From Shame to Strength: Why Japan's Constitutional Reckoning Is Long Overdue

Piper Stock | Indo-Pacific Fellow

Image sourced from Cabinet Secretariat via Wikimedia Commons

For nearly eight decades, a single clause in Japan's constitution has defined the country's place in the world. Article 9 was written into law in 1946. It renounced war as a sovereign right and prohibited Japan from maintaining any war potential. At the time, it was an extraordinary legal commitment, and one forged directly from the horrors of the Second World War. Now, with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi commanding a historic supermajority in the lower house, Japan stands at the edge of rewriting that vow. For Australia and the broader Indo-Pacific, this moment deserves not anxiety, but careful attention and ultimately, quiet welcome.

A Pledge Written in Ash

The origins of Article 9 are inseparable from the devastation that preceded it. In the years before and during the Second World War, Japan colonised the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, islands across the Pacific, and launched a brutal invasion of China. Across Asia, an estimated 20 million people were subjected to forced labour, genocide, human experimentation, and sexual slavery. Japan's own civilians were not spared either, with approximately 3 million Japanese people, many of them civilians, losing their lives in air raids, the ground war in Okinawa, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Article 9 was legislated in reflection of Japan's war of aggression and colonial rule, a pledge to the people of Asia, the Pacific, and the world to never again repeat its mistakes. That moral weight is real, and it should not be dismissed lightly. Any honest conversation about constitutional revision must begin here.

And yet, here is the paradox Japan has quietly lived with for decades. Article 9 has been interpreted to mean Japan cannot maintain a traditional military, allowing only the Self-Defence Forces (SDF). But the SDF is one of the most capable militaries in the world, equipped with advanced destroyers, fighter jets, and one of the largest defence budgets in Asia. Japan already has a military. It simply cannot call it one or use it the way a sovereign nation normally would. This legal fiction has held for 78 years. What has changed is the world around it.

Takaichi's Moment

Prime Minister Takaichi's decisive victory delivered the Liberal Democratic Party 316 of a possible 465 lower house seats, more than any party in post-war Japan, along with a coalition partner. Armed with a supermajority, her government is widely expected to pursue constitutional revision, with Article 9 firmly in her sights.

What that revision looks like matters. One option, previously pursued by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, would formally recognise the SDF within Article 9 without removing its pacifist provisions. The other, advocated by coalition partner the Japan Innovation Party, would delete the second part of Article 9 entirely. Either path would be historically unprecedented, as no constitutional revision has ever been achieved in Japanese politics. Constitutional change still requires a two-thirds majority in both houses and a national referendum, meaning the process will be neither quick nor simple.

A Region That Can No Longer Afford Ambiguity

The strategic case for revision is not about nationalism or imperial nostalgia. It is about the neighbourhood Japan wakes up in every morning. North Korea continues to accelerate its nuclear weapons program. China has intensified grey-zone pressure across the South China Sea and around Taiwan. And questions about the long-term reliability of United States security guarantees have grown louder.

Neighbouring countries such as China, South Korea, and North Korea are likely to view any revision with suspicion, and those concerns are warranted. South Korea in particular carries deep historical grievances. But it is worth noting that both South Korea and Japan have significantly deepened security cooperation in recent years, driven by the shared reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. Strategic necessity has a way of reordering old anxieties.

A revised Japan would not be a militarising Japan. It would be a normal country in terms of international rights and responsibilities under the UN Charter, capable of contributing to regional peacekeeping and collective defence in ways currently constrained by law.

Peace on New Terms

Article 9 was written as a vow. It was Japan's promise to the world that it had reckoned with what it had done. That reckoning was necessary, and the clause served its purpose across eight decades of post-war order. But the world of 1946 is not the world of 2026.

A Japan willing and legally able to defend itself and its neighbours is not a betrayal of that pledge. For Australia, it is an opportunity. A more capable Japan strengthens the Quad, deepens Indo-Pacific stability, and signals a partner increasingly willing to share the burden of regional security. Recent deals on critical minerals point in exactly that direction. In a region growing more dangerous by the year, a Japan that can defend itself may be the most honest way to keep the peace.

 Piper is a fourth-year Bachelor of Laws and International Relations student at Griffith University. She currently works as a Federal Electorate Officer in the Australian Parliament, where she undertakes policy research, drafts parliamentary correspondence, and supports constituents on a range of federal matters. She also has professional experience in the legal sector as a Legal Administrator.

Piper is actively engaged in leadership and public service. She is a Board Member of the Griffith University Student Guild, a Gold Coast Mayor’s Student Ambassador, and a mentor for Political Science and International Relations students at Griffith University. She has also been recognised with the Griffith Business Leadership Award.

Through this fellowship, Piper hopes to combine her strong interest in the Indo-Pacific region with her professional experience to explore how domesticpolicy, diplomacy, and regional cooperation intersect in shaping Australia’s engagement with its nearest neighbours.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.