Japan—Human Rights | Research & Encyclopedia Articles

At least until the 1990s, Japan was reluctant to promote human rights in either its domestic or foreign policies, arguably because the very concept of human rights—rights possessed simply by virtue of being human, or standards of human dignity beneath which people may not permit themselves to fall—derives from a Western liberal tradition that is alien to Japan, and indeed to Asia as a whole. But many of the features of modern industrial life—the factory system, post offices, the business suit—were imported from the West, and this did not prevent their rapid assimilation into everyday Asian life. At precisely the time that Western dress and manufacturing techniques were being introduced into Japan in the 1870s and thereafter, there were many across Japan who appreciated and promoted liberal rights ideas and, inspired by them, were critical of government policy. That they did not have more influence has more to do with a deliberate government policy to prevent the free circulation of dissident ideas than an inability to understand them.

During the U.S. occupation of Japan following the end of World War II, the United States aimed to create democratic structures and eliminate the laws and practices that inhibited dissent. The postwar constitution was central to that task. Articles 10 through 40 define a set of human rights more extensive than any such document in the world did at that time. A network of locally appointed but centrally organized volunteers, the Civil Liberties Commissioners, was set up to promote the understanding of these human rights and to mediate in cases of rights infringement. Lawyers, who had previously been under the control of the Ministry of Justice, were converted into a self-governing profession within the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. Their primary duty, according to the Attorney Act of 1949, is "to protect fundamental human rights and to ensure social justice." Although the Civil Liberties Commissioners have been unable to develop a critical role, the legal profession has been pivotal in the development of human-rights practice in Japan. Not only do lawyers publish extensively on human-rights issues, but they also are to be found actively involved in the whole range of rights-promoting activities.

Despite a promising start with the production of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations did not approve the twin international covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights until 1966. Even then they did not become effective until ratified by thirty-five nation-states, which took another ten years. Japan was not among these initial ratifiers; neither was the United States. U.S. policy toward the international promotion of human rights was made clear in the early 1950s when John Foster Dulles, secretary of state from 1952 to 1959, declared the United States to be in favor of the promotion of human rights but through "persuasion, education, and example rather than formal understandings." Throughout the postwar period, Japan's foreign policy was devised within the framework set by the United States. Reflecting this, Japan ratified the two covenants in 1979 when there was evidence of wide international acceptability and President Jimmy Carter was promoting human-rights diplomacy.

Japan has been slow to ratify many of the most important international treaties by comparison with its Asian neighbor, South Korea, and a similarly advanced industrial country, Sweden. The official explanation for this stresses that Japan takes the treaty obligations seriously and makes sure that domestic law is fully consistent with the treaty text before ratification. Nongovernmental groups such as the legal profession contest this. They argue that Japan has repeatedly sought to avoid drawing attention to its poor human-rights record. A careful examination of domestic law does not, for example, explain the long delay in ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and Japan still has not ratified the first optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which would permit appeals by individuals to the Human Rights Committee where domestic institutions failed to provide effective redress in cases of rights infringement by the state.

It is possible to detect a change in policy in the 1990s. Not only did the government ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CERD, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but it also created a committee to produce a policy on human-rights education as part of the U.N. Decade for Human-Rights Education (1995–2004) and a committee to suggest reforms to enable more effective redress in cases of human-rights violations, both located in the prime minister's office. There have also been significant changes in Japan's policy toward burakumin (Japanese who face prejudice and discrimination because of supposed connections with the outcaste groups of the premodern era), Korean residents, women, and Ainu (the non-Japanese indigenous people of Hokkaido). Three factors drive this policy change. Since the early 1990s, Japan has sought a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, and the ministry of foreign affairs has been seeking to win domestic and international support for this. Second, during the 1990s the government submitted several reports to the United Nations that exposed it to international criticism and created an opportunity for domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to express their views on Japan's human-rights practices. The 1993 official report to the United Nations under the ICCPR stimulated twenty-three "counter reports" commenting on some or all of the official statement. Third, in the 1990s the indigenous NGOs sought to develop links with the international movement. Korean groups communicated with fellow Koreans in Seoul and California, Ainu groups came in touch with other "first peoples," and the Buraku Liberation League supported groups that aimed to create transnational human-rights awareness.

Could Japan take a lead in the promotion of human rights within Asia, the only region of the world with no regional framework? It has been constitutionally committed to rights for more than fifty years, and it has ratified the most important U.N. conventions and has an active human-rights NGO community. But the rest of Asia still remembers Japanese imperialism, and the periodic intemperate statements by right-wing politicians do nothing to assuage the fears of other Asian nations. Moreover, while there is increasing tolerance of groups such as the Ainu, Koreans, and immigrant workers, there is still no positive celebration of ethnic plurality. The Japanese government and society remain reluctant supporters of human rights.

Beer, L. W. (1984) Freedom of Expression in Japan. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Goodman, R., and I. Neary, eds. (1996) Case Studies on Human Rights in Japan. Richmond, U.K.: Japan Library.

Neary, I. (2002) Human Rights in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. London: Routledge.

This is the complete article, containing 1,106 words (approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).