Security Law Unconstitutional Lawsuit The plaintiff's appeal dismisses Tokyo District Court

Security Law Unconstitutional Lawsuit Plaintiff's Appeal Dismissed Tokyo District Court Nov. 7 18:42

In a trial that citizens and scholars alleged that the security-related laws enacted four years ago were in violation of the Constitution, the Tokyo District Court issued a ruling to reject the appeal and did not judge whether it was in violation of the Constitution.

About 1,500 citizens and scholars said that the security-related laws that allowed the exercise of the right to collective self-defense were enacted four years ago. Asked the country for compensation.

In a ruling on the 7th, President Tatsuro Maezawa of the Tokyo District Court said, “Peace is an abstract concept, and various ideas and beliefs can be seen in various ways, and the means and methods for ensuring peace are constantly changing. It was wide and varied depending on the complicated international situation. The constitution rejected the plaintiff's appeal, pointing out that the right to live peacefully for the people cannot be interpreted as a concrete right. .

Also, as to whether or not the security-related laws are in violation of the constitution, “Unconstitutional examination is conducted only when necessary to draw a conclusion of a specific case, and there is no reason to make a constitutional decision on this matter.” I did not judge.

According to the plaintiff's defense team, a similar class action was filed in 22 district courts nationwide, and in April, the Sapporo district court dismissed the lawsuit.

Ministry of Defense "I understand"

The Ministry of Defense commented, “We take the understanding of the country's claims as having been understood by the court.”

Defense team "Language judgment"

In a post-judgment interview, attorney Kazuhiro Terai of the plaintiff's defense team said, “It is a linguistic ruling that doesn't confront the plaintiff who has continued the trial with fear of war. The constitution, human rights, and peace "The judicial to be protected has abandoned responsibility," he criticized strongly and revealed the policy to appeal.