QUESTION 4:                  With regard to the implementation of the right of peoples to peace at the international and regional level:


-What mechanisms are necessary to better enhance this right? Could you provide observations/proposals and/or examples of good practices?

We have organized in 1980’s regional conference on Peace Zone, like Mediterranean, Caribbean, Indian Ocean.  As seas are always very important places to give us natural resources and food, we should go further in this direction to make a progress by organizing peoples power to implement the right of peoples to peace.

 1. The right has enough strength to realize non-nuclear zone in North East Asia.

 2. The right has enough scope to realize a peaceful community of Asian peoples.

 3. The right has enough strong links with a movement to realize Human Rights Network or Tribunal in Asia.

- Experiences of international and regional organisations?

We have held international Conferences of democratic lawyers (COLAP) every 4 or 5 years in Asia and the Pacific. Free discussion have brought so far over many topics and issues such as peace, human rights, and development to adopt declarations and resolutions, which has good incentive to call for international solidarity actions.




QUESTION 5:                  With regard to peace education:

- What is your Government doing to provide peace education during primary, secondary and tertiary education?

Some primary and secondary schools make group tours to Hiroshima or/and Nagasaki to visit peace museums and learn much about war scourges.

- What should be the role of civil society?

Unfortunately there are not so many hours are given to peace education in schools, but some civil society organizations hold annual exhibitions of war memorial goods for peace education.

It is very important to improve educational contents toward right-based approach in order to empower peoples to be true right-holders






6. Further comments?

To enhance awareness on the right of peoples to peace, it would be desperately needed to have every pertinent document concerning the right of peoples to peace in multi-languages, not only in English or French or four other official languages in the UN.  Many Japanese people can understand English, but fewer can make ourselves communicate in English, much fewer in French.  Communication in one’s mother tongue is a basic right to be recognized and implemented internationally.  The state or some big companies like Microsoft, Apple, or Google, should pay what is actually needed to communicate in multi-languages through internet.









QUESTION 3:            With regard to the implementation of the right of peoples to peace at the national level:

- What mechanisms are necessary for the State to better enhance this right? Could you provide                            observations/proposals and/or examples of good practices?

Free speech without distinction of any kind is, as puts it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the basis of progress and development.  The state should promote and protect among others free speech on the very issue of the right of peoples to peace. That leads to conclude that the state is legally obliged to organize forums in which every individual or group of persons can freely participate, to make talks or discussion of any kind without discrimination. 

As our members in Japan put it, we have already good practice in some national courts decisions. For example, we can quote three cases in Japan.

1. Sapporo district court ruled in so-called Naganuma case, 1973, that the right to live in peace enshrined by Constitution of Japan in its Preamble was not a mere declaration of political will, but also a legally recognized right or legally binding.

2.  Nagoya court of appeal ruled also in a case against over sea dispatch of Japanese Self-Defence Forces to Iraq, 2008, that the right to live in peace in the Constitution of Japan had legal substance to be protected as a right.  The Court went further to say that people were entitled to seek redress through the courts (1) when the Government violated individual freedom against Article 9, as well as  (2) that people were forced to support a war efforts which infringed Article 9.

3.  Okayama district court also held in a case against the Government on over sea dispatch of Self-Defence Forces to Iraq, 2009, that the right to live in peace as stipulated in the Preamble of the Constitution of Japan had a legal binding force to give sufficient legal basis to a court’s ruling.

- What should be the role of civil society?

As for a theoretical point of view, it is important to avoid any misunderstandings or confusions.  It is therefore recommendable to start our study from international dimension of the right of peoples to peace, not abruptly from a domestic or national dimension of the right. Peace is of course a matter of domestic and international  concerns as well, but it is also sensitive matter at the same time even today when we are getting more interdependent than a half century ago. As the Charter of the United Nations puts it in its Article 2.7, the principle of self-determination of peoples is still legally binding, and a state is still a pertinent instrument of people’s sovereignty under obligation of mutual respect, which can go to non-interference into domestic or internal matters of a state. Indeed there are many examples we should condone that the right to live in peace in a domestic territory was severely infringed. But it is also true that a state acted like an instrument to protect economic or strategic interests of foreign countries rather than that to protect the sovereignty of the people. It is far from seldom that a civil war or uprising within a national border is brought about or stirred by such interests.

As for civil society movements, we can quote some experiences from our members associations. 

In Japan more than 7,000 circles, large or small, have been set up for a single cause of protection of Article 9 against eventual constitutional reforms.  Annual meetings both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even in Okinawa, have been held in memory of war victims, especially unknown sufferers from atomic bombs or massive ground fights. These commemorative events are all good examples to keep good memory of war scourges and to give lessons to peace education. The right of peoples to peace has been particularly hoisted by popular movements against US military forces stationing in Japan, especially in Okinawa, which has in its soil over 75% of US military bases within Japan.

In 2008, a Global Conference of Article 9 to Abolish War was held in Japan to gain more than thirty thousand participants to confirm international solidarity for peace, international or national, and human rights, against war, poverty, humiliation or foreign military bases.

Every two years civil society organized a World Social Forum in developing countries, Brazil, India, Kenya, Senegal, etc. Innumerable encounters between person-to-person or group-to-group may help mutual understandings and enhance mutual awareness on human conditions including peace, culture, welfare, economy, so on.  














Right of Peoples to Peace


as part of the consultations  undertaken by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee with all relevant stakeholders, at the request of the Human Rights Council pursuant to resolution  14/3 of 17 June 2010, on the possible elements for a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace.


International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL-AIJD)

President: Jeanne Mirer, Esq.

Secretary General: Osamu Niikura, Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan

Contact: mirerfam@earthlink.net;   oniikura@als.aoyama.ac.jp

Secretary General’s Office: JALISA, Ito Building 2nd Floor, Yotsuya 1-2, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0004, Japan

Phone: +81-3-3225-1020; +81-3-3409-8695

QUESTION 1:                  Do you have any comments on progress report A/HRC/17/39, in particular with regard to the proposed standards for a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace?

We are very grateful for all efforts to make progress to materialize a right of peoples to peace, which has been so far accomplished by the Advisory Committee, A/HRC/17/39.  Since the inception, our Association have been longing for peace, independence, development and equality among other issues at international stages. We share the same position as the progress report hints in that peace and security is a matter of right, not a simply political issue confined within a framework set by the Security Council. In international congresses we have had recently every 4 or 5 years, we have organized open minded discussion over peace, human rights and other pertinent issues like judicial independence and judicial reforms, which have lead many important insights into judicial mechanisms to make or keep peace. As we have conducted a global campaign for Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, peace clause, we are advocate for incorporation of peace clause like Japanese article 9 into every constitution of all states.  The progress report would be happily appreciated in stronger words as for state’s obligation to renounce war or abstention of use or threat of use of force in international disputes.

We are going further to discuss among member-associations on this issue. It would be grateful to give us another occasion of hearing as soon as possible before the deadline of the final report of the Advisory Committee to the Human Rights Council in January 2012.




QUESTION 2:                  What do you see as core components of the right of peoples to peace, which should be taken into account in the draft declaration?

Peoples of the World established the United Nations to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain peace and security and so forth. Among the four purposes and principles enshrined by the UN Charter, two elements can be seen as of cogent and core components: the dignity of human persons as one thing, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples as the other.  In other words, the right of peoples to peace is inherent in the very existence of us.

We can recall that the right to peace is provided as the first right of peoples by the basic text of international rule of law which is the Charter of the United Nations, and that the right to peace is based on two basic pillars which are self-determination of peoples and prohibition of the threat or use of force.

Some 27 States in the world have their constitutions which renounce literally or substantially maintenance of war potentials.  The Constitution of Japan, for example, says that we, people of Japan, recognize that all people of the world have the right to live in peace free from fear and want.

We also agree on the statements expressed every summer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by peoples gathered at the very places where the first two atomic bombs were dropped: no more Hiroshima, no more Nagasaki, no more Hibakusha or atomic bomb sufferers, no more war. This is to say that the right of peoples to peace has its core component in disarmament of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction or radioactive weapons.


















  • ライブドアブログ