Naganuma Nike Lawsuit - Naganuma Nike Lawsuit

This is a trial that has been fought for over 10 years over whether the Self-Defense Forces are constitutional or unconstitutional. It began in 1969 (Showa 44) when the government (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry) removed the designation of Umaoiyama National Forest as a protected forest in Naganuma Town, Yubari County, Hokkaido, in order to build a base for the Self-Defense Forces' surface-to-air missile Nike Hercules in the town. Local residents opposed to the base filed a lawsuit in July of the same year, claiming that "the construction of an unconstitutional Self-Defense Forces base is not for public interest reasons, and the removal of the designation as a protected forest is illegal." In September 1973, the Sapporo District Court (Judge Shigeo Fukushima, presiding) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, found the Self-Defense Forces unconstitutional, and made a groundbreaking decision to revoke the decision to remove the protected forest designation from the standpoint of protecting the people's "right to peaceful existence." However, the Sapporo High Court, which tried the second instance, overturned the first instance ruling, finding that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was without merit, and the Supreme Court also upheld the second instance ruling in 1982 and dismissed the lawsuit. In addition, in this lawsuit, in August 1969, Hiraga Kenta, the Chief Judge of the Sapporo District Court, sent a letter (the so-called Hiraga Letter) to Judge Fukushima, urging him to respect the decision of the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which sparked controversy as an infringement of the independence of judges.

[Satoru Ito]

"Article 9 of the Constitution and the Security Treaty and the Self-Defense Forces: The Significance of the Peace Constitution as Revealed in Court" by Akira Arai (1981, Nippon Hyoronsha) "Public Safety and Human Rights" by Tsuneo Yoshikawa and Satoshi Oda Naka (1974, Horitsu Bunkasha)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

自衛隊が合憲か違憲かをめぐって10年以上にわたって争われた裁判。1969年（昭和44）北海道夕張郡長沼町に自衛隊の地対空ミサイル「ナイキ・ハーキュリーズ」基地を建設するため、政府（農林大臣）が同町馬追(うまおい)山国有林の保安林指定を解除したことに端を発する。基地反対派の地元住民は「憲法違反の自衛隊基地建設は公益上の理由にならず保安林解除は違法」として同年7月訴訟を起こした。一審の札幌地方裁判所（福島重雄裁判長）は73年9月原告の訴えを認め自衛隊を違憲とし、かつ国民の「平和的生存権」擁護の立場から保安林指定解除処分の取消しを命ずる画期的な判断を下した。しかし二審の札幌高等裁判所は原告の訴えの利益なしとして一審判決を破棄し、最高裁判所も82年二審判決を支持して訴えを退けた。なおこの訴訟にあたっては、69年8月札幌地裁所長平賀健太が福島判事に対し、農林大臣の判断を尊重すべきとの趣旨の書簡（いわゆる平賀書簡）を届け、裁判官の独立性に対する侵害として論議をよんだ。

［伊藤　悟］

『新井章著『憲法第9条と安保・自衛隊――裁判にあらわれた平和憲法の存在意義』（1981・日本評論社）』▽『吉川経夫・小田中聰樹著『治安と人権』（1974・法律文化社）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例