The resolution called on the Secretary-General to make arrangements for demarcation of the boundary between the two countries. This was practically equivalent to the Security Council demarcating the boundary between the two countries. The resolution not only demanded Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, including ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons and prohibited the redevelopment of those military capabilities, but also ensured the effectiveness of the destruction and prohibition of those weapons by providing for all procedures from inspections, destructions and continued monitoring under the supervision of an international organization.
Furthermore, the resolution clearly stated the Iraqi liability for loss reparations and stipulated an effective procedure to establish funds to ensure payments to countries and nationals that suffered losses. Thus, this resolution is an epoch-making decision by the Security Council to maintain international order in that it not only deals at the time of the cease-fire with settling the situation caused directly by the Iraqi invasion, but also provides for measures to be taken addressing to the causes of the conflict, such as demarcation of the boundary, and sanction measures to prevent the dispute from recurring, such as limiting Iraq's military capabilities.
Peace-keeping Operations PKO by the United Nations have been established and developed through actual practices as practical means to help solve regional disputes throughout the world under the circumstances where the collective security system provided for in Chapter 7 of the U. Charter does not sufficiently function. Peace-keeping Operations are to fulfill tasks through the authority and persuasion of the United Nations in a neutral and non-aligned position. They are now one of the activities which draw the greatest attention of the world.
In , the U. They paved the way for the U. Peace-keeping Operations to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In , four more Peace-keeping Operations were set up: the U. Since the establishment of the U. Truce Supervision Organization UNTSO in , Peace-keeping Operations have been a practical means of preventing regional disputes from worsening through the intermediation of the United Nations, contributing to a peaceful solution. The conventional forms of Peace-keeping Operations have been cease-fire observation missions and peace-keeping forces, composed mainly of military personnel.
Recently, however, the Peace-keeping Operations by the United Nations have been expanded to new fields and their activity forms have diversified. A specific example is election monitoring missions. This was implemented for the first time when Namibia became independent. This operation was highly appraised by the international community and a new area of peace-keeping activities by civilians was opened.
The problem in Western Sahara is a dispute over the jurisdiction of Western Sahara as to whether it should become an independent state or be merged into Morocco. It has long been one of the destabilizing factors in North Africa. Due to mediating efforts by the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity OAU , the disputing parties reached an agreement on a peaceful solution through a referendum.
The United Nations is to be involved in a series of peaceful steps from administration of a cease-fire to observation of the referendum. Preparations are steadily made for holding the referendum in January Discussions are underway within the United Nations to set up a Peace-keeping Operation in Cambodia in the near future, which is a very significant issue for Japan. A blueprint has already been drawn concerning how the United Nations should be involved in establishing peace in Cambodia. The establishment of the U.
In addition to activities in the military field, such as observation of a cease-fire and demilitarization, it is envisaged to engage in activities in the conduct and supervision of elections, as well as control and supervision of administration during the transitional period. UNTAC, therefore, is expected to be a very large operation, but its actual scale and activity will be discussed in due course.
While Japan had continued to make contributions to the U. Peace-keeping Operations, its contributions bad mainly been limited to financial support. However, with the recognition that financial contributions alone were no longer sufficient in the light of Japan's increasing international responsibility, Japan sent a political officer to a U. Peace-keeping Operation for the first time in Since then, Japan has steadily increased its contributions in terms of personnel, including dispatching civilians to the election monitoring missions in Namibia and Nicaragua. Under the present system, however, Japan's contributions to the U.
Peace-keeping Operations with regard to personnel are inevitably limited considerably. The Gulf Crisis gave the Japanese an opportunity to reconsider the issue of how to maintain peace and security. At the same time, this activated the discussions on how Japan should participate in and cooperate with these international efforts. Against this background, from the perspective of the urgent need of establishing a system to send personnel to the U.
Peace-keeping Operations, including the legal aspects, the Government of Japan submitted a bill on the U. Peace-keeping Operations in the extraordinary session of the Diet at the end of But the bill was not enacted because debate was not completed. Nevertheless, through national discussions including the Diet deliberations on the bill, the recognition that it is indispensable for Japan to make sufficient contributions to the maintenance of the peace and security of the world has won increasing support among the public.
A cooperation with U. Peace-keeping Operations - in particular, by means of sending personnel to non-armed cease-fire observer missions, as well as the Peace-keeping forces where use of weapons is strictly limited to the purpose of self-defense, both of which are to be dispatched with the consent of the countries concerned and to operate in a neutral position - has been gaining increasing support in the Japanese public and considered to be an appropriate contribution of Japan with its peace Constitution.
It will be necessary for the Government of Japan to proceed with necessary steps to decide upon actual ways for cooperating with the Peace-keeping Operations with personnel in accordance with the present Constitution, respecting public opinion and making sufficient explanations within and out of the country. As mentioned earlier, the United Nations has a function of solving conflicts. Japan also stresses the reinforcement of the U.
For this purpose, Japan deems it practical to strengthen the authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Specifically, Japan has proposed to set up a U. Conflict Prevention System under the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General will: 1 monitor constantly a situation which is likely to become a threat to international peace and security and implement studies and research on it; 2 organize survey teams of experts to be sent by individual nations and send survey teams to areas where the situation is likely to deteriorate in order to study its causes, as well as the ongoing situation; 3 based on the survey result conducted by the team, write a report to be submitted to the Security Council and give warning, if necessary, at an early stage to call the attention of the international community; and 4 attempt to prevent conflicts by playing the role of an intermediary between the parties concerned.
The Government of Japan will strongly advocate the establishment of such a conflict prevention system and engage in discussions with other countries on this proposal. During the Gulf Crisis, Japan, not being a member of the Security Council, did not have opportunities to assert itself sufficiently in the resolutions which were adopted in the Security Council. Amid the formation of a new international order, it has become very important for Japan to be seated in the Security Council which assumes a very significant responsibility and plays an important role in the maintenance of international peace and security.
Since Japan joined the United Nations in , Japan was elected six times as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Japan is now campaigning to run as a candidate for the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council to be held in the 46th General Assembly of the United Nations in If Japan is elected, it will assume the position for the seventh time the term is two years from January to December , a record achieved by no other country.
As Japan's position in the international community rises, expectations for Japan's appropriate role in the United Nations are growing. Japan has consistently taken the position of attaching importance to the United Nations since joining the organization. In particular, it has recently become a national consensus that Japan should actively make contributions to the United Nations activities It is considered that the so-called former enemy-state clauses Note which still remain in the U. Charter shall never be applied to Japan after having been admitted membership to the United Nations.
The former enemy-state clauses are not acceptable to the Japanese national sentiment. General Assembly in Many countries already expressed understanding for and consent to Japan's position. On the other hand, the deletion of the clauses is an issue involving an amendment to the present Charter. As many countries have their own motives to amend the Charter, further efforts are needed to realize this amendment without affecting other problems.
Amid the current of East-West relations shifting from confrontation to dialogue and the end of the Cold War, respect for human rights and the pursuit of the value of freedom and democracy have become increasingly a greater concern and interest in the present international community.
This is symbolized by the declaration on human rights announced by the Arche G-7 Summit in that human rights are a matter of legitimate international concern. It was also confirmed, in the Economic Declaration of the London G-7 Summit in , that in building a global partnership based on common values and in strengthening the international order, democracy, human rights and the rule of law should be underpinned as our aim. Looking back at the path Japan itself has walked, Japan's present peace and prosperity have been built on the accumulation of ceaseless efforts consistently made since the end of World War II toward the construction of a society based on respect for fundamental human rights, freedom and democracy.
In consideration of these experiences, it has become increasingly important for Japan to take action in conformity with a basic concept that human rights have a universal value for mankind and are the foundation of the world's peace and stability. It is important, therefore, that in providing Official Development Assistance ODA to developing countries, special attention should be paid to respect human rights and democratization in these developing countries.
- Solid-State Lasers for Materials Processing: Fundamental Relations and Technical Realizations.
- The Literature of American Music in Books and Folk Music Collections.
- 1 Introduction!
- The background: types of international order.
- The Controversy over Marine Protected Areas: Science meets Policy.
From such a viewpoint, Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu stated in the Diet session in April that in extending Japan's ODA, recipient countries' efforts for promoting democratization and securing basic human rights and freedom are taken fully into account. In the field of human rights protection, the United Nations has been playing a very significant role. Japan has actively participated in the U. Both of them are elected and serving in their respective organs in their personal capacities. In the U. General Assembly held in , a resolution to convene the World Conference on Human Rights in was adopted.
This conference on human rights will be held for the first time in 25 years since the previous one held in Teheran in In the forthcoming conference, it is anticipated that the developing countries which proposed convening the conference will link the human rights issue with the North-South problem, seeking recognition of their "right to develop," and will launch discussions and demands from such a perspective.
In order that the forthcoming conference should succeed as a truly meaningful conference for the enhancement of respect for human rights and democracy in the world, all efforts should be made so that human rights issues may not be replaced with the North-South problem in the discussions of the conference. A resolution to designate the year as the "International Year for the World's Indigenous Peoples" was also adopted in the U.
Among the international treaties adopted in the field of human rights in was the "International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Family Members. Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, India and other developing countries from which a large number of workers go abroad to work have strenuously promoted the adoption of this convention, on which work had been done for elaboration since While there was no country which opposed the thrust of this convention, several industrialized countries, including Japan, expressed a view that the convention has several problems in terms of labor policy, immigration system and others.
As of July , no country but Mexico had signed the convention and no country has ratified it. General Assembly of The Government is expediting its deliberations to conclude this convention as soon as possible. As for deliberations on human rights by member countries in the U.
General Assembly and the U. Commission on Human Rights, Apartheid in South Africa and human rights situations in Iran were again taken up as in previous years. It must also be noted that the international community severely criticized the behavior of Iraq against the background of its invasion and occupation of Kuwait since August Specifically in the U.
General Assembly in late and in the U. Commission on Human Rights at the beginning of , resolutions were adopted accusing Iraq of violating the human rights of Kuwaitis and foreigners during the invasion of Kuwait. In the Commission on Human Rights, a resolution was also adopted expressing concern over the situation related to human rights in Iraq, including arbitrary and extra-judicial executions and increasing cases for disappearances.
This resolution was adopted with an overwhelming majority of votes, including that of Japan. After many of its nationals having been held hostages in Iraq, Japan submitted a draft resolution condemning the hostage-taking, which was adopted without a vote.
Ensuring World Peace and Stability
The Commission on Human Rights also discussed a problem of human rights in Cuba and requested a special representative to carry out this mandate. With regard to the Soviet intervention and the use of military force on the moves for democratization in Lithuania and Latvia, which produced casualties, many countries, including Japan, expressed great concern. The Chairman announced a statement expressing great concern about the use of force by the Soviet Union in Lithuania and Latvia.
As for the human rights question in Myanmar, Western countries submitted a draft resolution to the U. General Assembly of expressing concern about the fact that the Myanmar people's will calling for the implementation of the result of the elections in May had not yet been realized. The resolution urged that citizens detained due to political reasons be released immediately and that their political rights be restored. But developing countries united in support of Myanmar to strongly oppose the resolution, accusing the industrialized countries of addressing human rights problems in developing countries arbitrarily.
Heated discussions were held between the two sides. Japan made efforts to play a mediating role and proposed that the handling of the resolution be left until the General Assembly in Autumn The decision was thus postponed. For the Western countries, it was clear that the resolution would be rejected by voting since the developing countries overwhelmed them in number.
Nevertheless, should the industrialized countries withdraw the resolution, a misperception would prevail in Myanmar that they were no longer concerned about the problem.
Arms Control and Diplomatic Diplomacy
Given this dilemma, Japan's efforts as a mediator were thus appraised not only by Myanmar but also by the Western countries. The Myanmar problem, in continuation of , was discussed in the Commission on Human Rights in in the form of closed deliberations. Despite the increase in the activities of the United Nations in all fields, its financial basis is not necessarily sufficient for the activities due in part to delays in the payment of contributions by some countries.
The Political Declaration of the London G-7 Summit not only said that the United Nations should play a vital role in the maintenance of peace and security, but also called for the United Nations to reinforce its function in the field of relief activities in emergencies, including natural disasters. How to make financial arrangement for such activities is a major problem the present international community is faced with.
The efficient management of the United Nations and the restructuring of unnecessary organizations are urgent subjects to be tackled. Several reforms have so far been attempted from this perspective, but results have been insufficient. Now that the international community reconfirms the importance of the United Nations today, it is a good opportunity to transform the United Nations into a more effective organization. Japan's contribution to the United Nations is the second largest after the United States. In addition, Japan has made voluntary contributions to various important United Nations activities.
Accordingly, Japan is an indispensable member state of the United Nations that supports the United Nations activities financially. Japan exerts efforts to streamline the structure of the United Nations so that the organization can work efficiently and effectively in compliance with the needs of the new era. Promotion of Arms Control and Disarmament. Changes in the Cold War structure of international politics have helped to promote negotiations on arms control and disarmament between East and West.
With a background of the changes, the problems of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and transfer of conventional weapons from the North to the South has come to be clearly recognized as a destabilizing factor in the world. This major current in arms control and disarmament was made even clearer by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and it brought home to the international community the importance of addressing the problems of the proliferation and transfer of arms in order to prevent conflicts from occurring or exacerbating. Following the statement of the Houston Summit of on transnational issues which addresses the issue of non-proliferation, the London Summit of adopted the Declaration on Conventional Arms Transfers and NBC nuclear, biological, chemical weapons Non-proliferation, attesting to the rising recognition of the problems.
With a view to ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons, Japan has been making great efforts to promote nuclear disarmament, including the proposal of a step-by-step approach to nuclear testing issues presented to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In light of recent changes in the international situation, Japan has strengthened its efforts to tackle the problems of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of international transfers of conventional weapons.
Since Japan takes a unique stance in this field, which includes the adoption of the "Three Non-nuclear Principles and the Three Principles on Arms Exports," the country is expected to contribute even more to the world in this respect. However, against the background of a temporary cooling of relations between the two countries due to problems concerning the CFE Treaty and the situation in the Baltic states, negotiations on some remaining issues proved to be difficult, stalling at the final stage.
The remaining issues requiring fine tuning were: 1 the definition of new-type missiles; 2 down loading Note ; and 3 a ban on concealment of data on missile tests. At the Moscow Summit on July 31, the two Presidents signed the treaty, concluding the lengthy negotiations of nine years and one month. The START Treaty reduces strategic nuclear arsenals about a 40 percent cut in the number of nuclear warheads for the first time in history and stipulates details of verification measures. The signing of the Treaty gave impetus to nuclear disarmament.
Furthermore, it contributes to improving and reinforcing bilateral relations between the United States and the Soviet Union as well as to constructing a new international order in which cooperation between the two countries is to be of great significance. Japan would like to see further stabilization of Soviet-U.
Japan looks forward to further progress in arms control and disarmament between the two countries including the field of strategic nuclear weapons. Note1:Attributed counting rule : Since verification of warheads loaded on airplanes are difficult, the number of warheads is attributed to a bomber aircraft for the counting rule. Note2:Declaration form : The ceiling for the number or other limitations may be set by a politically binding declaration.
It has no legal binding and is not an object for inspection. The objectives of this Treaty are to correct the imbalance in conventional forces deployed in Europe, which has been advantageous to the East, and to remove the capability of surprise attacks and grand-scale invasions by the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. It is expected that the CFE Treaty will bring about stabilization with regard to conventional forces at a considerably low level and lay the foundation to build a new framework for security in Europe with progress in the CSCE.
Nevertheless, prior to the signing of the Treaty, the Soviet Union transferred three army divisions to the navy in order to evade regulations of the Treaty and transferred a large volume of weapons to the East of the Urals, which is a territory not covered in the Treaty. The Soviet Union initially took such a tough stance on the problem of integrating army divisions into naval forces as to reject even discussing the matter. The NATO countries took a firm and unified stance on it. Eventually, at the special conference of the signatory countries of the Treaty in mid-June , the Soviet Union conceded and agreed to include the weapons which it has transferred to the navy into the countings within the framework of the Treaty and the deadlock was broken in the way on which the NATO countries had basically insisted.
As for the transfer of weapons to the East of the Urals by the Soviet Union, Japan raised this problem and urged the Soviet Union on various occasions, including the summit meeting of the two countries, from a viewpoint of security in the Far East and Asia. This problem was also settled in general at the special conference of the signatories of the CFE Treaty, but it is necessary to continuously pay attention to the moves of the transferred weapons.
In the Gulf Crisis, Iraq used Scud missiles and after the cease-fire, it was revealed through inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA that in violation of international law, Iraq had secretly produced enriched uranium, which could be used as a material for nuclear weapons. As a result, the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has become an actual problem. Furthermore, it was also made known that some Western corporations and experts were actually involved in the development of chemical weapons of Iraq.
Against such a background, international efforts to improve and reinforce the safeguards system of the IAFA and to strengthen export control of individual countries have been animated in order to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles. Japan actively contributes to these international efforts.
In the course of one year after August , the international community was deeply concerned about the problems of nuclear proliferation; this concern was especially aggravated by such events as possible development of nuclear weapons by Iraq, which was recognized to be particularly alarming through the Gulf Crisis and North Korea's refusal to conclude safeguards agreement with the IAEA. In consequence, international moves toward improvement and reinforcement of the nuclear non-proliferation system have been stimulated.
Thus, moves toward nuclear non-proliferation are discerned in areas which have so far seemed to have a danger of nuclear proliferation and the nuclear non-proliferation system has become more widely accepted. Deeply convinced that it is of vital interest, not only for Japan's own security but also for world peace, to maintain and to reinforce the nuclear non-proliferation regime, Japan adopts a very strict policy in this field. In implementing Official Development Assistance ODA , Japan decided in April to take into consideration the recipient countries' efforts on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In the negotiations on the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea, which commenced in January , Japan has consistently urged North Korea to conclude and implement the full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Furthermore, at the IAEA, Japan endeavored to demand that North Korea conclude and implement the agreement by mobilizing opinions of member countries and tabling resolutions.
Japan has continuously asked countries which are not yet parties to the NPT to accede to the Treaty not only in bilateral talks, but also on other occasions.
As shown in China's decision to sign the Treaty, Japan's efforts are thus gradually bearing concrete fruits. The resolution on the cease-fire with Iraq, which was adopted by the U. At the same time, the resolution requested the IAEA to inspect, destroy and dismantle Iraq's lethal arsenal in order to eliminate Iraq's ability to develop nuclear weapons.
It is unprecedented that the United Nations is authorized to take such compulsory measures to correct a situation in violation of the NPT or of the safeguards agreement of the IAEA. It is also the first time that the IAEA was invested with such a strong authority. While there is a special element in the case, since such a strong measure was taken as a consequence of the U.
In the process of implementing this resolution by the United Nations, it was revealed that although Iraq is a party to the NPT and had concluded a full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA, it had enriched uranium in violation of the obligations stipulated by international law. It was the first time that a violation of the full-scope safeguards agreement was detected, which created great concern that the Iraqi behavior threatens the basis of the international nuclear non-proliferation system itself. Japan also severely criticized the Iraqi violation of international law.
It is important to destroy Iraq's ability to develop nuclear weapons in accordance with the U. Security Council resolution so that a recurrence of similar incidents can be prevented and the confidence in the nuclear non-proliferation system can be maintained and strengthened. Although a final declaration was not adopted at the Conference, recognition of the necessity to maintain and reinforce the nuclear non-proliferation system was unanimously shown by participating countries.
For the first time, China and France attended the meeting as observers and the declarations by the five nuclear powers on the security of non-nuclear countries were reconfirmed. Other achievements included agreement in general on the necessity of reinforcing the IAEA's full-scope safeguards measures and restrictions on exports of nuclear-related items. The international community has now two major export-control regimes in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation, that is to say, the so-called London Guidelines and the Zanger Committee.
In March , all 26 member countries of the London Guidelines, including Japan, met in the Hague for the first time in 13 years since its creation in order to broadly discuss a wide range of subjects to improve and to strengthen the export-control system in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. The following items were decided at the meeting: 1 to create a framework to regulate exports of nuclear-related dual-use items; 2 to harmonize the lists of items of the two existing systems; 3 to request newly emerging supplier states of nuclear-related items which have not yet joined the system of export control to do so; and 4 to convene regularly a conference of nuclear supplier states.
Japan also considers it important to enhance the effectiveness of the system, which plays a vital role in maintaining and reinforcing the nuclear non-proliferation system, and takes a positive posture in the discussion, suggesting specific measures for improving the system. During the Gulf Crisis, the multinational forces, the Gulf countries and Israel were exposed to the threat of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. This convinced the world much more acutely than before of the urgency to realize disarmament of chemical weapons.
On the other hand, in view of the performance of high technology weapons used by the multinational forces, it was also recognized that the usefulness and deterrent effect of chemical weapons were not necessarily absolute. In these circumstances, the new initiative concerning CWC negotiations, announced by U. President George Bush in May , was highly appreciated by many participating countries of the negotiations as showing a flexible attitude of the United States toward the problems which remain unsettled in the CWC negotiations.
The initiative contains the decision not to use chemical weapons including in retaliation, unconditional destruction of existing chemical weapons within 10 years and conclusion of the CWC negotiations by May Due to the U. Although the CWC negotiations seem to have entered the final stage, heated discussions continue on: a the universal inspection and verification system, particularly on a challenge inspection, which are to be the pillars of the convention; b the objectives and scope of the verification regime on the chemical industry; and c the question of the organization to implement the convention, including administrative and financial issues.
As for specific measures to secure as many participating countries as possible and to make the CWC a universal treaty, discussions have just started. Discussions are also under way concerning technical methods of destruction of chemical weapons and the environmental impact caused by the destruction. It cannot be predicted whether the negotiations will be concluded by May as proposed by the United States.
Since chemical weapons can easily proliferate and they have the danger of destabilizing the international community if they are not controlled, the necessity of the early elimination of chemical weapons by concluding the CWC is now broadly recognized by the international community. After the Gulf Crisis, international voices calling for an effective control and reduction of weapons of mass destruction have mounted.
Taking this as a good opportunity for the successful conclusion of the protracted CWC negotiations, the second Ministerial Conference has been proposed to promote the negotiations. The first Conference was held in Paris in January, Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama proposed at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in June to convene a meeting of high-ranking officials within to pave the way for the Ministerial Conference.
Concerning the non-proliferation of chemical weapons, 20 countries in the Western world, including Japan, organized the Australia group in and since then, they have met regularly. The group has put export control on chemical substances to be used as raw materials of chemical weapons. At the meeting in May , based on Japan's proposal, the group agreed that the participating countries would also control exports of dual-use equipment which could be used to produce chemical weapons. Furthermore, discussions are under way among the participating countries regarding measures to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons.
Regarding the non-proliferation of missiles, Western countries, including Japan, have been implementing export controls on equipment and technology which can be used to manufacture missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, in accordance with common guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime MTCR.
Against the background of increasing apprehension about the proliferation of missiles, the participating countries in the MTCR increased to 16 as of June from the original seven. The MTCR participating countries have also been lobbying non-participating countries for adoption of the guidelines. The meeting announced a joint appeal to all states calling for the implementation of the guidelines. In May, the Annex to the guidelines, which lists the items to be controlled, was reviewed and the items were further articulated. The international transfer of conventional weapons is an old yet unsolved problem, and trials and errors have long been repeated on its control.
There are considerable differences in opinions about this problem in the international community, making the implementation of control considerably difficult. This can be attributed mainly to the stark fact that military forces are necessary to deter and oppose military invasion in today's world where sovereign states co-exist.
In this situation, the possession of conventional weapons concerns the minimum requirement for national security. Self-defense is a legitimate right of a sovereign state, recognized by Article 51 of the U. Accordingly, every country has the right to acquire the necessary weapons within that need, but it is difficult to uniformly judge what level of military equipment is needed for a country's self-defense. Recognizing the complexity of the problem of the international transfer of conventional weapons, the international community tackles this problem in the following direction. If the transparency and openness of the transfer of conventional weapons are enhanced, the international community will be able to know quickly any possibility that a dangerous accumulation of weapons is under way beyond the extent required for self-defense purposes.
The enhanced transparency and openness can build confidence among countries. Based on this recognition, the necessity of a mechanism for that purpose is increasingly realized. In accordance with a U. Deliberations are under way by experts from 19 countries, including Japan. The result of the work of the group is scheduled to be submitted to the U. General Assembly in the Autumn of In a package proposal titled "Japanese Near-term Responses to the Problems in the Middle East" announced in March , Japan proposed the establishment of a register system of international arms transfers under the auspices of the United Nations.
At the United Nations Kyoto Conference on Disarmament in May , held at the initiative of Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu, he announced in his keynote speech that Japan would submit a draft resolution on the establishment of a U. General Assembly in the Autumn of , taking into account the progress in the work of the group of experts. This active proposal by Japan was specifically referred to in the Declaration of the London Summit: "We support the proposal for a universal register of arms transfers under the auspices of the United Nations, and will work for its early adoption.
General Assembly. An excessive concentration of conventional weapons, which could tilt the military balance and induce conflict in a given region, can be prevented to a considerable extent through voluntary restrictions mainly by supplying countries of the weapons. Thus, the necessity of an appropriate framework for the voluntary restriction is widely discussed. Japan has been taking a very strict policy on exports of weapons for over 20 years in accordance with its "Three Principles on Arms Exports. In May , U. President George Bush proposed to establish common guidelines and a consultation mechanism among the five major arms suppliers, namely the United States, the Soviet Union, China, the United Kingdom and France, with regard to arms exports to the Middle East.
The five countries accepted the proposal and the first meeting was held on July 8 and 9 in Paris. In the Declaration of the London Summit, it was welcomed that discussions, including the Paris meeting, had commenced among the leading arms exporters with the aim of agreeing on a common approach to the guidelines applied in the transfer of conventional weapons.
The 45th session of the U. General Assembly was held in the Autumn of under circumstances where the Cold War structure between East and West was changing fundamentally and great achievements had been made in the field of arms control and disarmament, such as the U. It was made clear by differences shown in votings of the Soviet Union and the Central and Eastern European countries that they no longer form an independent political group reflecting the progress in democratization in the Central and Eastern European countries.
As a result, the non-aligned countries lost support for resolutions which they had been submitting for a long time. Great efforts were made to rationalize the work of the First Committee Security Disarmament of the General Assembly by reducing the number of draft resolutions and adopting more resolutions by consensus. Deliberations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in took place from February to April Spring session and from June to August Summer session with eight items on the agenda, including nuclear test ban, chemical weapons and prevention of an arms race in outer space.
In consideration of the fact that the Conference on Disarmament had not attained results comparable to the progress made in disarmament between East and West such as in the CFE negotiations, discussions focused on how to make the operation of the conference more effective. As a result, it was decided to convene three sessions a year from , instead of two sessions as previously held. Concerning nuclear testing, the ad hoc committee to discuss problems of the nuclear test ban, which had been suspended since due to differences in opinions, was re-established during the Summer session of owing in part to a strong request by Japan.
The committee resumed its substantive work with the chairmanship of the Japanese representative. The ad hoc committee was re-established in As for the CWC, serious discussions took place at the Conference on Disarmament, even when the whole conference was out of session, with the aim of concluding the convention by May In order to make active contributions to arms control and disarmament after the Gulf Crisis, Foreign Minister Nakayama, following the United Nations Kyoto Conference on Disarmament, delivered a speech articulating the basic stance of Japan on arms control and disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament in June , for the first time as a Japanese Foreign Minister in seven years since former Foreign Minister Shintaro Abe had attended it in This was highly appraised both at home and abroad as showing Japan's serious attitude toward disarmament issues.
One of the pillars of Japan's concept of international cooperation is "cooperation for peace. Moreover, Japan's positive attitude is demonstrated by its proposal for the establishment of a U. Concerning the non-proliferation of missiles, Japan chaired a meeting of the MTCR in Tokyo in March , contributing to the adoption of a joint appeal calling on all countries of the world to comply with the MTCR guideline.
All of these moves reflect Japan's positive stance. Note :The former enemy-state clauses are Article 53 the latter half of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 and Article of the U. Article 53 stipulates that enforcement action shall be taken based under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council to prevent the recurrence of invasions by the old enemy states, or as provided for pursuant to Article Article stipulates that nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy state.
His key argument is that a union of free states would promote peaceful society worldwide: therefore, in his view, there can be a perpetual peace shaped by the international community rather than by a world government. International co-operation to promote collective security originated in the Concert of Europe that developed after the Napoleonic Wars in the nineteenth century in an attempt to maintain the status quo between European states and so avoid war. The organization was international in scope with a third of the members of parliament , in the 24 countries with parliaments, serving as members of the IPU by Its aims were to encourage governments to solve international disputes by peaceful means and arbitration and annual conferences were held to help governments refine the process of international arbitration.
The IPU's structure consisted of a Council headed by a President which would later be reflected in the structure of the League. At the start of the twentieth century two power blocs emerged through alliances between the European Great Powers. It was these alliances that came into effect at the start of the First World War in , drawing all the major European powers into the war.
This was the first major war in Europe between industrialized countries and the first time in Western Europe the results of industrialization for example mass production had been dedicated to war. The result of this industrial warfare was an unprecedented casualty level with eight and a half million members of armed services dead, an estimated 21 million wounded, and approximately 10 million civilian deaths. By the time the fighting ended in November , the war had had a profound impact, affecting the social, political and economic systems of Europe and inflicting psychological and physical damage on the continent.
The causes identified included arms races , alliances, secret diplomacy, and the freedom of sovereign states to enter into war for their own benefit. The perceived remedies to these were seen as the creation of an international organization whose aim was to prevent future war through disarmament , open diplomacy, international co-operation, restrictions on the right to wage wars, and penalties that made war unattractive to nations. Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force.
This contrasts with self-help strategies of engaging in war for purely immediate national interest. While collective security is possible, several prerequisites have to be met for it to work. Collective Security also contrasts with alliances in term of different forms. In Ph. D dissertation of Andreatta, collective security is based on the perspective of all together in a group against any one rather than on unilateral idea of some against specific others. Moreover, it is also different from alliance since collective security is built to focus on internal regulation required universal membership while alliance is built to deter or reduce an outside threat as an exclusive institution.
For alliance, states would see their allies as absolute gain and their enemies as relative gains without legal obligation. In contrast, collective security follows the case of neutrality as the whole group would be required to punish the aggressor with the hope for it not to violate general norms, in which are beyond the states' control rather than by their self-interests.
Opposite with short term interest of allies fighting for a common threat, collective security tends to use universal interests for global peace. Sovereign nations eager to maintain the status quo, willingly cooperate, accepting a degree of vulnerability and in some cases of minor nations, also accede to the interests of the chief contributing nations organising the collective security. Collective Security is achieved by setting up an international cooperative organisation, under the auspices of international law and this gives rise to a form of international collective governance, albeit limited in scope and effectiveness.
The collective security organisation then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimised by the Collective Security organisation, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. The collective security organisation not only gives cheaper security, but also may be the only practicable means of security for smaller nations against more powerful threatening neighbours without the need of joining the camp of the nations balancing their neighbours.
The concept of "collective security" forwarded by men such as Michael Joseph Savage , Martin Wight , Immanuel Kant , and Woodrow Wilson , are deemed to apply interests in security in a broad manner, to "avoid grouping powers into opposing camps, and refusing to draw dividing lines that would leave anyone out. By employing a system of collective security, the UN hopes to dissuade any member state from acting in a manner likely to threaten peace, thereby avoiding any conflict.
Collective security selectively incorporates the concept of both balance of power and global government. However, the term "Collective Security" is not the same as Balance of power, mentioned in Realism theory. According to Adreatta, balance of power focuses on state's unilateral interests stopping aggression. Since states look at the world as having security dilemma due to the fear of relative gain, state does not want any state to become predominant causing a mutually restraining equilibrium.
In other word, Balance of power between states opts for decentralization of power. States are separate actors who do not subordinate their autonomy or sovereignty to a central. Balance of power fails to maintain stability led to break down of war as in the case of Napoleonic Wars and World Wars when states unilaterally decided to be unwilling or unable to fight.
At the same time, the concept of global government is about centralization. Global government is a centralized institutional system that possesses the power use of force like a well established sovereign nation state. This concept strips states of their "standing as centers of power and policy, where issues of war and peace are concerned,"  and superimposing on them "an institution possessed of the authority and capability to maintain, by unchallengeable force so far as may be necessary, the order and stability of a global community.
Organski lists five basic assumptions underlying the theory of collective security: . Morgenthau states that three prerequisites must be met for collective security to successfully prevent war:. After World War I, the first large-scale attempt to provide collective security in modern times was the establishment of the League of Nations in and The provisions of the League of Nations Covenant represented a weak system for decision-making and for collective action.
According to Palmer and Perking, they pointed failure of United States in joining League of Nations and the rise of the Soviet Union outside the League as one of major reasons why it was failed under enforcement of collective security . Moreover, an example of the failure of the League of Nations' collective security is the Manchurian Crisis , when Japan occupied part of China which was a League member.
After the invasion, members of the League passed a resolution calling for Japan to withdraw or face severe penalties. Given that every nation on the League of Nations council had veto power, Japan promptly vetoed the resolution, severely limiting the League's ability to respond. After one year of deliberation, the League passed a resolution condemning the invasion without committing the its members to any action against it. The Japanese replied by quitting the League. In a smilar process, sanctions were passed, but Italy would have vetoed any stronger resolution.
Thus, neither Britain nor France put any serious sanctions against the Italian government. In both cases, the absence of the United States deprived it of another major power that could have used economic leverage against either of the aggressor states.