Japan, explained.
The sculpture "Non-Violence" by the Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd at the United Nations headquarters building in New York (Pernaca Sudhakaran/UN Photo)
A declaration might be often dismissed as symbolic but can promote peace by shaping the perspective of the public and leaders.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The practical effect of a constitutional ban on warThe practical effect of a constitutional ban on war
Japan, famously, has a pacifist constitution, although that has not prevented the country amassing a formidable military force for “self-defence”.
And while Japan’s constitution was forged in the aftermath of devastating conflict, it is not the only country to choose to ban war. Other countries include Italy (1946, Article 11), San Marino (1974, Article 1), the Philippines (1987, Article 2), Ecuador (2008, Article 416), Bolivia (2009, Article 10), Paraguay (2011, Article 144) and Azerbaijan (2016, Article 9).
Each country to ban war has a different reason for doing so, and while inherently symbolic, the impact of these decisions can be groundbreaking in the promotion of peace worldwide. As constitutions are usually voted in by the people, they transcend politics and layout the moral and visionary guide to what the country stands for.
In the case of Italy and Japan, banning war was required of them following the end of the Second World War. Each of the others chose to do so voluntarily to promote peace in their nation and address their own security concerns. San Marino – which is one of the 26 non-militarised states globally – is both unarmed and too small to ever benefit from armed conflict. The microstate in central Italy has a population of around 35,000.
The efficacy of these decisions does vary from state to state, depending on the rationale that led each to repudiate war in their constitutions.
The Philippines adapted its constitution following the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in a bid to prevent violence and instability. Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay rejected war to protect their territorial integrity and sovereignty, with Ecuador and Bolivia both going a step further to ban foreign military bases in their territories. Bolivia is one of only two countries (alongside the Democratic Republic of Congo) to establish the “right to peace” as a constitutional human right. Yet the most recent outbreak of fighting in the eastern region around the city of Goma illustrates that declarations on paper are hard to achieve in practice.
Azerbaijan “rejects war as a means of encroaching on the independence of other states and of settling international conflicts”, yet the wording permits it to continue its long-standing conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.
The efficacy of these decisions does vary from state to state, depending on the rationale that led each to repudiate war in their constitutions. In the case of Japan’s constitution, Article 9 bans the establishment of armed forces, yet in practice Japan’s “Self-Defence Forces” had the tenth-largest gross military expenditure in the world in 2023. Its decision to ban war is wholly symbolic, as demonstrated by Japan’s support of American forces during the Korean War.
Italy is a more complex example. While the 1946 constitution “rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes”, the constitution allows for mandatory military service (Article 52), declarations of a state of war (Article 78), and declarations of war (Article 87). The banning of war came with two purposes; internally, to stigmatise conflict, and externally, to signal Italy’s commitment with the global movement to eradicate fascism and imperialism. In 2023 though, Italy had the world’s twelfth-largest annual military expenditure. Furthermore, despite its rejection of war, Italy is providing assistance to Ukraine under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member state.
In Ecuador, the constitutional rejection of war and foreign military bases on Ecuadorian soil led to the shutting down of the US military base Manta in 2009. However, in December, President Daniel Noboa is seeking to amend the constitution to allow foreign military bases in the country, with US forces previously using the Galapagos Islands, although this may be overturned by the upcoming elections on 9 February.*
San Marino has maintained a steadfast repudiation of war, even remaining neutral during the Second World War, despite the German invasion of September 1944, followed by a battle between Germany and Allied forces in Sammarinese territory, and the subsequent two-month occupation of San Marino by the Allies. The Philippines, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador have also adhered to their countries' rejection of war since incorporating these changes into their constitutions and avoided engagement in international warfare. (The Philippines has struggled with fierce local insurgencies, as well as increasing territorial tension with China.)
The UN Charter prohibits war, 26 countries have rid themselves of militaries, two enshrine the human “right to peace”, and eight have incorporated the repudiation of war into their constitutions. Each of these actions, though sometimes noted more in the breach than the observance, are groundbreaking in their efforts to promote peace and reduce the risks of armed conflicts. Countries looking to rewrite their constitutions (such as Armenia and Barbados) – or emerging countries looking to draft their first constitutions (Bougainville) – should consider including similar clauses.
Constitutions lay out the rights of a country’s people and aspirations for what the state should look like. By adopting a ban on war in the constitution, a state can enshrine their commitment to peace and non-violence.
* This passage was updated to clarify Noboa is seeking the change.
About the author
Sheridan Ward
Sheridan Ward is a researcher on non-militarisation and countries without sovereign military institutions.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
