Earticle

냉전과 한국전쟁의 국제정세에서 미국은 일본을 우방국으로 삼고자 하였다. 이에 일본은 ‘조기강화’를, 미국은 ‘미군의 일본주둔’을 최우선 목표로 설정하고 연대하였다. 그러나 미국은 일본에 주둔하는 것 뿐만 아니라, 군사전략적 관점에서 일본을 재군비해야 한다고 생각했다. 따라서 일본은 급진적이든 점진적이든 재군비에 동의하는 형식을 취하면서 대일강화조약에 서명하고, 미국과 미일안보조약을 체결하였다. 대일강화조약이 체결된 이래 일본의 보수세력들은 헌법 제9조를 개정하고자 하였다. 결과적으로 일본은 헌법을 개헌하지는 않았지만, 미일안보 차원에서 자위대의 역할을 확대시켜왔으며, 집단적 자위권을 행사함으로써 군력보유와 교전권을 이미 인정하고 있는 상태가 되었다. 이와 같이 전후 일본국 헌법 제9조는 이미 공동화되었다. 일본은 헌법과는 별도로 국제공헌이라는 명목으로 집단적 자위권을 구체화함으로써 미국과의 관계에서 동맹국으로써 지위를 명확히 하는 대신 동아시아 다른 국가들과의 관계를 중요시하지 않는 국제관을 가지게 되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 일본은 헌법개정을 통하여 자위전쟁을 가능케 하는 자위대의 존재를 헌법에 명시적으로 인정하고자 한다. 그 목적을 위해서 일본은 자위대 존재를 보편화하고 그 필요성(needs)에 국민적 합의를 확립시키려고 많은 에너지를 투입해 왔다. 많은 일본인이 헌법 9조와 자위대 사이에서 모순을 느끼지 않게 된 것은 이러한 헌법의 공통화 결과라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 우리는 일본이 헌법을 공동화시키고, 국민들의 인식 속에 자위대가 국가와 국민을 지키는 군대로 자리매김한 상태에서 헌법개정이 어떠한 의미를 가지는지 생각할 필요가 있다. 그리고 헌법 개정을 저지하기 위해서는 헌법 제9조야말로 테러와 전쟁이 만연한 시대에 일본의 평화와 동북아시아의 안정을 지키는 열쇠가 될 수 있다는 구체적인 확신이 필요할 것이다. 그러기 위해서는 헌법 제9조의 유지가 안전보장정책에 유용한 조항이라는 것을 증명해 나가야 할 것이다.

From cold war and Korean War, US expect alliance with Japan. At this point, Japan wanted pre-consolidation and US wanted military stationing at Japan – which could gave them space to coop with. A step further, US estimated Japan’s remilitarization for strategic point of view. Therefore Treaty of Peace with Japan has been made, stated that Japan agreed their remilitarization. Fast or not, it was expected to be happened. Treaty also contains mutual national security agreement. Since this treaty, Conserves of Japan keep trying amendment of Article 9. As a result, Japan did not choose amendment but Japan Self-Defense Forces’ (JSDF) function slowly expanded for mutual national security. Apparently Japan shows collective self-defense, which means widely accepted their military power reserving and right to choose military conflict. Reality is: Article 9 was already hollowed out. Beside with this article, Japan interpreted and detailed collective self-defense as global contribution. This move fortified their position in US-Japan alliance, also systematically chose to ignore relationship with other East Asian countries. Nevertheless, Japan still wants amendment for ‘war on self-defense’ – means that officially granting JSDF in law. Politics spend much attention to convince social needs of JSDF within public and ‘normalize’ its existence. Hollowing constitution made many Japanese to accept irony between Article 9 and current situation of JSDF. Therefore we need to think about true meaning of amendment since constitution hollowed out and JSDF widely understood as protector for nation and people.

冷戦と朝鮮戦争の国際情勢で、米国は日本を第一友好国とした。これに日本は‘早期講和’を、アメリカは‘米軍の日本駐屯’を最優先目標に設定して連帯した。しかし、米国は日本に駐留するだけでなく、軍事戦略的な観点から、日本を再軍備しなければならないと考えた。したがって、日本は急進的であれ、漸進的であれ再軍備に同意する形式を取りながら、対日講和条約に署名し、米国と日米安保条約を締結した。対日講和条約が締結されて以来、日本の保守勢力は憲法第9条を改正しようとした。結果的に、日本は憲法改憲をしてはいなかったが、日米安保の観点から自衛隊の役割を拡大させているし、集団的自衛権を行使することで軍事力を保持していることを判明しただけでなく交戦権も認めている状態となった。 このように、日本国憲法第9条はすでに空洞化された。日本は憲法とは別に国際貢献という名目で集団的自衛権を具体化することにより、米国との関係で、同盟国として地位を明確にする代わりに、東アジアの他の国々との関係を軽視する姿勢をとっている。それにもかかわらず、日本は憲法改正を通じて自衛戦争を可能にする自衛隊の存在を認めようとしている。その目的のために、日本は自衛隊の存在を普遍化して、その必要性に国民的合意を確立させようと努力している。多くの日本人が憲法9条と自衛隊の間で矛盾を感じないようにされたのは、この憲法の空洞化の結果である。したがって、私たちは、日本が憲法を空洞化させ、国民の認識の中に自衛隊が国と国民を守る軍隊に位置づけた状態で、憲法改正がどのような意味を持つのか考える必要がある。そして、憲法改正を阻止するためには、憲法第9条こそテロとの戦争が蔓延した時代に日本の平和と東北アジアの安定を守る鍵となるという具体的な確信が必要だろう。そのためには、憲法第9条の維持が安全保障政策に有用な条項であることを証明していかなければならないと思う。

One year after the sudden outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the United States concluded the ‘San Francisco Peace Treaty’ with Japan on September 8th 1951. In addition to the ‘San Francisco Peace Treaty', both parties also signed the Japan-US Security Treaty on the same day. Both treaties came into effect on April 28th 1952 resulting in Japan regaining her independence. As a result of the treaty, Japan accepted that gradual or radical remilitarization was necessary. It can be said that at that time both the US and Japan took into account the effect that remilitarization would have on their own domestic circumstances. For the US, a military presence within Japan was the most effective method in order to maintain control over Japan. On the other hand, Japan was keen to deal an early peace settlement after the war ended. This thesis aims to look at how this dispute was dealt with during the ‘San Francisco Peace Treaty’ negotiations. The aforementioned goals of both countries could have been well accommodated if it were not for the obstacle of Japan’s remilitarization. The United States claimed that Japan should be responsible for her own security and that remilitarization would relieve the burden of the US’s sole responsibility for Japan’s security. At first, MacArthur openly opposed the remilitarization of Japan, however after the outbreak of the Korean War he changed his mind in regard to Japan’s security by requesting that Japan establish a reserve police force. At the beginning of the US occupation, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs supported the idea of rearmament, but their stance shifted after the inauguration of Yoshida and his cabinet. In concluding negotiations, both sides finally decided on the gradual remilitarization of Japan. Within this new alliance the US self-defence pact was also created. Such an agreement from the Japanese side was influenced by the involvement of the Chinese Communist Army in the Korean War, which left the result of the war unpredictable. Another factor for the remilitarization agreement was the absence of MacArthur and his opposition to the idea. However, it could be said that the main reason for this decision was Japan forcibly conceding her early peace settlement proposal in order to gain the US military's security presence.

1950年に朝鮮戦争が勃発すると、日米両国は翌年9月8日、サンフランシスコで対日講和条約を締結した。同日、日米両国 は講和条約と共に＇日米安全保障条約＇を締結した。これらの条約は、すべて1952年4月28日に発効され、日本は独立国 家として主権を回復した。この際、米国は日本に米軍を駐留させることが最も効率的であると思っていたし、日本の講和 条約の第一の目的は、早期の講和であった。そして、日米両国が第一目標としていた米軍駐留と早期講和はお互いに共感 して配慮できる問題であったが、最も日米両国の障害になったのは日本の再軍備であった。米国は日本の再軍備について 、日本安全保障のための米国の負担が大きいと指摘し、できるだけ早い時期に日本が自国の安全保障を担うようにと主張 した。米国内では冷戦が激化するにつれ、日本に対する再軍備論が台頭していたが、マッカーサーは占領の初期から日本 の再軍備について積極的に反対していた。その中、朝鮮戦争が勃発すると、米国は日本に警察予備隊創設の命令を出して いる。日本では、占領初期から外務省で再軍備の意見が出ているが、憲法改正以来反対を支持している。しかし、結果的 に日米交渉過程で日本の再軍備は急進的であれ漸進的であれ、同意する形式をとるようになった。しかし、戦後日本の再 軍備は憲法だけの観点から見ると実行されなかった状態と言えるが、自衛隊の活動は他の普通の軍隊のように動いていて 、それこそ憲法違反と言える。そして、この状態は現在日本の安部政権で進めている＇集団的自衛権＇と密接な関係を持 っている。したがって本論文は現在論議されている‘集団的自衛権’行事問題の原点を前後日本の講和條約と安保條約準備 会談の論議過程で探っている。そのために主に日本の外務省資料を分析して講和條約と安保條約当時の状況を考察してい る。すなわち、米国が意図した日本駐屯問題と日本が意図した早期強化条約が日本の再軍備問題を保留するようにしただ けでなく、米国による日本防御をセットにして現在まで至った過程と結果を明らかにしている。

Is the current regional security environment suitable for Japan’s remilitarization? This paper attempts to analyze the recent security condition in East Asia to see whether the structural requirements for Japan’s remilitarization are already in place. It first looks into the existing literatures examining the issues of Japan’s remilitarization. It then adopts the hegemonic stability theory as a basis for the theoretical structure while presenting its limits to draw a more suitable framework for the current security condition in East Asia. After that, three cases of China, Russia, and North Korea in recent years are examined to see whether the security condition in East Asia fits the condition of crisis described by the theoretical argument. It is revealed that they represent long-term, immediate, and mid-term threats, respectively. Furthermore, while each of these actors did not fulfill all necessary standards to become a single challenging state, taken together, their actions have created the perception of regional hegemonic challenge in the eyes of the US and its key allies. In conclusion, this research argues that the structural requirements for Japan’s remilitarization are now present.