Editing Political question (section)

=== Japan ===
The postwar constitution gave the [[Supreme Court of Japan]] the power of judicial review.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Po Liang|last2=Wada|first2=Jordan T.|date=2017|title=Can the Japanese Supreme Court Overcome the Political Question Hurdle?|journal=Washington International Law Journal|volume=26|pages=349–79}}</ref> The court developed its own political question doctrine ({{Langx|ja|統治行為}}; tōchikōi), in part to avoid interpreting Article 9 of the post-war pacifist constitution, which renounces war and the threat or use of force.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Chance for court to right a wrong|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/06/23/editorials/chance-court-right-wrong/|date=2014-06-23|website=The Japan Times|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-14}}</ref> Issues arising under Article 9 have included include the legitimacy of Japan's [[Japan Self-Defense Forces|Self-Defense Force]], the [[Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan]], and the stationing of [[United States Forces Japan|American forces in Japan]].<ref name=":1" />

The ''Sunagawa case'' is considered the leading precedent on the political question doctrine in Japan.<ref name=":1" /> In 1957, demonstrators entered a then-American military base in the [[Tokyo]] suburb of Sunagawa, violating a special Japanese criminal law based on the US-Japan Security Treaty.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2018-07-19 |title=Japan Top Court Rejects Retrial over 1957 Sunagawa Incident |url=https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2018071900946/japan-top-court-rejects-retrial-over-1957-sunagawa-incident.html |access-date=2020-05-14 |website=nippon.com |language=en}}</ref> A Tokyo District Court found that the US military's presence in Japan were unconstitutional under Article 9 of the Constitution and acquitted the defendants.<ref name=":3" /> The Japanese Supreme Court overturned the district court in a fast-track appeal, implicitly developing the political question doctrine in the ruling.<ref>Motoaki Hatake, Kenkyū To Giron No Saizensen [Kenpō Article 9 - Frontiers of Research And Discussion], 94-95 (2006).</ref><ref>Yasuo Hasebe, Constitutional Borrowing and Political Theory, INTL. J. OF CONST. L. 224, 226 (2003)</ref> The Court found it inappropriate for the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of highly political matters like the US-Japan Security Treaty, unless they expressly violate the Constitution.<ref name=":2" /> On the Security Treaty, the Court saw "an extremely high degree of political consideration," and "there is a certain element of incompatibility in the process of judicial determination of its constitutionality by a court of law which has as its mission the exercise of the purely judicial function."<ref name=":4">Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Dec. 16, 1959, A no. 710, 13 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 3225 (Japan).</ref> It therefore found that the question should be resolved by the [[Cabinet of Japan|Cabinet]], [[National Diet|Diet]], and people through elections.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1" /> The presence of American forces was held to not violate Article 9 because they were not under Japanese command.<ref name=":4" /> The political question doctrine has remained a barrier for challenges under Article 9.<ref>Tsunemasa Arikawa, Hōri Saikōsai tōchikōi [The Principle of Law, The Supreme Court, and Political Question], 87 HORITSU JIHO No. 5, 4 (2015).</ref><ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Apr. 2, 1969, 5, 23 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 685 (Japan).</ref><ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Aug. 28, 1996, 7, 50, Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] 1952 (Japan).</ref> Under the "clear mistake" rule developed by the Court, it defers to the political branches on Article 9 issues so long as the act is "not obviously unconstitutional and void."<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1" />

Other notable cases on the political question doctrine in Japan include the ''Tomabechi case'', which concerned whether the dissolution of the Diet was valid.<ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] June 8, 1960, 14 Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] (7) 1206 (Japan).</ref> In the ''Tomabechi'' case, the Court also decided against judicial review by implicitly invoking the political question doctrine, citing the separation of powers as justification.<ref name=":1" /> In addition, the Court announced that in political question cases not related to Article 9, the clear mistake rule does not apply and judicial review is categorically prohibited.<ref name=":1" />