すごく面白かったです。やめようと思っても読むのが止まらないくらい。誰か、ドラマか映画にしてくれないかな。まるで小説のような面白さです。
著者のことは全く知りません。この本で採用されている歴史的文書を読むこともできないし、その信ぴょう性の判断も私にはできません。引用されている文章が存在することは信用しますが。『大澤真幸THINKING「O」第16号 コロナ時代の哲学』で、この本が紹介されていて、「美濃部達吉が9条に反対だった」というのに興味を惹かれて読みました。
護憲派、改憲派、「押し付けられ論」・・・憲法第9条について色々言われますが、著者は「GHQが押し付けたもの」であることは明白であることを当時の状況を各種文献で再現しています。「「押しつけられた」原理を、押しつけた側と押しつけれれた側のどちらが、より必要としているか。我がものとしているか。そういうことが、ここに問われているのです。」（P.19）「一つには、憲法9条をカッコにいれ、それなしでも、平和について、憲法について、考えられるようにしておきたい。」（P.22）「もう一つとして、憲法9条とか、いまの日本の国にとって一番大切なことは何かなどという「大きなこと」のわきに、同じ比重で、「小さなこと」を置いておきたい。普段着で、気分のままに、憲法9条について考える、という流儀を確保しておきたい。」（P.23）というのが本書の趣旨です。「「平和憲法」があるために、自分たちの平和についての考え方が弱くなっている可能性がある、それでは本末転倒なのではないか」（P.13）。
憲法9条が「ただの戦争放棄」なのか、「特別の戦争放棄」なのかという、私が聞いたことがない言葉が出てきます。マッカーサー・ノートから言えば、「自衛のための戦争も放棄する」というものですし、イタリア憲法11条や、ドイツのボン基本法24条にある「相互主義の留保」（P.147）（他の国も主権の制限である戦争放棄をする限りで、自国も戦争放棄をする）も無いのが「特別の戦争放棄」です。
著者は、「わたしたちにとって、ほんとうは「特別の戦争放棄」よりも、「ただの戦争放棄」のほうが、大切なのではないでしょうか」（P.154）「主権の制限（戦争放棄）は、あくまで「相互主義の原則」のもとで行われる必要があります」（P.157）と言います。「特別の戦争放棄」は「カミカゼ攻撃の自己犠牲への熱狂」のように「マッカーサーが「大統領」という野望のために必要とした独自の理想主義的な平和主義の輝きが、日本国民に受けとられると、彼らの心の中で失われた「国体」の空虚を満たすようになります。」（p.189）
憲法9条は常に憲法1条、つまり「天皇制の存続」とセットになっています。
昭和天皇を起訴せず（免罪して）に統治に利用するため、「形式的にはどうしても天皇自身の発議による大日本帝国憲法からの改正」（P.227）でなければならず、「実質的には主権の断絶と変更を含むものでなければならない」（P.228)ことから、「法的意味における革命」つまり宮沢俊義の「八月革命」説が出てきます。「現行憲法は、国民主権を採用しているが、これはポツダム宣言の受諾に伴う主権の転換の帰結を宣言しているにすぎず、創発的な意味を持つものではない」ということになるわけです。美濃部達吉はこの宮沢説に従いませでした。「大衆の動向に追随していくのではなくて、それと緊張関係にあって対決しながら、どこまでもくっついていく」（吉本隆明、P.245）という学者としての態度を貫いたのです。
しかし、実際は主権は天皇=>占領軍=>国民と移行しているが明確な事実です。
「絶対的戦争放棄」は「相互主義の原則」に基づき、国権の一部を「国際連合」に預けることによって成り立ちます。しかし、東西冷戦と朝鮮戦争の勃発のもとで国際連合が国連軍をもつことが事実上難しくなり、国連憲章に第51条の「集団的自衛権」という条文が追加されました。最近よく聞く「集団的自衛権」というのは自衛隊派遣のための造語ではなくて、国際法上の概念だったんですね。その事によって「日米安保条約」が正当化され日本の「占領状態」が現在まで続いているのです。（いまでも多くのアメリカ人はそう思っているでしょう。）
この、終戦から憲法改正、日米安保条約締結、サンフランシスコ講和条約締結までの経過を時系列的に（多少の前後があるところが読みづらかったりしますが）資料に基づいて記述されています。
著者は歴史家ではないのでしょう。プロフィールにも「文芸評論家」とあります。各節の太字の表題がまるで本文のように思える（つまり強調文字のように見える）書き方は面白いです。また、マッカーサー、昭和天皇をはじめとする登場人物の性格描写が詳しいです。まるで、歴史は「権力者の資質」で動くかのように描かれています。（例えば「憲法9条の平和主義と、それを全く信用しないニヒリストである昭和天皇の姿を対比させてみると、前者の「からっぽな理想の姿」が浮かび上がってきます」（P.323）や大統領になりたかったマッカーサーの話など。）
でも、そうでしょうか。そのこととの関連で言えば、この本の本当の背景である（と思われる）アメリカ資本の話が出てこないのです。もちろん日本の財閥の話も出てきません。アメリカ大統領や日本の首相を動かしたのは、本人の資質でしょうか。吉田茂が「日本の労働者を開放しよう」と思ったら、日本は社会主義国になっていたのでしょうか。たまたま吉田茂がそう考えなかったということなのでしょうか。
個人と社会の関係です。とても難しくて、簡単に書くことはできません。
個人が社会を作っていますが、人間社会なしに個人はありません。社会の影響なしに個人が生きること、成長することはありえないのです。アメリカ大統領や日本国首相になるには「資質が必要」かもしれません。でも、大統領や首相が何を話すかは「資質」ではないと私は考えています。
著者は、「誰だって、殴られそうなときには自分の身を守るでしょ。自己の防衛権はあるに決まっています。」という考え方のようです（該当ページが見つかりません。困った）。自衛権（国権の一部）を放棄するためには、国際連合のような機関に各国がその権利を委託（委譲）することが必要だということです。たとえば、わたしたちは暴力を禁止されています。それは憲法の基本的人権はもとより「傷害罪」などの法（立法）で守られています。そして、それが破られる（そうな）時には警察組織（行政）という暴力が発動されます。その結果としての裁判（司法）も執り行われます。その三権は（分立していようがいまいが）私たちが放棄した自衛権を担保しているわけです。（それが機能不全に陥ると極端な保身、自己防御になります。監視社会もそこから生まれます。個々人が「強く」なることを強制されます。健康、そしてスポーツが奨励されます。(^_^;)）
私たちは「武力・軍隊」だけでなく、武器の所有を禁止されています。アメリカでも銃規制の動きは幾度となく出てきますが、それはアメリカ人が「銃」で「自由と民主主義」を勝ち取ったという思いの中で、なかなか実効性を持ちません（『大澤真幸THINKING「O」第16号 コロナ時代の哲学』参照。）多分それは『構成的権力』（『構成的権力―近代のオルタナティブ』ネグリ）の問題と結びついていて、この本に欠けている視点の一つです。
そのうえで、軍隊や警察を持たない「本当の民主主義」、「強者や弱者がいない世界」は如何にして可能か、を問い続けなければならないのではないでしょうか。「（ただの戦争放棄ではない）絶対的戦争放棄は理想的・空想的だから、憲法を改正して軍隊を持ち、自衛するのが現実的だ。日本は独立国家なんだから」あるいは「米軍基地があっても、それでアメリカに守ってもらえるならいいじゃないか。日本とアメリカの進む道はほぼ一緒なんだから」という現実主義、あるいは一種の諦めともいえる考えをすることも可能です。でもそれでは「強者と弱者」「勝ち組と負け組」は絶対になくなりません。「戦う」ということと「守る」ということをもう一度考えてみませんか。私は、「弱い」「負け組」なので、そう思うのです。結論を出すことが正しいことだと、当たり前だと思われています。でも、安易に結論を出すのではなく、敢えて結論を出さずに（死ぬまで）考え続けること（『バートルビー』のように）も「大変なこと」だけども必要なのではないかと思うこの頃です。
改憲派の方も護憲派の方も、憲法9条に興味のない方も、間違いなく面白いですから読んでもらいたい本です。
⟨impressions⟩
Really it was interesting. I can't stop reading even if I try to quit. Can someone make it a drama or a movie? It's just like a novel.
I don't know the author at all. I can't read the historical documents used in this book, and I can't judge their authenticity. I trust that the quoted text exists. In " Masachi Osawa THINKING" O "No. 16 Philosophy of the Corona Era ", this book Was introduced, and I was fascinated by the fact that "Tatsuki Minobe was against Article 9" and read it.
Constitutionalists, pro-constitutionalists, "imposed theory" ... Various things are said about Article 9 of the Constitution, but the author states in various documents that it is clear that it is "imposed by GHQ". It is reproduced. "Which of the pressed or pressed sides needs the" pressed "principle more? Is it my own? That is the question here. (P.19) "One is to put Article 9 of the Constitution in parentheses, and even without it, I want to be able to think about peace and the Constitution." (P.22) "As another, I would like to put "small things" with the same weight next to "big things" such as Article 9 of the Constitution and what is the most important thing for Japan today. I want to secure the style of thinking about Article 9 of the Constitution in everyday clothes and in the mood. "(P.23) is the purpose of this book. "The existence of the" Peace Constitution "may weaken our thinking about peace, which may be the end of the story" (P.13).
There are words I have never heard of whether Article 9 of the Constitution is "just abandonment of war" or "abandonment of special war". According to MacArthur Note, "the war for self-defense is also abandoned", and "reservation of reciprocity" (P.147) (P.147) in Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and Article 24 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. As long as the country abandons the war, which is a restriction of sovereignty, neither the country nor the abandonment of the war) is a "special abandonment of war".
The author wrote, "Isn't it really more important for us to just abandon war than to abandon a special war?" (P.154) "Restrictions on sovereignty (abandonment of war) are It must be done under the "principle of reciprocity" (P.157). The "special war abandonment" is like "the enthusiasm for self-sacrifice of the Kamikaze attack". When taken, they will fill the emptiness of the lost "national polity" in their minds. (P.189)
Article 9 of the Constitution is always bundled with Article 1 of the Constitution, that is, "the continuation of the emperor system."
In order to use it for governance without indicting (immunizing) Emperor Showa, it must be "formally amendment from the Constitution of the Empire of Japan by the emperor's own initiative" (P.227). It must include the sovereignty severance and change ”(P.228), which gives rise to the“ revolution in the legal sense ”, that is, the“ August Revolution ”theory of Toshiyoshi Miyazawa. "The current Constitution adopts popular sovereignty, but this merely declares the consequences of the conversion of sovereignty following the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and has no emergent meaning." That's why. Tatsuki Minobe did not follow this Miyazawa theory. He maintained his scholarly attitude, "Rather than following the trends of the masses, we are in a tense relationship with them and will stick to them forever" (Takaaki Yoshimoto, p.245).
However, in reality, sovereignty has shifted to the Emperor => Occupation Army => People, which is a clear fact.
"Abandonment of absolute war" is based on the "principle of reciprocity" and consists of entrusting a part of the state power to the "United Nations". However, with the outbreak of the Cold War and the Korean War, it became virtually difficult for the United Nations to have UN forces, and Article 51, "Right of Collective Self-Defense," was added to the Charter of the United Nations. The term "right of collective self-defense," which I often hear these days, was not a coined word for dispatching the Self-Defense Forces, but a concept under international law. As a result, the "Japan-US Security Treaty" was justified and Japan's "occupation state" continues to this day. (Many Americans still think so.)
The process from the end of the war to the revision of the Constitution, the conclusion of the Japan-US Security Treaty, and the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is described in chronological order (although it may be difficult to read some parts before and after).
The author may not be a historian. The profile also says "literary critic". It's interesting how the bold titles in each section look like the text (that is, they look like emphasized letters). In addition, the characterization of characters such as MacArthur and Emperor Showa is detailed. History is depicted as if it were driven by "the qualities of a person in power." (For example, if you compare the pacifism of Article 9 of the Constitution with the figure of Emperor Showa, a nihilist who does not trust it at all, the former "empty ideal figure" emerges "(P.323). And the story of MacArthur who wanted to be president.)
But is that so? In that regard, the story of American capital, which is (believed to be) the true background of this book, does not come up. Of course, there is no talk of Japanese conglomerates. Is it the qualities of the person who moved the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan? If Shigeru Yoshida wanted to "open up Japanese workers," would Japan have become a socialist country? Does that mean that Shigeru Yoshida didn't think so?
It is the relationship between the individual and society. It's so difficult that it's not easy to write.
Individuals make society, but there is no individual without human society. Individuals cannot live or grow without the influence of society. You may "need qualities" to become the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Japan. But I don't think what the president or prime minister speaks is "qualities."
The author seems to think, "Everyone will protect himself when he is about to be beaten. He has the right to defend himself." (I can't find the corresponding page. I was in trouble). In order to waive the right to self-defense (a part of the right to the state), it is necessary for each country to delegate (delegate) that right to an organization such as the United Nations. For example, we are banned from violence. It is protected not only by the basic human rights of the Constitution but also by laws (legislation) such as "injury crime". And when it is broken (likely), violence called a police organization (administration) is activated. The resulting trial (judiciary) is also held. The three rights (whether separated or not) guarantee the right of self-defense that we have abandoned. (When it becomes dysfunctional, it becomes extreme self-protection and self-defense. Surveillance society is also born from it. Individuals are forced to become "strong". Health and sports are encouraged. (^_ ^;)))
We are prohibited from owning weapons as well as "armed forces". Gun control movements have appeared many times in the United States, but it is not very effective in the thought that Americans have won "freedom and democracy" with "guns" (" Masachi Osawa THINKING "O" No. 16 Philosophy of the Corona Era ".) Maybe it is" constructive "Power" (" Constructive Power-Modern Alternatives " It is one of the perspectives that this book lacks, linked to the problem of Negri).
On top of that, I think we must continue to ask how "real democracy" without the military and police and "a world without the strong and the weak" are possible. "Absolute war abandonment (not just abandonment of war) is ideal and fantasy, so it is realistic to amend the constitution to have an army and defend itself. Because Japan is an independent nation." Or "US military base Even if there is, it would be nice if the United States could protect it. Because the paths of Japan and the United States are almost the same, "or a kind of resignation can be considered. But then, "strong and weak" and "winners and losers" will never disappear. Why don't you think about "fighting" and "protecting" again? I think so because I am a "weak" and "loser". It is taken for granted that drawing conclusions is correct. But nowadays, I think it is necessary to keep thinking (like "Bartleby") without making a conclusion (until you die) instead of drawing a conclusion easily, though it is a "difficult thing".
Whether you are a constitutional amendment, a guardian, or not interested in Article 9 of the Constitution, this is definitely an interesting book to read.
Really it was interesting. I can't stop reading even if I try to quit. Can someone make it a drama or a movie? It's just like a novel.
I don't know the author at all. I can't read the historical documents used in this book, and I can't judge their authenticity. I trust that the quoted text exists. In " Masachi Osawa THINKING" O "No. 16 Philosophy of the Corona Era ", this book Was introduced, and I was fascinated by the fact that "Tatsuki Minobe was against Article 9" and read it.
Constitutionalists, pro-constitutionalists, "imposed theory" ... Various things are said about Article 9 of the Constitution, but the author states in various documents that it is clear that it is "imposed by GHQ". It is reproduced. "Which of the pressed or pressed sides needs the" pressed "principle more? Is it my own? That is the question here. (P.19) "One is to put Article 9 of the Constitution in parentheses, and even without it, I want to be able to think about peace and the Constitution." (P.22) "As another, I would like to put "small things" with the same weight next to "big things" such as Article 9 of the Constitution and what is the most important thing for Japan today. I want to secure the style of thinking about Article 9 of the Constitution in everyday clothes and in the mood. "(P.23) is the purpose of this book. "The existence of the" Peace Constitution "may weaken our thinking about peace, which may be the end of the story" (P.13).
There are words I have never heard of whether Article 9 of the Constitution is "just abandonment of war" or "abandonment of special war". According to MacArthur Note, "the war for self-defense is also abandoned", and "reservation of reciprocity" (P.147) (P.147) in Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and Article 24 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. As long as the country abandons the war, which is a restriction of sovereignty, neither the country nor the abandonment of the war) is a "special abandonment of war".
The author wrote, "Isn't it really more important for us to just abandon war than to abandon a special war?" (P.154) "Restrictions on sovereignty (abandonment of war) are It must be done under the "principle of reciprocity" (P.157). The "special war abandonment" is like "the enthusiasm for self-sacrifice of the Kamikaze attack". When taken, they will fill the emptiness of the lost "national polity" in their minds. (P.189)
Article 9 of the Constitution is always bundled with Article 1 of the Constitution, that is, "the continuation of the emperor system."
In order to use it for governance without indicting (immunizing) Emperor Showa, it must be "formally amendment from the Constitution of the Empire of Japan by the emperor's own initiative" (P.227). It must include the sovereignty severance and change ”(P.228), which gives rise to the“ revolution in the legal sense ”, that is, the“ August Revolution ”theory of Toshiyoshi Miyazawa. "The current Constitution adopts popular sovereignty, but this merely declares the consequences of the conversion of sovereignty following the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and has no emergent meaning." That's why. Tatsuki Minobe did not follow this Miyazawa theory. He maintained his scholarly attitude, "Rather than following the trends of the masses, we are in a tense relationship with them and will stick to them forever" (Takaaki Yoshimoto, p.245).
However, in reality, sovereignty has shifted to the Emperor => Occupation Army => People, which is a clear fact.
"Abandonment of absolute war" is based on the "principle of reciprocity" and consists of entrusting a part of the state power to the "United Nations". However, with the outbreak of the Cold War and the Korean War, it became virtually difficult for the United Nations to have UN forces, and Article 51, "Right of Collective Self-Defense," was added to the Charter of the United Nations. The term "right of collective self-defense," which I often hear these days, was not a coined word for dispatching the Self-Defense Forces, but a concept under international law. As a result, the "Japan-US Security Treaty" was justified and Japan's "occupation state" continues to this day. (Many Americans still think so.)
The process from the end of the war to the revision of the Constitution, the conclusion of the Japan-US Security Treaty, and the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is described in chronological order (although it may be difficult to read some parts before and after).
The author may not be a historian. The profile also says "literary critic". It's interesting how the bold titles in each section look like the text (that is, they look like emphasized letters). In addition, the characterization of characters such as MacArthur and Emperor Showa is detailed. History is depicted as if it were driven by "the qualities of a person in power." (For example, if you compare the pacifism of Article 9 of the Constitution with the figure of Emperor Showa, a nihilist who does not trust it at all, the former "empty ideal figure" emerges "(P.323). And the story of MacArthur who wanted to be president.)
But is that so? In that regard, the story of American capital, which is (believed to be) the true background of this book, does not come up. Of course, there is no talk of Japanese conglomerates. Is it the qualities of the person who moved the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan? If Shigeru Yoshida wanted to "open up Japanese workers," would Japan have become a socialist country? Does that mean that Shigeru Yoshida didn't think so?
It is the relationship between the individual and society. It's so difficult that it's not easy to write.
Individuals make society, but there is no individual without human society. Individuals cannot live or grow without the influence of society. You may "need qualities" to become the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Japan. But I don't think what the president or prime minister speaks is "qualities."
The author seems to think, "Everyone will protect himself when he is about to be beaten. He has the right to defend himself." (I can't find the corresponding page. I was in trouble). In order to waive the right to self-defense (a part of the right to the state), it is necessary for each country to delegate (delegate) that right to an organization such as the United Nations. For example, we are banned from violence. It is protected not only by the basic human rights of the Constitution but also by laws (legislation) such as "injury crime". And when it is broken (likely), violence called a police organization (administration) is activated. The resulting trial (judiciary) is also held. The three rights (whether separated or not) guarantee the right of self-defense that we have abandoned. (When it becomes dysfunctional, it becomes extreme self-protection and self-defense. Surveillance society is also born from it. Individuals are forced to become "strong". Health and sports are encouraged. (^_ ^;)))
We are prohibited from owning weapons as well as "armed forces". Gun control movements have appeared many times in the United States, but it is not very effective in the thought that Americans have won "freedom and democracy" with "guns" (" Masachi Osawa THINKING "O" No. 16 Philosophy of the Corona Era ".) Maybe it is" constructive "Power" (" Constructive Power-Modern Alternatives " It is one of the perspectives that this book lacks, linked to the problem of Negri).
On top of that, I think we must continue to ask how "real democracy" without the military and police and "a world without the strong and the weak" are possible. "Absolute war abandonment (not just abandonment of war) is ideal and fantasy, so it is realistic to amend the constitution to have an army and defend itself. Because Japan is an independent nation." Or "US military base Even if there is, it would be nice if the United States could protect it. Because the paths of Japan and the United States are almost the same, "or a kind of resignation can be considered. But then, "strong and weak" and "winners and losers" will never disappear. Why don't you think about "fighting" and "protecting" again? I think so because I am a "weak" and "loser". It is taken for granted that drawing conclusions is correct. But nowadays, I think it is necessary to keep thinking (like "Bartleby") without making a conclusion (until you die) instead of drawing a conclusion easily, though it is a "difficult thing".
Whether you are a constitutional amendment, a guardian, or not interested in Article 9 of the Constitution, this is definitely an interesting book to read.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
加藤/典洋
文芸評論家。1948年山形県生まれ。東京大学文学部仏文科卒。国立国会図書館勤務を経て、早稲田大学名誉教授。『アメリカの影』(講談社文芸文庫)、『敗戦後論』(ちくま学芸文庫、伊藤整文学賞)、『言語表現法講義』(岩波書店、新潮学芸賞)、『小説の未来』(朝日新聞社)、『テクストから遠く離れて』(講談社、この二著で桑原武夫学芸賞)ほか、著書多数
戦後日本の象徴として、
多くの日本人から熱烈に支持されてきた憲法9条。だがそれを支持するリベラル派も、
批判する右派も、自分に都合の悪い歴史には
ずっと目をつぶり続けてきた。
多くの異説や混乱が存在するなか、
あらゆる政治的立場を離れ、
ただ事実だけを見据えて描き出した、
憲法9条の誕生と、「マッカーサー」「昭和天皇」
「日米安保」との相克をめぐる成立初期の物語。
30年来の構想を書ききった著者渾身の一作。
多くの日本人から熱烈に支持されてきた憲法9条。だがそれを支持するリベラル派も、
批判する右派も、自分に都合の悪い歴史には
ずっと目をつぶり続けてきた。
多くの異説や混乱が存在するなか、
あらゆる政治的立場を離れ、
ただ事実だけを見据えて描き出した、
憲法9条の誕生と、「マッカーサー」「昭和天皇」
「日米安保」との相克をめぐる成立初期の物語。
30年来の構想を書ききった著者渾身の一作。
[拡大] [ ISBN-13 : 978-4422300580 ]
