Constitutional Controversies: Rethinking the Story of the Imposed Japanese Constitution - Analysis and Transition of Constitutional Drafts 1945~1947 -

Abstract

The paper examines the historical context, textual evolution, and impact of the Japanese Constitution, particularly focusing on the human rights articles, to contribute to the theory of imposed constitutions. The theory of imposed constitution is the negative claim that the Japanese Constitution was forcibly introduced to Japan by the General Headquarters (GHQ), which oversaw the reconstruction of Japan as the representative of the Allied Powers after World War II. However, many discussions between the Japanese government and GHQ were conducted to write drafts of the Constitution, and the new Constitution was set up with their agreement. Is it accurate to criticize the Japanese Constitution and call it an "imposed constitution"? This paper examines the historical background of the Japanese Constitution in Chapter 1, then key findings of analysis and text mining of the prewar Japanese Constitution, three constitutional drafts, and the current Constitution are shown in Chapter 2. In addition, changes in human rights in each document and actual society after the establishment of the Constitution are studied in Chapter 3. From these studies, it is possible to observe important information such as the similarities between the GHQ Draft and the Japanese Constitution, the changes in each document, the expansion of human rights, and their complexity. The research concludes that labeling the Japanese Constitution as an “imposed constitution” oversimplifies because of its complex evolution and the substantial human rights advancements it facilitated. It is essential to avoid the simplistic and dichotomous debate of whether the Constitution was imposed or not. It offers insights into the debate of the imposed constitution, its historical importance, and contemporary relevance amidst growing calls for constitutional reform.