|dc.description.abstract||Japan has resisted participation in collective self-defense with its allies for decades, citing
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, the which renounces the right of Japan to conduct warfare.
The interpretation that was used allowed Japan to practice individual self-defense, but did not
allow for collective self-defense with allies. However, as of July 1st
, 2014, Article 9 was
reinterpreted to allow for collective self-defense as well. This decision was met with strong
opposition from other countries in the East Asian region, such as China, South Korea, and North
Korea. These countries worry that the reinterpretation of Article 9 is a step closer to a Japan with
a normalized military and a future confrontation with Japan. However, upon analysis of the
concerns that these countries have about Japan and the details of the current situation of Article
9, it becomes apparent that this reinterpretation presents no new threat to the East Asian region.
International relations theory, specifically the theories of liberalism and realism, will be used to
justify the reasons why, despite the reinterpretation, Japan will be no more of a threat to the
region than it is currently. Though Japan’s actions and decisions display elements of both
liberalism and realism, liberalism better explains why Japan reinterpreted Article 9 to allow for
collective self-defense after decades of resistance.||en