Browsing by Author "Tuomas, Anna Katariina"

This thesis aimed to examine Japan’s lawmaking process that lead to the passage of the PKO law, also known as the peacekeeping law of 1992. The focus was on the government discussions that occurred during the period from September 1991 to June 1992. The issues revolving around the topic were extremely controversial. The root of the problem lies in Japan’s history, and the country’s international standing. This thesis is built on political discourse analysis. The primary objective is to aid in an understanding of the reasons behind the PKO law's creation. Most of the materials cited are government discussions about the law including the explanation of purpose, question rounds, committee reports, and plenary sessions in the House of Councillors and the House of Representatives. The analysis was focused on the expressed views shared by the speakers in the Diet on a micro level, while at the same time showing the effects of the proposed bill on a macro level. Also included were questions about the role played by the leading party, the Liberal Democratic Party, who was the main instigator in the law drafting process. The main questions can be limited to two: Was there a shift in the country's politics as it relates to the issues surrounding the bill's contents? What was the reason that the government strove so hard to pass this bill into law? Through the years, Japan’s foreign policy can be said to be evasive on some points, but with taking part in the peacekeeping operations, there was a slight shift in politics. Japan’s foreign policy was already UN-centered, so participating in the PKO operations was not that massive of a change. Overall, the result of the Gulf Crisis gave the Liberal Democratic Party a reason to make a push for the passing of the PKO bill, and some saw the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces as the party's last significant effort to redefine Japan as a normal state. In June of 1992 the passed PKO law turned out to be a compromised law. What can be seen from the overall discussions in both houses was that they centered in the perceived unconstitutionality of the bill as well as the use of the army and possible use of force. In some public hearings lawyers and legal advisors stated that they were against the law. Despite this, the opposition, however, did not take into an account changing public opinion, and the government was able to pass the law successfully. Discussion of the bill, in Japan as well abroad, presented a variety of reactions, at the center of them was fear of dispatching the Self-Defense Forces. In conclusion, the army and the peacekeeping operations were two separate matters, and the passing of the bill was a chance for the country to be more active in an international setting.