Year XXXIX, Number 1, March 2026

Klaus Schlichtmann

Doctor of philosophy, Nihon University, Japan. Peace researcher and activist. Former Chairman, WestGerman World Federalists. Member of IPRA, Peace History Society and World Federalist Movement.

Many Japanese people who support Article 9 have allies in other countries who would like to learn more about it. How can we convey the message of Article 9 to them? Even if these allies are not peace activists, bringing this message to their attention would create awareness of how peace can be achieved. Peace is possible by sharing important information.

This issue must be discussed very seriously. Nuclear weapons have not been abolished, and the threat of another world war is real. Article 9 could be the key and our best option for avoiding catastrophe. Not only is it consistent with the UN Charter, which requires member states to refrain from the threat or use of force in their international relations, but having already accepted limitations on their national sovereignty under Article 24 of the Charter, Article 9 paves the way for giving the United Nations the sovereign authority it lacks.

Many Japanese who support Article 9 argue that it would be easy to spread the idea around the world if other countries emulated the provision, as Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir has repeatedly declared. But Malaysia itself has not done so. It is a rather useless and misleading idea. On the other hand, nominating Article 9 or people associated with it for the Nobel Peace Prize is not a bad idea.* In any case, many countries already have provisions in their constitutions that allow them to follow up on Article 9 by delegating sovereign powers to the United Nations. Here is a list of some of these provisions that follow up on A9 to achieve collective security and disarmament:

1946, FRANCE: On condition of reciprocity, France accepts the limitations of sovereignty necessary for the organization and defense of peace. (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, reconfirmed in the Constitution of October 4, 1958).

1948, ITALY: Italy renounces war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples or as a means of settling international disputes and, on conditions of equality with other states, accepts the limitations of its sovereignty necessary for an organization that ensures peace and justice among nations, and promotes and encourages international organizations established for this purpose. (Article 11 of the Constitution of January 1, 1948).

1949, GERMANY: (1) The Federation may transfer sovereign powers to international organizations by law. (2) In order to maintain peace, the Federation may join a collective security system; in doing so, it shall consent to those limitations of its sovereign powers that will bring about and guarantee a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the nations of the world. (3) For the settlement of disputes between states, the Federation shall adhere to agreements providing for general, complete, and compulsory international arbitration. (Article 24 of the Constitution of May 23, 1949)

1953, DENMARK: The powers which, according to this Constitution, belong to the authorities of the Kingdom may be transferred, by means of a bill, to a specifically defined extent, to international authorities established by agreement with other States to promote international legal order and cooperation. (Article 20, June 5, 1953) 1

971/1994: BELGIUM: The exercise of certain powers may be conferred by a treaty or by law on institutions governed by international civil law. (Article 34)

1973: LUXEMBOURG: The exercise of powers reserved by the Constitution to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches may be temporarily entrusted by treaty to institutions governed by international law. (Article 49 A. of the Constitution of October 17, 1968, amended on July 10, 1973).

1976: PORTUGAL: Portugal recommends the abolition of all forms of imperialism, colonialism, and aggression; general, simultaneous and controlled disarmament; the dissolution of political-military blocs and the establishment of a collective security system, with a view to creating an international order capable of ensuring peace and justice in relations between peoples. (Article 7 II., of April 25, 1976).

SPAIN: An organic law may establish authorization for the conclusion of treaties that attribute to an international organization or institution the exercise of powers derived from the Constitution. It is incumbent upon the Cortes Generales or the Government, as the case may be, to ensure compliance with these treaties and with the resolutions issued by international or supranational organizations that have been authorized by this transfer. (Article 93 of the Constitution of December 29, 1978).

1981: AUSTRIA: By law or by a treaty of state that must be ratified in accordance with Article 50 (1), specific sovereign rights of the Bund [federation] may be transferred to intergovernmental institutions and their organs, and the activity of foreign status organs in Austria as well as the activity of Austrian organs abroad be regulated within the framework of international law. (Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Constitution as amended on July 1, 1981).

There are many other similar constitutional provisions, mostly European, that could serve as a follow-up to Japan’s Article 9. It is very strange that these provisions, designed to empower the United Nations and implement the UN collective security system and achieve general and complete disarmament under international supervision, have been almost completely forgotten and neglected!

I have just finished writing a book of about 120 pages, in German, on the German Constitution of 1949. The title is “Article 24 of the Basic Law: A PACIFIST MANIFESTO A Brief History of Peace Constitutions.” The model for my booklet is the book by Italian author Luigi Bonanate, “Art. 11 Italian Constitution.” The Italian Article 11 has political significance in the context of the Italian pacifist movement that rejects war. In February 2003, for example, over 3 million people took to the streets in Rome, Florence, and Milan with banners reading: “Italy repudiates war Article 11.” In many schools and universities, Article 11 is cited on “Memorial Day.” Article 9 of Japan is also well known in Italy: Italians consider Articles 9 and 11 to be “sister constitutional articles.”

If a European country were to take legislative action with the aim of assigning primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the United Nations, this would be the most important approach to promoting Article 9 and bringing it to the world’s attention.

I would like to say something to the Japanese people who support Article 9, because I am not sure that everyone understands the purpose and profound meaning of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. It would be wonderful if all my Japanese friends who have connections abroad could share these two important approaches that can achieve peace and abolish war. There is another, perhaps even simpler, approach to promoting Article 9 and making it known to the world.

This simple approach is based on a principle that has been proven to work even in small groups. In our case, we will apply it to our campaign to promote Article 9. The idea is that Article 9 should be submitted to the United Nations Assembly for debate and decision as a constitutional motion, that is, as a formal proposal. In effect, the Japanese people, with their overwhelming support for Article 9, have presented the international community with a proposal for the abolition of war.

Usually, a formal motion can be presented to an assembly, legislative body, or peace organization to support a particular purpose described in the motion. I have done this several times at peace meetings. The motion is then distributed, read, and discussed by all participating members. Before any action is taken, however, another person (other than the one who submitted the motion) must second the motion, which means that it has been decided that the motion will be considered by the group. The group can then discuss and vote on the motion. Amendments may also be proposed, and in the end, a simple majority may decide to accept the proposal by voting. In our case, the appropriate assembly to consider the proposal would be the UN General Assembly. Since Japan has officially and legally proposed the abolition of war in its Constitution, it is sufficient for another UN member state to accept the proposal and declare its support for the motion. This would automatically initiate a debate on the issue of abolishing war as an institution.

NOTE: The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, in which Japan also participated, are less well known. Disarmament and the establishment of a world court for the peaceful resolution of international disputes were the two main topics of discussion. At the second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, only five European countries out of the 44 participants voted against the establishment of a court with binding jurisdiction. It was understood that without it, disarmament was not possible! The countries that voted in favor included the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

* By right, the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize should have honored Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and been awarded to those individuals and organizations that were nominated on its behalf. Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize expert and lawyer Fredrik S. Heffermehl, in his new book Shall We Never Get Rid of War?, argues that Japan, with its Article 9, shows the way forward and that the UN must realize the collective security system managed by the Security Council, as established in the 1945 UN Charter. This author, as a German scholar who argues that Article 9 is the key to changing course and achieving international peace based on justice and order, had also been nominated