Japan was under military occupation. The occupation was run by MacArthur as a military commander. The commander-in-chief of the armed forces was the president. If MacArthur refused a direct order from the president he could be — and of course eventually was — removed.
Technically, there was no final peace treaty with Germany till 1990.
And that demonstrates why the term “war” is largely meaningless in modern international law, having been replaced by “armed conflict”. The old notions of a state of war beginning with a declaration of war and ending with a peace treaty are obsolete in international law as it stands today. In the German example, in particular, it would be ridiculous to argue that “technically” a state of war existed until 1990 (or 1991, when the remaining provisions of the “Two Plus Four” Agreement) - the Western part of the country was a NATO ally.
Well said. The legal term “war” is obsolete.
In addition to all of @Schnitte’s good points …
We now have non-state and sub-state actors (Hamas, Al Qaeda, the former Irish Republican Army) who are not internationally recognized governments, yet are quite willing and able to engage in wide-ranging armed conflict with such formal governments.
When you are at “war” with a gang, and it’s at “war” with you, maybe the term needs rework or retirement.
Truman claimed the authority to commit US forces as part of its U.N. treaty obligations; Congress never formally approved the war but tacitly cooperated by renewing the draft and approving funding. But even at the time some people expressed doubts about this. More or less, in a world in which nuclear war could break out tomorrow, investing the Executive with standing war powers seemed inevitable.
Replace “tomorrow” with “any minute, and requiring a 5-minute max response time” and you understand just how radically different 1950 was from 1938 when there were weeks to mobilize for war.
That’s a slight exaggeration; in 1950 the USSR didn’t have the bombers to reach the continental USA although by 1955 that was no longer assured. And bombers still took hours to reach their targets, missiles were what reduced the warning time to less than an hour. That’s why Sputnik shocked the USA and discovering forward missile bases in Cuba made Washington go absolutely ape****.
Good point. 1950 was a bit too early for the whole “launch immediately on warning” concern.
I know that the war hadn’t officially ended, and that there was a state of war between the countries, but there is also a difference between how countries typically rule occupied countries during the shooting phase of wars and how they rule in the period after the shooting stops or when there isn’t active resistance.
The US was able to use Japanese institutions and in general exercised veto powers rather than administer affairs.
There was an increasing amount of independence on the Japanese side and things were starting to get strained at the end as the Japanese wanted their country back.
The Emperor and some of the powers around the throne were surprised that he wasn’t going to be the head of state after all, and there were a lot of struggles among the various powers, mostly playing behind closed doors. When the Emperor attempted to intervene in particular incidents, he was politely told to back off.
At the direction of MacArthur, GHQ pretty much dictated the new constitition, which was somewhat modified and then adapted by the new government. In the new consitution, the Emperor was not the head of state.
Really poorly written. He performs functions such as entertaining visiting heads of states, monarchs and prime ministers who come on official State Visits, but his role is entirely symbolic.
The disagreement concerning if he is the head of state misses the point. Under the previous constitution, the emperor was the head of state.
Enacted after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, it provided for a form of mixed constitutional and absolute monarchy, primarily based on the German and partly based on the British models.[2] In theory, the Emperor of Japangoverned the empire with the advice of his ministers; in practice, the Emperor was head of state but the Prime Minister was the actual head of government. Under the Meiji Constitution, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were not necessarily chosen from the elected members of parliament.
The problem with this argument is that it’s using the English term. In Japanese, “head of state” is 元首（げんしゅ / genshu）
Meaning:
The official leader of a country in an international or formal sense.
The Japanese constitution does not have a 元首 and explicitly states that the emperor is the 象徴 shōchō symbol of Japan. That’s it. As I wrote above, the previous constitution did explicitly say that the emperor was the head of state.
As the symbol of Japan, he frequently performs tasks that the head of state would in other countries, including hosting black tie dinners with the leaders of foreign countries.
Under the Japanese constitution, he is not the head of state.
I appreciate the distinction* in the Japanese constitution as you have presented it, and I believe I understand the intent to separate the Emperor from any hint of official government power or influence. So my casual reference to the Emperor’s “continued presence as head of state” was, at least technically, incorrect.
What I was trying to convey in a different post was my general contention that a) the pure role of head of state is actually entirely symbolic and ceremonial; b) the person who occupies that role for any country may or may not have other official roles, duties or powers, which are separate; and c) one ought not to confuse the role with the person. This is the core of why I am still talking about this (ad nauseum, I’m sure, to some readers). I don’t think this is a particularly controversial view, but neither, I suppose, is it universally held.
Based on that contention, I think that if the Emperor is recognized in the constitution as the symbol or emblem (of the country? of the people of the country?) and is performing the duties as you described, then he is performing, at least unofficially, the role of head of state. I won’t be surprised if you don’t agree with that, as you apparently regard “head of state” differently. I apologize for continuing what may amount to a hijack, but I think the OP’s questions have been answered.
*My Japanese dictionaries define “genshu” as ruler, sovereign, or chief of state, and "shōchō as symbol or emblem.
So you know the role of the emperor better than the framers of the Japanese constitution, the emperor himself, the Japanese government, legal scholars, etc?
Japanese are not allowed to define the role of the emperor themselves?
No, that’s really nothing like what I was saying, or intending to say. But having said my piece already, I am not going to go over it again, and will just say that, regrettably, we seem to be misunderstanding each other.
@TokyoBayer Thanks for the posts you’ve made regarding the status of the emperor. Note I have not been ignoring the boards; for this week, VPNs have rarely been working and due to my locale use of such is a necessity. I was unable to search for the information you presented.
Shortly after I got stationed in Japan, Akihito was crowned. There was some uproar over the coronation. One part of it was people saying he was the sovereign. As we have discussed, he was not. Another was the term ‘ascended the throne’. Nope. He was merely crowned as he was not the ruler. But the big deal was the religious nature of the coronation rites. That was, in my opinion rightly, viewed as unconstitutional.
And apparently there is still some argument over using the reign name of emperors to indicate the year.
I suppose I should note that as much as I love Japan and enjoyed my time there, I have exactly zero respect for maintaining their royalty. It’s essentially a sinecure for one person in one family. The point about him hosting black tie dinners is interesting but also an added layer of inefficiency and governmental wase. Formal events with the Prime Minister are still held and thus are of far more import.
Getting back to the main idea of this thread, the legal authority for the occupation government really boiled down to “We won; you surrenedered; and we’re going to do it this way”. At least the Allied Powers had the foresight to ensure such things were included in the treaties.
And, as I mentioned above, the situation in the Ryukyu Islands is quite interesting. Those residents during the American occupation government had a special citizenship: Ryuku. And that also caused some issues until the islands were returned to Japanese governance.
For those who are interested in knowing why the distinction is so absolutely critical, you’ve got to go back to one of the worst periods in human history.
The Japanese slaughtered millions and millions of innocent civilians and allowed millions and millions of other to die horrible deaths from famine and diseases. China alone suffered 14 to 20 million deaths. French Indochina suffered another 1 to 2 million.
A key reason Japan went on this horrific rampage was the form of government under the Meiji Constitution which designated the emperor as the head of state, but allowed the military to act without civilian oversight. There was a complex relationship with the emperor, which allowed the military to run wild in many cases.
The role of the emperor is these atrocities is beyond the scope of the this thread, but the Allies were determined that Germany and Japan would not be allowed to return to a position where they would rise again as military powers to inflict more unimaginable horror on the world.
As part of the pact with the devil, the emperor wasn’t executed as a war criminal, but kept around to ensure the cooperation of the Japanese population. One of the last sticking points for the militant faction of the Big Six member of the supreme war council was that they wanted to retain the emperor.
However, he was unequivocally not permitted to have any hint of political power. Thus it was explicitly stated in the constitution that he was only a symbol of the nation and the sovereignty of the nation come from the people themselves and not from the throne. As stated previously, the Japanese word for head of state 元首（げんしゅ / genshu) was intentionally omitted. From wiki
The constitution contains a firm declaration of the principle of popular sovereignty in the preamble. This is proclaimed in the name of the “Japanese people” and declares that “sovereign power resides with the people” and that:
Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.
I disagree with @Monty that the people are the head of state. Japan just doesn’t have one.
I’m with @TokyoBayer on this actually. It’s just my personal reading is that Japan’s version of popular sovereignty is the people are sovereign. In this case, it’s really a distinction without a difference. But I do like the unique take on who’s the sovereign.
??? Japan wasn’t destroyed. The civilian world kept working.
The terms of surrender required the democratic system be asserted and strengthened.
The first government was shortlived, but it serves to demonstrate how the democracy worked… it worked in the Westminster way, the Emperor saw fit to approve the PM and the ministers based on the situation at hand… and so his own son was sworn in as PM. Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni . .
While the prince was General he was new to being a minister and in cabinet, and many of his cabinet members were new ministers too. yet the institution of the ministers and of the cabinets took only a few days to organize. The Emperor and the parliamentarians knew it was essential to replace the ministers who were being arrested for war crimes…
The parliament could have voted No Confidence in this, but that would be a risky move since the Emperor had approved it, it would be … seen as nearly treasonous. (or even literally treasonous..as opposing the cabinet during WW2 had meant harrassment, arrest and assassination )
The prince apparently feared being subject to regular civilian system so resigned after 3 months, but democracy was on the mend, and then the next cabinet lasted 6 months