Unless I’m mistaken on one or more facts, after the unconditional surrender of Japan in August 1945, and the subsequent deposing and execution for war crimes of Japan’s top leaders, Japan more or less did not possess an independent government until the drawing up and adopting of its postwar constitution. So in the interim when the USA was governing Japan, how was this governance styled under US constitutional law? To my naive understanding the Eighteenth Century Framers of the constitution presumed that even a defeated enemy still retained an independent government, and that they never anticipated the “total surrender” doctrine of annihilating a regime; at most, there would be a rapid deposition with new rulers recognized as the “rightful” government.
Was Japan now a US territory? Was some token rump of the pre-surrender government supposedly what the USA was treating with? Did Japan revert to a monarchy in the person of the Emperor (who was taking orders from MacArthur)? IOW, from the standpoint of what constitutional powers the US Federal government had, [edited] what was the status of an indefinitely occupied (but not ceded or annexed) foreign territory?
To be clear, the emperor was not deposed, although he did have to acknowledge publicly that he was not divine. His continued presence as head of state, if not head of the government, was a symbol of Japan’s continued existence as a sovereign state. It was under military occupation by the allied powers (mostly the US, with some help from Britain) but it was not owned by the allies or any individual other country.
The federal authority under which US forces operated in occupied Japan was entirely military, i.e. the physical occupation of a defeated enemy. Similar provisions operated in defeated Germany and Austria, although the details worked out differently, and the actual occupations were shorter.
The allied military in Japan were charged with keeping the peace, demilitarizing the country, helping the civilian population and economy recover from the effects of war, and helping to establish a stable, democratic government (and not so incidentally to keep them from becoming communist or coming under the influence of the Soviet Union). In the 20 months between the beginning of occupation and the adoption of the post-war constitution, the military were responsible for a lot of day-to-day government-like decisions, but they were still operating as a military force, not a civilian government. Once there was a legitimate civilian government, the role of the military took a step back from day-to-day governance to an oversight role. That role ended in 1952 with the Treaty of San Francisco.
My understanding is that Douglas MacArthur was the de facto head of government, operating in tandem with Emperor Hirohito, who continued on as head of state. What’s unclear to me is to what extent MacArthur was operating on his own vs. following Truman’s orders and policies. My guess is that, given MacArthur’s eventual firing by Truman for insubordination (yes, I know that was regarding the Korean War and not the reconstruction of Japan), MacArthur was probably running things as he saw fit rather than as a mere envoy or caretaker operating under orders from Washington.
The legal state of war between the United States and Japan did not end in September 1945, but rather in 1952 with the Treaty of San Francisco. For those 7 years, the United States ruled Japan as a military occupation of enemy territory during times of war. Military occupation was not a foreign concept in the 1940s or in the 1780s.
Okay, “state of war” covers a lot so that technically answers my question. Although calling it a “war” seven years after the shooting stopped sounds like a sophistry.
As stated in the Constitution of Japan, the Emperor is “the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people” and derives his position from “the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.”
“State of war” is not synonymous with shooting. Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. He did not attack the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany the same day. What the declaration did was legitimize a variety of conditions in national and international law that were not legal in normal times.
Similarly, peace talks may stop the shooting but the state of war lives on until a new government is formed. It’s not like flipping a switch. Technically, the Palestinian areas conquered by Israel in 1967 are still under military occupation. The 1952 Treaty of San Francisco ended the state of war. This wasn’t sophistry but a logical if inevitably clumsy way for modern nation-states to operate.
Likewise, active fighting stopped in World War I on November 11, 1918, but the war didn’t end until the treaty of Versailles in June of the following year.
So your position is that a war started without a formal declaration of war still needs a formal peace treaty to end?
By that same logic, are we still at war with China as well?
Don’t even get me started on the Battle of New Orleans (hint: the conventional contrarian wisdom that the war was already over is demonstrably false, and not just by reference to all the fighting that was still going on).
The U.S. never declared war on North Korea. It provided forces as part of a military coalition under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council. (Russia was boycotting then or else this couldn’t have happened.)
The shooting stopped with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement by the UN, China, and North Korea. But since North Korea refused to accept the legitimate existence of South Korea, they are still technically in a state of war.
Whether a state of war exists between them and the U.S. is unclear; the Kims may have said so at some point but the U.S. was never, again technically, a party in the first place. Various rapprochements over the years has meant that North Korea focuses its anger on South Korea and that no official state of war exists between us (U.S.) and them, although a Kim could change the situation overnight.
I don’t know why it goes on about “internationally recognized head of state” other than that’s what most people think. The constitution states, and it’s quoted in that Wiki entry, the sovereign power reside with the people of Japan.
The prime minister is the head of government. The people of the country, as a whole, are the sovereign entity, the head of state.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I find the legal issues, especially regarding citizenship, during the post-war occupation to be fascinating when focused on the occupation government of Okinawa.
Of which the Emperor is the in-person avatar, when one is needed for ceremonial and representative duties. If you want to shake Wiki articles at each other, here is mine:
A head of state is the public persona of a sovereign state.[1] The name given to the office of head of state depends on the country’s form of government and any separation of powers; the powers of the office in each country range from being also the head of government to being little more than a ceremonial figurehead.
A head of state is the highest-ranking official in a sovereign state, playing a critical role within various governmental frameworks such as republics, monarchies, and federations. The position is characterized by two essential traits: the head of state must attain their role through recognized legal and political processes, and they must be acknowledged internationally as a legitimate representative of their nation. The powers and responsibilities of heads of state can differ significantly; they may engage in domestic duties, represent their country abroad, and participate in treaty signings.
Globally, heads of state can range from powerful leaders in strong presidential systems to figureheads with limited authority in parliamentary systems or constitutional monarchies. In some nations, the head of state may also serve as the head of government, while in others, these roles are distinct. Additionally, the position can vary widely in terms of influence and personal status, influenced by cultural, political, and historical contexts. Notable exceptions include governments in exile during conflicts and the evolving recognition of entities without formal statehood, highlighting the complexity and adaptability of head of state roles in response to global changes.