Futenma Noise Litigation: Appeal Dismissed
Published in Ryukyu Shimpo
(Japan) on 15 October 2011
by (link to original)
How long is it going to keep turning its eyes away from human rights? I can’t help but think that the Supreme Court of Japan is abdicating its judicial role.
The residents of the area surrounding the U.S. military’s Futenma Air Station have filed a noise lawsuit demanding that America prohibit its planes from flying at night and early morning, but their appeal has been dismissed by the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court.
In the residents’ request they “stressed factual errors and sheer violations of the law” but, in relation to Article 312 of the Civil Procedure Code, there were not deemed to be any “errors in constitutional interpretation of the decree” or “violations of the constitution” given as reasons to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In July 2010, an appeal trial reached a decision in a similar lawsuit, where it acknowledged noise violations by U.S. military aircraft. In keeping with past judicial rulings prohibiting aviation activity, however, it stated that since they were caused by a third party (the U.S. military), they were outside the country’s jurisdiction and that it could not, therefore, restrain the U.S. military’s activities.
Although the noise caused by U.S. military aircraft is recognized as being against the law, this stance of making no requirements to prohibit aviation is contradictory. Not being able to pursue the removal of this noise can only be described as absurd.
Is it not a major problem in Japan’s constitution that, despite being an independent state, it possesses neither control nor sovereignty?
The direct implementation of the security guarantee is at the government’s discretion, and the courts themselves have indicated their judicial restraints, concluding that they cannot interfere.
The government has a duty to protect the lifestyle and rights of its citizens. In order to secure its residents’ rights, it must eliminate illegal activities. As a “final fortress of human rights,” it is the duty of the judicial branch to enforce it. The appeal court’s decision shows how the 1996 U.S.-Japan joint committee agreement — to prevent noise, prohibit late-night and early-morning flights and avoid flying routes over residential areas — has become meaningless
Given that it has been recognized as illegal, you’d think that Japan would have to work out a drastic counter-measure against this noise disruption. However, while the lifestyle, health and human rights of its residents continue to be jeopardized by U.S. aircraft noise, Japan just tolerates it.
The Futenma Air Station, situated right at the center of a residential town, has always been flawed and is not considered safe as an air base. The residents are just doing what any other human beings would do to demand their natural rights for a secure and peaceful life. I suppose that in order to get this, they will have no choice but to withdraw their appeal for the immediate shutdown of this flawed base.
The residents of the area surrounding the U.S. military’s Futenma Air Station have filed a noise lawsuit demanding that America prohibit its planes from flying at night and early morning, but their appeal has been dismissed by the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court.
In the residents’ request they “stressed factual errors and sheer violations of the law” but, in relation to Article 312 of the Civil Procedure Code, there were not deemed to be any “errors in constitutional interpretation of the decree” or “violations of the constitution” given as reasons to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In July 2010, an appeal trial reached a decision in a similar lawsuit, where it acknowledged noise violations by U.S. military aircraft. In keeping with past judicial rulings prohibiting aviation activity, however, it stated that since they were caused by a third party (the U.S. military), they were outside the country’s jurisdiction and that it could not, therefore, restrain the U.S. military’s activities.
Although the noise caused by U.S. military aircraft is recognized as being against the law, this stance of making no requirements to prohibit aviation is contradictory. Not being able to pursue the removal of this noise can only be described as absurd.
Is it not a major problem in Japan’s constitution that, despite being an independent state, it possesses neither control nor sovereignty?
The direct implementation of the security guarantee is at the government’s discretion, and the courts themselves have indicated their judicial restraints, concluding that they cannot interfere.
The government has a duty to protect the lifestyle and rights of its citizens. In order to secure its residents’ rights, it must eliminate illegal activities. As a “final fortress of human rights,” it is the duty of the judicial branch to enforce it. The appeal court’s decision shows how the 1996 U.S.-Japan joint committee agreement — to prevent noise, prohibit late-night and early-morning flights and avoid flying routes over residential areas — has become meaningless
Given that it has been recognized as illegal, you’d think that Japan would have to work out a drastic counter-measure against this noise disruption. However, while the lifestyle, health and human rights of its residents continue to be jeopardized by U.S. aircraft noise, Japan just tolerates it.
The Futenma Air Station, situated right at the center of a residential town, has always been flawed and is not considered safe as an air base. The residents are just doing what any other human beings would do to demand their natural rights for a secure and peaceful life. I suppose that in order to get this, they will have no choice but to withdraw their appeal for the immediate shutdown of this flawed base.
Next article![]( "U.S. Students Have A Trillion Dollar Debt")
