--The Asahi Shimbun, April 29
EDITORIAL: Judiciary can’t afford to duck concerns about security laws
（社説）安保違憲訴訟　司法の真価が問われる
 
About 500 citizens have sued the government over national security legislation enacted last year, claiming the legislation is unconstitutional because it allows Japan to engage in collective self-defense.
集団的自衛権の行使を認めた安保関連法は憲法に反するとして、市民ら約５００人が東京地裁に訴えをおこした。今後も各地で提訴が予定されている。

The lawsuit, filed with the Tokyo District Court on April 26, demands a court order to block any Self-Defense Forces deployment under the security laws, which passed the Diet last September and came into force on March 29. Similar legal actions are expected in various parts of the nation.
The judiciary should respond head-on to the vital constitutional questions raised by these suits. The courts should fulfill their judicial responsibility by making their own constitutional judgments on the matter. The Supreme Court, the guardian of the Constitution, should then make the final decision.
裁判所は、正面からこの問いに答えてもらいたい。各地での判決を積み重ねたうえで、憲法の番人である最高裁が最終判断を示す。その司法の責務をまっとうしてほしい。

We should remember the Diet debate on the security bills submitted last year by the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
昨年の安保法制の国会審議を思い起こしたい。

Many legal experts, including constitutional scholars and former Supreme Court justices, denounced the legislation as “a violation of the Constitution” and “a denial of constitutionalism.” Many Japanese were disturbed by the government’s explanations about its interpretation of related constitutional provisions that were clearly at odds with past government statements.
多くの憲法学者や元最高裁判事らが、「違憲である」「立憲主義の否定だ」と声をあげた。過去の政府答弁と明らかに食い違う憲法解釈の説明に、疑問を感じる国民も多かった。

But the government and ruling camp dismissed all these criticisms, saying it is the Supreme Court that has the mandate to make the final judgment on the constitutionality of laws. The government also argued that one top court ruling is more important than 100 theories. Eventually, the ruling coalition rammed the bills through the Diet by using its dominant parliamentary majority.
しかし政府与党は「違憲かどうか最後に判断するのは最高裁だ」「１００の学説より一つの最高裁判決だ」と反論し、数の力で法を成立させた。

The administration’s policy of heeding only what the Supreme Court says in dealing with constitutional issues related to the legislation should not be taken as a sign of respect for the judiciary.
耳を貸す相手は最高裁でしかないという政権の姿勢を、そのまま司法への敬意の表れと受け取るわけにはいかない。

Through personnel changes, the Abe administration effectively stripped the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the watchdog of legislative actions, of its ability to check bills from the legal point of view.
そもそも安倍政権は政府内の「法の番人」だった内閣法制局への人事措置により、チェック機能をそいだ。

The Diet, the nation’s legislature, proved to be ruled by the dictates of the majority.
立法府である国会も数の論理が支配した。

The role of the judiciary as one of the three branches of government under the checks and balances system has never been as important as it is now.
三権分立の一翼を担う司法の役割が、いまほど重く問われているときはない。

The plaintiffs of the latest lawsuit are demanding compensation for what they say is a violation of their constitutional right to live in peace. They also claim the people’s right to amend and determine the Constitution has been violated by the effective change to war-renouncing Article 9 made by the administration without following the formal procedure for constitutional amendments.
原告側は、平和に生きる権利を侵されたとして、賠償などを求めている。憲法改正手続きを経ずに９条を実質的に変えられてしまい、国民の「憲法改正・決定権」が侵害されたと訴えている。

Past court rulings on lawsuits over such constitutional issues indicate that the plaintiffs face high hurdles.
これまでの判例を振り返れば原告側のハードルは高い。

Conventional wisdom in the Japanese judicial community says courts should not judge the constitutionality of specific laws unless there are concrete legal disputes that require such judgment.
日本の裁判では、具体的な争いがなければ、法律が合憲か違憲かを判断できないとされる。

A court refused to hear another lawsuit seeking the annulment of the new security laws, saying such a demand is inappropriate for judicial determination.
抽象的に安保法の廃止などを求めた別の訴訟は「審査の対象にならない」と門前払いされた。

The consensus view among judicial experts is that even if a court decides to hear such a lawsuit, a constitutional judgment should not be made unless it is necessary for settling a dispute involving concrete interests.
審査に入ったとしても、憲法判断は訴えの解決に必要な場合以外は行わないという考えが、司法関係者の間では一般的だ。

Given the history of court rulings in this type of case, courts may opt to avoid making any constitutional judgment while rejecting the plaintiffs’ demand for compensation.
今回も裁判所がその考え方に立てば、賠償の求めを退けるだけで、憲法判断は避ける方向に傾くこともありえる。

But the plaintiffs of the latest lawsuit include relatives of SDF personnel and residents living near military bases.
原告には自衛隊員の親族や、基地周辺の住民らも名を連ねている。

They need to make concrete arguments regarding their specific interests to persuade the court to hear the case.
裁判というテーブルに議論を載せるためにも、具体的な主張をめざしてほしい。

At the heart of their lawsuit is serious anxiety about the government’s lack of respect for the basic principles of constitutionalism.
訴えの根本にあるのは、立憲主義を軽んじる政治のあり方に対する深刻な危機感である。

The judiciary should make sincere responses to the constitutional questions raised by these lawsuits without trivializing them.
憲法をめぐる真剣な問いを、裁判所は矮小（わいしょう）化することなく、真摯（しんし）に受け止めるべきだ。

The courts should not act in a way that will only further undermine public confidence in the governing system.
国の統治機構への信頼をこれ以上損なってはならない。