The following article was published in the January 2026 issue of the International Review of Contemporary Law, the journal of the IADL, focusing on the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter.
The right to Peace in Japan, the UN, and the future – Interview with Jun Sasamoto
Introduction EN
The right to peace offers an important alternative to the imperialist framework which prioritises national security above all else. Jun Sasamoto, IADL bureau member and president of the Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific, was active in the deliberations resulting in the UN’s 2016 Declaration on the Right to Peace.
He tells us about this work which he analysed in his recently completed PhD, “The Impact of the Right to Peace on Security seen in the Deliberations in the United Nations”, conferred by the University of Tokyo Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Human Security Section.
Introduction/summary FR:
Le droit à la paix constitue une alternative majeure au cadre impérialiste qui privilégie la sécurité nationale au détriment de toute autre considération. Jun Sasamoto, membre du bureau de l’IADL et président de la Confédération des avocats d’Asie et du Pacifique, a pris une part active aux délibérations ayant conduit à l’adoption, en 2016, de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur le droit à la paix.
Il revient sur ce travail ainsi que sur son analyse dans sa thèse de doctorat récemment soutenue, intitulée « L’impact du droit à la paix sur la conception de la sécurité à travers les délibérations au sein des Nations Unies », délivrée par la Graduate School of Arts and Sciences de l’Université de Tokyo, section Sécurité humaine.
Le droit à la paix possède une valeur constitutionnelle en Bolivie et au Japon, et il a été reconnu par les juridictions de la Corée du Sud et du Costa Rica. Toutefois, son application concrète demeure à ce jour largement abstraite. Alors que le Comité consultatif du Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies avait initialement proposé une déclaration détaillée et substantielle comportant de nombreuses dispositions spécifiques (telles que le droit à l’objection de conscience), l’opposition des États-Unis a finalement conduit à l’adoption formelle d’une déclaration se limitant à l’énonciation abstraite d’un « droit à la paix ». Néanmoins, celui-ci constitue toujours un instrument potentiellement précieux dans la lutte contre l’impérialisme et la guerre. M. Sasamoto plaide en faveur de l’adoption de ce droit par un plus grand nombre d’États ainsi que de l’élaboration d’un traité international relatif aux droits de l’homme consacré à cette question.
Why did you decide to write about this topic?
First, I am Japanese, and the Japanese Constitution has the right to live in peace in the preamble. For a long time, in Japanese courts, we lawyers have filed some cases against violations of the right to live in peace of the residents. For example, the Self-Defense Forces, who are like the army, were going to build missile bases in the Hokkaido region in 1970s. But the residents around the base filed a lawsuit, saying the missile base violated the right to live in peace of the residents. Because if they build missile bases, enemy countries will attack the missile base, right? So they cannot live anymore. So it is a violation of the right to live in peace. I think this is a very unique provision in the world. And to some extent, this kind of lawsuit succeeded.
For example, during the Iraq War, ordinary citizens filed a lawsuit saying that dispatching the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to Iraq was a violation of the right to peace of ordinary citizens. Because they are forced to be involved in an aggressive war. So participation in Iraq is against the right to live in peace. In the court decision, the court did not recognize it as a violation of the right, but the court said that if there are certain conditions, there may be a violation of the right to live in peace. After this ruling, actually, the Self-Defense Forces were forced to return to Japan.
So I think this right to peace, or the right to live in peace, has great power. I want to disseminate this right to live in peace, and the right to peace, to the world. Every country should have the right to live in peace and the right to peace. Then lawyers can file lawsuits against violations of this right. That is a good idea and ideal. So that was the first time I became interested in the right to peace.
In the UN Human Rights Council, there was a Spanish NGO involved in the idea. Their movement was to establish the right to live in peace as a human right. It was almost the same way of thinking as the Japanese Constitution, so I attended that movement in the Human Rights Council in the capacity of IADL. At that time, Micol [Savia, Secretary General of IADL] was the Geneva representative, so Micol and I were always at the Human Rights Council sessions three times a year. I went there three times a year and discussed with NGOs and governments from many countries. At first, the Cuban government promoted this right to peace in the Human Rights Council. It was very good for IADL, as our aim was very similar to that of the Cuban government, so we could cooperate with them. I was involved in this movement in the Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, I wanted to know and research what the meaning of the right to peace is and what effect the right to peace has on actual international society. About ten years ago, I entered graduate school at the University of Tokyo.
Why did you choose the graduate school of Arts and Sciences and not law school?
When I wanted to enter the university, the human security program only accommodated people around 50 years old. I was 50 years old. So only this section accepted older students. And at the same time, I was working as a lawyer, and only this section was compatible. So I was studying at this university for about 10 years and writing this thesis. The aim of this thesis is to seek the meaning of the right to peace in the world.
My inspiration came from my experience watching the deliberations at the Human Rights Council. There was a very strict debate between Western countries and other countries. The representative of the Western countries was the United States. The United States opposed all the provisions of the right to peace. They studied very much, and their knowledge was very deep, but their purpose was only to oppose the declaration on the right to peace. So we – NGOs, the Cuban government, and Global South governments – struggled for about six years. Finally, it was adopted, but a very abstract provision: “right to enjoy peace” – very abstract.
The draft declaration by the advisory committee had been very concrete, with about 15 provisions, but they were all rejected. Only one phrase, only one article, was adopted. This debate reflected actual international politics. It made me very interested. And I thought that maybe this concept of the right to peace could be useful for our struggle against U.S. imperialism and for stopping war.
So, in this thesis, first I studied international politics theory, especially security theory. Traditional security theory is national security – the idea that the state should defend its people. But that concept legitimizes wars in the name of defense, so there are many wars. I think the concept of security should be changed. In 1994, the United Nations proposed the concept of human security. But human security is a very abstract and policy-oriented concept, and it was not theorized. So I studied human security theory from the perspective of international political theory. I found that the right to peace is a useful concept. The right to peace imposes on the state the obligation to preserve peace for the people. It is a very new concept; it is not even in the UN Charter itself. So I think this right to peace is part of human security theory, and it overcomes national security theory as a theoretical framework.
The results of this research have many meanings. In Japan and South Korea, court decisions have always denied the right to live in peace, saying that national security should be prioritized. But in my thesis, I argue that national security should not always be prioritized over human security and the right to peace. So we can now use this concept as lawyers in court. I want to elaborate on this concept of peace further. Actually, last year, I asked the Japanese Lawyers Association and other lawyers’ organizations to elaborate this right to peace. They are discussing it and proposing many concrete provisions. For example, the right not to be deprived of one’s land for military purposes, and others. There are many rights related to peace.
So I think these efforts provide guidance for lawyers working in the courts, and at the same time, they have political meaning. People can demand peace from the state and the government – it is a right. Our demand can be legitimized by this concept, the right to peace. If we, IADL and other organizations, continue to elaborate this concept from now on, I think it will be very useful for us to stop wars and conflicts.
It’s a UN decision, but it’s not a convention. The General Assembly adopted the resolution but it’s a recommendation, right?
Yes, not binding.
So should there be an interest in having a convention? That way, it would also be binding for the state. When it’s implemented in the states that have signed and ratified it, you could go to court and have a stronger legal basis, maybe even a stronger decision.
This is just a declaration, not a legally binding power. So we should move toward making it a human rights treaty in the future, like other human rights treaties. But it will take time.
The problem is that there are very few national practices in the world. Only Japan, South Korea, and Costa Rica have court decisions that refer to this right. Other countries don’t have such experiences. So, if we want to discuss this in the United Nations, we need more national practices in each country.
If there are national practices, then we can move forward toward a human rights treaty in the discussions. My goal is like that. Through IADL activities, I will continue to advocate for this movement.
You mentioned that the right to peace that was adopted by the UN is one that was reduced from the initial proposals that were put forward. Could you explain a bit more about the initial proposals and the outcome?
There is an Advisory Committee in the Human Rights Council. The Advisory Committee made a draft declaration on the human right to peace. It originally had many detailed provisions, about 14 or 15 articles – very detailed ones. For example, the right to disarmament, the right to live in peace, the right to peace education, and the right to conscientious objection, etc. But the United States opposed every provision. They have a lot of knowledge of international law, while our NGOs and Global South countries had much less knowledge. So, after three years of discussions, since the UN aims for consensus, the text was reduced to a very short version – only 9 provisions. However, it was still a success for us that the General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Right to Peace. This declaration is now the basis from which we can continue to develop and move toward an international human rights treaty. On this basis, we should go forward.
You talked about the right to peace being quite unique within the Japanese Constitution, with Cuba having something similar. Do you see that as being something that any other states might adopt, or is that something that we’re going to have to rely on international law to protect?
Bolivia has a constitutional right to peace. When President Morarez made a new Constitution they included the right to peace. But as far as I know, there are only two, Bolivia and Japan. The court decisions are in South Korea and Costa Rica.
And of course Costa Rica and Japan, they don’t have armies.
Yes, Japan and Costa Rica have provisions that say “no armies.” But actually, Japan has a very big army, while Costa Rica truly has no army. This is related to the right to peace. In South Korea, there is no provision saying “no army,” but they learned from the Japanese Constitution. And Korean lawyers filed a lawsuit using the Japanese Constitution as a reference. The court ruling recognized the right to live in peace.
There are many U.S. military bases in South Korea, so residents living around the bases filed a lawsuit. The court decision said that building U.S. military bases violates the residents’ right to live in peace. That was a very, very good experience. If every country could make constitutional provisions or court rulings like that, we could expand national practices and go to the United Nations.
All articles published in the International Review of Contemporary Law reflect only the position of their author and not the position of the journal, nor of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.