Edited by Gillian Palmer
The New Dugong Lawsuit: Stop the Relocation of the Base
Published in Ryukyu Shimpo
(Japan) on 10 November 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
(Japan) on 10 November 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Katie Tremmel.
Edited by .
On the issue of the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station, Okinawa plaintiffs seeking the protection of the dugongs living in Henoko Bay in Nago City — a Japanese national monument — are moving forward with their plan to file a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
If the construction of the landfill is allowed to begin, the U.S. government seeks to prohibit the entry of Japanese officials to U.S. military facilities. The Japanese government aims to take the U.S. military’s complete control of the bases — based on the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) — and use it against the U.S. in order to stop the landfill. While this may not be an ideal course of action, the new lawsuit is simply the only effective option that remains now that all other legal means have been exhausted.
The foundation of the new lawsuit is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA establishes that, in the event that the U.S. government has a direct impact on the cultural assets of another country, the U.S. must take into consideration the impact those actions will have.
The plaintiffs believe that once the court forces the U.S. Department of Defense to comply with the NHPA, it will be possible to both stop the U.S. military from blocking entry to bases for Japanese government officials and to suspend the plans for the landfill, which threatens the survival of the dugong.
The dugong lawsuit has a long history. It was originally filed in 2003; the same federal district court determined in the interlocutory decision of Jan. 2008 that the NHPA applied to the dugong as a protected species. Due to the fact that failure to assess the impact that U.S. military actions would have on the dugong is considered a violation of the NHPA, the plaintiff is effectively already winning the lawsuit.
The original lawsuit was suspended and is not yet closed. No judgment can be made until the U.S. Department of Defense submits the environmental impact assessment provided by the Japanese government to the district court.
According to the plaintiffs, the new lawsuit will not only take protective measures for the dugong as the original lawsuit did, but it will deal more fully with the issue by stopping landfill construction completely. U.S. environmental laws are generally stricter than Japanese laws, so hopefully we can expect impartial judgment on this issue.
It is expected that the new lawsuit will be presented once the Okinawa prefectural governor’s approval or disapproval of the landfill is confirmed.
According to an American lawyer with detailed knowledge of the NHPA, in the new lawsuit the damages incurred to the prosecution and defense will be weighed against each other, and whether or not a ban on the construction is in the interests of the general public is likely to become a point of contention.
Okinawa bears more than its share of the U.S. military base burden; incidents of violations of human rights which accompany this burden have been taken to court time and again. The present situation is that the majority of Okinawan citizens and the heads of the 41 Okinawan municipalities are opposed to the Henoko relocation plan. What we need now is for the district court to demand a complete revocation of the base relocation plan itself and for the U.S. justice system to show its good sense in dealing with this issue.
If the construction of the landfill is allowed to begin, the U.S. government seeks to prohibit the entry of Japanese officials to U.S. military facilities. The Japanese government aims to take the U.S. military’s complete control of the bases — based on the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) — and use it against the U.S. in order to stop the landfill. While this may not be an ideal course of action, the new lawsuit is simply the only effective option that remains now that all other legal means have been exhausted.
The foundation of the new lawsuit is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA establishes that, in the event that the U.S. government has a direct impact on the cultural assets of another country, the U.S. must take into consideration the impact those actions will have.
The plaintiffs believe that once the court forces the U.S. Department of Defense to comply with the NHPA, it will be possible to both stop the U.S. military from blocking entry to bases for Japanese government officials and to suspend the plans for the landfill, which threatens the survival of the dugong.
The dugong lawsuit has a long history. It was originally filed in 2003; the same federal district court determined in the interlocutory decision of Jan. 2008 that the NHPA applied to the dugong as a protected species. Due to the fact that failure to assess the impact that U.S. military actions would have on the dugong is considered a violation of the NHPA, the plaintiff is effectively already winning the lawsuit.
The original lawsuit was suspended and is not yet closed. No judgment can be made until the U.S. Department of Defense submits the environmental impact assessment provided by the Japanese government to the district court.
According to the plaintiffs, the new lawsuit will not only take protective measures for the dugong as the original lawsuit did, but it will deal more fully with the issue by stopping landfill construction completely. U.S. environmental laws are generally stricter than Japanese laws, so hopefully we can expect impartial judgment on this issue.
It is expected that the new lawsuit will be presented once the Okinawa prefectural governor’s approval or disapproval of the landfill is confirmed.
According to an American lawyer with detailed knowledge of the NHPA, in the new lawsuit the damages incurred to the prosecution and defense will be weighed against each other, and whether or not a ban on the construction is in the interests of the general public is likely to become a point of contention.
Okinawa bears more than its share of the U.S. military base burden; incidents of violations of human rights which accompany this burden have been taken to court time and again. The present situation is that the majority of Okinawan citizens and the heads of the 41 Okinawan municipalities are opposed to the Henoko relocation plan. What we need now is for the district court to demand a complete revocation of the base relocation plan itself and for the U.S. justice system to show its good sense in dealing with this issue.