to peace as a security principle.

We took issue with the revision of the three security-related documents in 2022, including a significant change in the interpretation of the Constitution to include counterstrike capability, which had previously been said to be inadmissible under Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, in the self-defense capability under Article 9, and explored the possibility of the “Peace Initiative Proposal”(2023) presented as an alternative to such an arms-proliferation posture.

Miho Aoi’s report on “What Constitutional Theory can do about Peace: After the Revision of the three security-related documents in 2022” pointed out the importance of a citizen-oriented conception of peace, not only as a matter of logic, but also from the perspective of how it can demonstrate responsiveness to the practical context of national security. The report was not only a matter of logic, but also of how to demonstrate responsiveness to the real context of security. Based on his recognition of the “weaknesses and dangers of military power,” the report by Akira Kawasaki, “Breaking free from the “myth of deterrence,” identifies the following concrete steps: Peace and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, Stabilization of Japan-China relations, Prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons, Confidence building and citizen diplomacy for conflict prevention, Citizen diplomacy for confidence-building and conflict prevention, etc. All of these are important, but they are not “responsive” to actual invasion scenarios. This paper raises the question of the connection between Civilian-Based Defense as a non-military security theory based on resistance by unarmed citizens and the “Peace Initiative Proposal”(2023), and notes that a public opinion survey by KIIS in Ukraine, which is under Russian aggression, includes a number of Civilian- Based Defense perspectives, and refers to Ukrainian citizens’ responses to this survey.