The Russian Invasion of Ukraine and the Future International Legal Order ---Will the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution Promote Legal Institutionalization of Common Interests of the International Community as a Whole?
Since February 24, 2022, when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, the international legal order has been in an unprecedented predicament. The unusual acts of brutality committed by a permanent member of the UN Security Council shook significantly the UN collective security regime and international law that institutionally sustains it. Many lamented and despaired that the United Nations and international law are powerless in the face of war. Undeniably, neither the United Nations nor international law can completely prevent war. However, Ukraine and the majority of UN member states are far from despairing in the face of the daily ravages of war and are making every possible effort in solidarity to defend the existing international legal order, with the UN Charter at its nucleus. This may be because they have adopted as their ideals universal values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law that they have promoted together with the United Nations and because they find it hard to find other effective means than international law to realize these values in the world.
Contemporary international law came into existence alongside the formation of the international community, boasting a long history of development. However, it remains an immature legal norm, as if mirroring the current state of the international community. That is all the more reason why the United Nations, since its establishment, has sought through its General Assembly to encourage "the progressive development of international law and its codification" (UN Charter Article 13(1)) to "establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained" (Preamble) and to realize "in conformity with the principles of justice and international law" (Article 1(1)) the maintenance of international peace and security, jointly with the International Court of Justice, "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92). The United Nations has actually been the driving force for developing the contemporary international legal order in the post-WWII era. In this sense, it is no exaggeration to say that a challenge to the United Nations signifies a challenge to the contemporary international legal order. From this perspective, how can we evaluate the United Nations' efforts in response to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Based on the above line of thinking, this paper aims to argue the following two points. (It will not attempt an evaluation in the light of international law of the Russian invasion and relevant individual military actions since many discussions on this theme have already appeared in Japan.) 1 First, although much attention has been paid to the fact that the United Nation was prevented from adopting a Security Council resolution to address Russia's violation of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force, the United Nations has functioned as anticipated and condemned the Russian acts of aggression under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. Second, through the implementation of measures against the Russian aggression taken by member states based on that resolution, the international legal order has reached a stage of further development toward realizing the common interests of the international community as a whole.
2. Significance of the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution in the UN Collective Security Regime: Possible Constraints on the Right of States to Self-Judgment
(1) The United Nations of the Five Powers
One of the primary purposes of the United Nations is to "take effective collective measures" (Article 1) necessary for maintaining "international peace and security" to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" (Preamble to the UN Charter). As one of its principal organs (Article 7), the UN Security Council bears "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" (Article 24(1)). In case the Security Council judges that international peace and security are endangered --- or in case it determines "the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" ---, it can decide on the most powerful mode of collective measures or military coercive measures accompanied by the use of armed force (Articles 39 and 42). This decision of the Security Council is binding on the member states (Article 25), and such measures are also defined as an exception to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that prohibits the use of armed force.
However, the Security Council's authority to exercise strong collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security is subject to an affirmative vote of nine of the 15 Council members (Article 27(3)), including the concurring votes of the five permanent members (Article 23(1)). This mechanism called the "veto power" is based on the recognition of the drafters of the UN Charter that: international peace sought by the United Nations, can be realized only when the five powers, representing "the peoples of the united nations" (Preamble) who won the last World War, join forces (Articles 47, 106, etc.).
(2) Merits and Demerits of the "Inherent Right of Self-Defense"
Understandably, the drafters of the UN Charter did not think from the beginning that it would be easy to obtain the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council, as the antagonistic structure of the Cold War had already emerged. They authorized member states to act based on the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" under conventional general international law --- subject to reporting to the Security Council --- "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" (Article 51). In other words, if the Security Council is unable to fulfill its "primary responsibility" for the maintenance of international peace and security, a mechanism that allows each member state to confront an imminent crisis for international peace and security individually or collectively with force, by returning to the traditional world of general international law that has existed since before the formulation of the UN Charter, had been prepared as, so to speak, a complement to the collective security regime.
Nevertheless, it is a grave problem that even under the postwar UN Charter, the lack of unanimity of the five powers will allow traditional general international law to continue governing the use of armed force among member states. This means that a decentralized international legal order in which the freedom to resort to force is de facto granted to each member state is still valid, even if only partially. As is well known, in the pre-UN Charter era, the Kellogg–Briand Pact condemned recourse to war (Article 1); today it is understood that whatever use of force is banned by the same Pact. However, not only was the case of self-defense made an exception to the ban, but the Pact also emphasized that each nation "shall have powers to determine on its own whether or not it shall be necessary to resort to war for self-defense" (US government document). This means that each nation can judge the legality of initiating and carrying out a war of self-defense.
Thus, as long as conventional general international law maintains its validity as the "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" stipulated by Article 51 of the UN Charter, the UN collective security regime will not be free from the "fatal flaw" 2 that "war (or the right to war) can be easily abused by states." 3 Certainly, the UN Charter ensures, to a certain extent, a mechanism to curb the abuse of the right of self-defense, where a state that resorts to force shall subject itself to the external accountability procedure of reporting to the Security Council, thereby restricting its right of self-judgment. Yet, without the unanimity of the five powers, the Security Council could not judge the legality of the state's reported use of force in question.
(3) From the United Nations of the Five Powers to the United Nations of the International Community
The United Nations, which came into existence with these inherent limitations, subsequently made a series of efforts to establish another new mechanism to prevent member states from abusing their right of self-defense based on their judgment, under the circumstance that the five powers cannot reach a unanimous decision. The pivot of these efforts was a response to acts of aggression, which had been the most cardinal issue since the founding of the United Nations. An act of aggression is "the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world", and "for the realization of lasting peace and security it is indispensable that prompt united action be taken." 4 If, nevertheless, disagreement among the five powers prevents such action, how can the United Nations' purpose of maintaining international peace and security be achieved? Recognizing this concern during the Korean War, the General Assembly adopted the "Uniting for Peace" resolution in 1950, creating a framework to deter acts of aggression. 5
The resolution checks the Security Council from becoming dysfunctional by "reaffirming … the duty of the permanent members to … exercise restraint in the use of the veto" (Preamble) while empowering the General Assembly to make decisions for collective security on behalf of the Security Council. This has enabled the General Assembly to convene an emergency special session within 24 hours of the receipt of a request for such a session from the Security Council or member states and to make appropriate recommendations to member states for "collective measures" "when there appears" to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. These measures include "in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary." Since a request for an emergency special session is made by a vote of the nine members of the Security Council or by a majority of member states, the United Nations can address emergencies through the General Assembly even if the Security Council cannot take action because of disagreement among the permanent members. This means that the General Assembly can now authoritatively pass judgment on the illegality of the use of force by a particular country to recommend collective measures, including the use of force, even if it, unlike the Security Council, cannot determine the existence of an act of aggression to call for military coercive measures.
Furthermore, in 1974 the General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution on the definition of aggression because "it is desirable to formulate basic principles as guidance" (Preamble) to "simplify the determination of acts of aggression and the implementation of measures to suppress them" --- "the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force." 6 Then, aggression was defined as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations" (Article 1). The same resolution enumerates acts of aggression (Article 3). While stating that the determination of acts of aggression is left to the Security Council (Article 4), the General Assembly has subsequently declared at its emergency special sessions the existence of acts of aggression in the context of Article 39 of the UN Charter and the resolution on the definition of aggression. 7
Thus, the place for decision-making of the United Nations to collectively address acts of aggression shifted from the Security Council to the General Assembly. In evaluating the significance of this shift from the viewpoint of the contemporary international legal order, it must not be forgotten that the number of UN member states then had already reached around 150, up from 51 at the time of the founding of the United Nations. This signifies that the United Nations evolved in both name and substance from the "United Nations of the five powers" centering on the Security Council to the "United Nations of the international community" centering on the General Assembly, which is not bound by the will of the five powers. The significance of this change is prominently enormous, especially for international law, which until that time had been "fatally flawed" when it came to judging the legality of war or the use of force. Based on the General Assembly resolutions on the emergency special session and the definition of aggression, international law acquired a mechanism for all nations to rally and authoritatively determine whether a country's military action is a legitimate use of force based on the right of self-defense or an act of aggression --- "the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force".
The cases that the United Nations judged aggressions by using this system of the emergency special session are only a few --- Israel's invasion of Lebanon (7th session, 1980-1982), 8 South Africa's occupation of Namibia (8th session, 1981), 9 and Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights (9th session, 1982). 10 The Soviet invasions of Hungary (2nd, 1956) and Afghanistan (6th, 1980) were ruled illegal armed interventions but not ruled aggressions. 11 This time, the UN collective security system, which developed over many years, has adequately addressed the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine and issued recommendations (non-legally binding, though). The General Assembly, representing the most authoritative will of the international community, judged that the ongoing Russian invasion is an act of aggression. A United Nations judgment of "the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force", which had rarely been made before, has now been applied to a case involving a permanent member of the Security Council.
3. Legal Effects of Acts of Aggression --- An International Legal Framework to Realize the Common Interests of the International Community as a Whole
(1) Condemnation of acts of aggression by General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1
UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1, adopted on March 2, 2022, by 141 countries (5 against, 12 abstentions), is titled "Aggression against Ukraine." As the succinct and pertinent title suggests, the General Assembly deplored "in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter" and demanded straightforwardly "that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine", and "that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders." 12 This is in stark contrast to the General Assembly Resolution 68/262 of March 24, 2014, regarding the Russian annexation of Crimea, which only affirmed the principle of non-use of force without designating Russia. 13
The Resolution ES-11/1 was adopted at the eleventh emergency special session, requested by the Security Council pursuant to the Resolution 2623 in response to the situation that "the lack of unanimity of its permanent members … has prevented it (the Security Council) from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." 14 The mechanism created in 1950 for the General Assembly to take the lead in UN collective security measures in the event of a Security Council veto has functioned as anticipated at this critical juncture that has shaken the contemporary international legal order.
In the process leading up to the adoption of the Resolution ES-11/1, Russia repeatedly emphasized that the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter is the international legal basis for the "special military operation" that it began on February 24, 2022. 15 In launching the operation, President Putin stated, "… in accordance with Article 51 (chapter VII) of the Charter of the United Nations, I have decided to conduct a special military operation with the approval of the Federation Council of Russia and pursuant to the treaties on friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, as ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22 this year." 16 The right of self-defense mentioned here seems to refer not only to an individual right of self-defense to protect Russia but also to a collective right of self-defense to protect the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. First, concerning the individual right of self-defense, Putin's address underscores that the eastward expansion of NATO as "the so-called policy of containment of Russia" by the US-led West who "disregard international law" is "a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our State and its sovereignty." 17 Next, concerning the collective right of self-defense, the address states emphatically that "the nationalist fringe and neo-Nazis in Ukraine," who, with the support of NATO countries, "are also aspiring to possess nuclear weapons," are committing "a genocide against the millions of people" living in the Donetsk and Luhansk republics in the Donbas region, 18 who, like Crimea and Sevastopol, want to "reunite with Russia", and that both republics "appealed to Russia for help." 19
However, it is hard to admit that an armed attack on Russia, which is first and foremost necessary for it to exercise the right of individual self-defense, has occurred. Even if Russia believes, like the United States, that the presence of an imminent threat justifies the use of the individual right of self-defense, 20 NATO's eastward expansion alone would not constitute such a threat. It is not sufficient for Russia to say, "This is the red line that has been talked about many times: they have crossed it." 21 Consequently, it may be no use asserting, to meet requirements in international law for eliminating such a threat by force, that "[w]e simply have been left with no other way to defend Russia and our people than the one we are forced to use today." 22 Neither will it make sense to limit, to meet requirements for proportionality, the purpose of using force to "the demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine, as well as the prosecution of those who have committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation." 23 The declaration of an armed attack and request for assistance by an injured state are necessary preconditions for collective self-defense. But at present, the International Court of Justice states, in Order on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of 16 March 2022, that it "is not in possession of evidence substantiating the allegation of the Russian Federation that genocide has been committed on Ukrainian territory", involving an armed attack against the people of the Donbas region. 24 As long as the existence of such genocide cannot be confirmed, it is difficult to recognize the status of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics as independent states even under the so-called "remedial secession theory," 25 Rather, in this case, as condemned by the Resolution ES-11/1, Russia's recognition of these states should be considered as constituting so-called "premature recognition," i.e., an act of intervention that violates Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Admittedly, Russia swiftly reported to the Security Council the initiation of its special military operation, together with its reasons, following the procedures of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which member states are required to follow when exercising the right of self-defense. However, Russia's justification then was not persuasive. The fact that the General Assembly strongly condemned the Russian operation as "aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter" is nothing but an expression of the adamant will of the international community that it will never allow Russia to justify its use of force with such a shallow explanation.
(2) Will General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 become a Keystone in the Development of the General International Legal Order?
The legal effect of the General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's acts of aggression, representing the will of the international community, extends beyond the UN collective security regime to the general international legal order. In the contemporary international legal order, featuring the protection of the common interests of the international community as a whole, acts of aggression have been considered not only to be subjected to UN military measures and individual criminal punishment but also to incur a responsibility that all states should bear for their serious breaches of peremptory norms, and a right to countermeasures by third states.
"[A] peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted" under general international law (Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Any treaty will be void if it conflicts with the norm, but according to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts drafted by the International Law Commission, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, a flagrant violation of that article creates the following three obligations for all states: 1. "States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach"; 2. "No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach"; 3. No state shall "render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation" (Article 41). These are called "aggravated state responsibility" as a system of responsibility to protect the common interests of the international community as a whole, different from the system of liability between the offending and injured states arising from usual violations of international law. 26
Furthermore, in 1970 following the establishment of the Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) that recognized the existence of the above-mentioned peremptory norm, the International Court of Justice recognized --- from the perspective of a state's obligation to enforce a peremptory norm --- "the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole" --- obligations erga omnes, distinct from those owed by a state to other states. 27 When a state violates this obligation, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts admit that "[a]ny State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of" the offending state by resorting to countermeasures (Article 48(1)(b)). Countermeasures are the right of an injured state to resort to illegal acts to terminate the prior illegal acts of an offending state and to pursue its responsibility; or an institute under international law where the wrongfulness of countermeasures taken by an injured state is precluded (Article 22), as long as certain requirements (Articles 49-54) are met.
The prohibition of aggression, alongside the prohibition of genocide, has been positioned from the outset as a typical example of both peremptory norm and obligations erga omnes mentioned above. Consequently, the General Assembly's recent condemnation of Russia's acts of aggression against Ukraine, even if not required by Resolution ES-11/1, may be considered to incur, under general international law, an aggravated responsibility of all states for the termination of such acts, as well as the right of the victim state (Ukraine) and all third states to take countermeasures against Russia. It should be noted, however, that neither the aforementioned aggravated state responsibility nor the right of third states to take countermeasures has necessarily been recognized as an established institute, but rather as an evolving international legal framework to implement by states in the future.
Currently, the G7, the EU, and other developed countries are collectively imposing an unprecedented scale of intensive economic sanctions on Russia, perpetrating acts of aggression or the gravest violation of international law, as well as its supporter Belarus, while warning some countries, including China, not to support Russia. The series of sanctions, including the exclusion of leading Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT); the freezing of assets of the Russian president, central banks, and key figures; restrictions on Russian imports and exports; and the revocation or withdrawal of Russia's MFN status, are problematic regarding compatibility with the WTO agreements, especially the WTO security exception provisions. In addition, these developed countries have provided Ukraine with weapons, goods, information, and other forms of assistance, which may raise problems in the future in relation to the principle of prohibition of the use of force and the obligations of neutrality. In justifying such a series of measures against aggression and requests to other countries for participation in those measures, will such frameworks as the right of third countries to take countermeasures and aggravated state responsibility be really applied by member states as a positive law norm independent from the General Assembly recommendations? In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine --- the greatest crisis of the contemporary international legal order ---, as many as 141 countries have rallied to condemn Russia's invasion as acts of aggression or "the most serious and dangerous form of illegal use of force." The future legal institutionalization of the common interests of the international community as a whole will continue demanding our attention.
The international legal order is now being tested for its resilience in the face of an unprecedented challenge posed by the greatest crisis of the postwar era: one of the permanent members of the Security Council, owing primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has perpetrated acts of aggression. What the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine has revealed, however, is that, for the present at least, the potential of the collective security regime that the United Nations has built up through a history of hardship is being exercised to the maximum extent thanks to solidarity among the overwhelming majority of member states. By strongly condemning and categorically rejecting Russia's acts of disruption of order as acts of aggression, the gravest violation of international law, the member states appear to have been determined to uphold the international legal order with the UN Charter at its nucleus.
We must remember that the prohibition of acts of aggression has been considered in contemporary international law as a peremptory norm to protect the common interests of the international community as a whole. Its violation entails special legal effects distinct from an ordinary violation of international law. First, any treaty that violates a peremptory norm becomes null and void. Moreover, in recent years, it has come to be understood that all states bear "aggravated state responsibility" to terminate a serious breach, and that member states other than the injured state may also take countermeasures against the offending state to hold it accountable for the breach. Even if such a framework cannot be said to have been established at this moment, the impact of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution on the formation of a future positive international law cannot be ignored. On the other hand, however, it should be noted that such strong solidarity of the international community is so far found only in association with the principle of the prohibition of the use of force to protect sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity of one country against acts of aggression by other countries. As the uneven responses of countries in the General Assembly regarding the suspension of Russia from the UN Human Rights Council demonstrate, 28 international integration is anything but easy when it comes to other matters than the principle of the prohibition of the use of force.
UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1, which condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine as an act of aggression, is a recommendation and not legally binding on member states. However, undoubtedly an "international community" exists in the resolution, united by the solidarity of 141 countries. The term "international organization" refers not to an association but sometimes to "the general institutional framework of the international community"; it is "a concept that implies an orientation toward the organization and integration of the international community," such as "the legally organized state of relations among states." 29 The General Assembly, which convenes more than 190 nations, is the only place to realize the "international organization" for peace and security. The power of the General Assembly to represent the international community and to "encourage the progressive development and codification of international law" is now being tested.
(Associate Professor, National Defense Academy)
December 2022, Proposal "Defending Our Country – Defense Policy in a New Cold War Era" was announced
- Front Cover
- Changes in the Security Environment Surrounding Japan - Shifting Power Balance and the Three Front Threats Ken Jimbo
- How Will "Japan Contingencies" Emerge? Osamu Onoda
- The Japan-US Alliance Revisited: Is it Dependable? Chikako Kawakatsu Ueki
- A New Phase of Defense Diplomacy and Defense Production and Technology Base Ippeita Nishida, Tsuneo Watanabe
- Intelligence Activities in the Post-Ukraine War Era Jun Nagashima
- Responding to the Nuclear Threat Masashi Murano
- No Time to Lose for Improving Japan's Defense Capabilities - Can the JSDF Defend the Homeland? - Ryoichi Oriki
- Toward the Formulation of a New "National Security Strategy" Hideshi Tokuchi
- October 2022, "Japan-China Relations under the Long-term Administration of Xi Jinping: Current Status, Prospects, and Expectations" written by Kazuyuki Suwa, Professor, University of Shizuoka
- October 2022, "China's Policy on the Global South --- China's World View and the Configuration of the US-China Confrontation " written by Shin Kawashima, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- October 2022, "Military Strategy of Xi Jinping's China" written by Bonji Ohara, Senior Fellow, Sasagawa Peace Foundation
- September 2022, " Social Governance by the Communist Party of China: The Present State and the Future Prospects " written by Kazuko Kojima, Professor, Keio University
- September 2022, "The Relationship between Domestic Politics and Diplomacy under the Xi Jinping Administration- Why Were the Large-Scale Military Exercises Decided?" written by Chisako T. Masuo, Professor, Kyushu University
- September 2022, "Xi Jinping's China--- Prospects for Its Climate Change Policy ---" written by Takashi Sekiyama, Associate Professor, The University of Kyoto
- August 2022, " Current Assessment of the Xi Jinping's Rule and Prospects for the Third Term of the Xi Administration " written by Takashi Suzuki, Associate Professor, Aichi Prefectural University
- August 2022, " Economic Challenges Awaiting the Xi Jinping Administration As it Enters its Third Term" written by Toshiya Tsugami, Director, Tsugami Toshiya's Works
- July 2022, "The Russian Invasion of Ukraine and the Future International Legal Order" written by Masahiro Kurosaki, Associate Professor, National Defense Academy
- July 2022, "The Ukraine War and Security in East Asia" written by Narushige Michishita, Vice President, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2022, "How Will the Ukraine War Change the New US-China Cold War?" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- July 2022, "Impact of the Ukraine War on the Global Economy" written by Tatsuhiko Yoshizaki, Chief Economist, Sojitz Research Institute, Ltd.
- June 2022, "Why War Occurs in Europe?--The Structural Transformation of the European Security Order in the Post-Cold War Era --" written by Yuichi Hosoya, Professor, Keio University
- June 2022,"The Russia-Ukrainian War and the Behind-the-Scenes Stance of the United States" "On Economic Security" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- June 2022, "The Russia-Ukraine War and NATO", written by Michito Tsuruoka, Associate Professor, Keio University
- June 2022, "The Ukrainian War Viewed from Theories of International Politics" written by Matake Kamiya, Professor, National Defens Academy
- March 2022, "Economic Security Challenges and Cyber Security" written by Jun Osawa, Senior Research Fellow, Nakasone Peace Institute
- March 2022, "On Economic Security" written by Matake Kamiya, Professor, the Ntional Defense Academy
- March 2022, ""Economic Security" and the Review of the 2013 NSS and the Related Strategy Documents" written by Nobushige Takamizawa, Visiting Professor, the University of Tokyo
- March 2022, "The US-China Rivalry and Economic Security" written by Yuzo Murayama, Professor, Doshisya University
- March 2022, "Japan's National Security Policies and Science and Technology" written by Nobukatsu Kanehara, Professor, Doshisya University
- March 2022, "Economic Security in the Free Trade Regime" written by Kazuto Suzuki, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- January 2022, "The 2022 South Korean Presidential Election and the Next Administration's Foreign and Security Policy" written by Junya Nishino, Professor, Keio University
- January 2022, "North Korea's Nuclear and Missile Development and Japan's Defense" written by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, GRIPS
- January 2022, "What will Become of Japan-South Korea Relations? The 1965 Japan-South Korea Treaty System in Jeopardy" written by Masao Okonogi, Professor Emeritus, Keio University
- December 2021, "Economic and Social Conditions in North Korea and its Relations with South Korea" written by Mitsuhiro Mimura, Chief Research Fellow, The Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia.
- December 2021, "China's Korean Peninsula Policy and North Korea" written by Shin Kawashima, Professor, the University of Tokyo.
- December 2021, "China's Korean Peninsula Policy and North Korea" written by Shunji Hiraiwa, Professor, Nanzan University.
- December 2021, "What to Do with the Relations with North Korea?" written by Hitoshi Tanaka, Chairman for Institute for International Strategy at the Japan Research Institute.
- October 2021, "Strategic Implications of North Korea's Enhanced Nuclear and Missile Capabilities" written by Narushige Michishita, Vice President, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
- October 2021, "The Biden Administration's North Korea Policy: Its Low Priority and Looming Crises" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
- October 2021, "The Evolution of the US-ROK Alliance: Tasks in the Biden Era" written by Yasuyo Sakata, Professor, Kanda University of International Studies.
- September 2021, "The Development of Regional Security Architecture: From Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific" written by Ken Jimbo, Professor, Keio University.
- September 2021, "The Strategic Development of Japanese Security Cooperation under Superpower Competition and the Development of the FOIP and its Operationalization" written by Nobushige Takamizawa, Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo.
- August 2021, "Security Perceptions of Central Asian Countries--- From the Perspective of China Studies ---" written by Shin Kawashima, Professor, the University of Tokyo.
- August 2021, "Security in the Indian Ocean Region---Implication of the Galwan Incident for QUAD in the Indo-Pacific" written by Dr. Satoru Nagao, Fellow (Non-Resident), Hudson Institute.
- August 2021, "Easternization and Security in Asia" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
- July 2021, "The Ideas of "Autonomy" and "Self-Reliance" in Contemporary India's Foreign Strategy" written by Kazutoshi TAMARI, Associate Professor,Chukyo University.
- July 2021, "Thailand's Security Policies and Threat Perceptions" written by Saya Kiba, Associate Professor, Komatsu University, Faculty of Intercultural Communication.
- July 2021, "Myanmar's Security Perceptions and the February 1 Coup d'Etat" written by Yoshihiro Nakanishi, Associate Professor, Kyoto University.
- July 2021, "Australia's Security Perceptions and the "Asia Threat"" written byTomohiko Satake, Senior Fellow, Defense Policy Division, Policy Studies Department, NIDS .
- June 2021, "The Indo-Pacific Regional Architecture: Its Future--- Multipolar Order Beyond US-China Relations ---" by Tsutomu Kikuchi, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
- June 2021, "The Quad Plus in the Security of Asia: Its Significance and Outlook" by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- June 2021, "Indonesian Views and Perceptions on National Security" by Nobuhiro Aizawa, Associate Professor, The Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University
- June 2021, "Normalized Tensions in the Cross-Strait Relations--- Structural Changes in Taiwanese Society and the Xi Jinping Administration's Strategic Shift ---" by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Professor, The University of Tokyo
- June 2021, "China's Maritime Strategy and Responses of the United States and Japan" by Yoji Koda, Former Commander in Chief, Self Defense Fleet
- June 2021, "The South China Issues from the Perspective of the International Law Order",by Shigeki Sakamoto, Emeritus Professor, Kobe University
- May 2021, "Indonesian Views and Perceptions on National Security" by Nobuhiro Aizawa, Associate Professor, Kyushu University
- May, 2021, "The Philippine Foreign and Security Policy Perspective" written by Yusuke Takagi Associate Professor,National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
- May, 2021, "Vietnam's Security: Challenges and Responses" written by Tomotaka Shoji Head, Asia and Africa Division, Regional Studies Department, National Institute for Defense Studies
- March, 2021, "Can the Biden Administration Restore America as a Global Leader?" written by Matake Kamiya, Professor, the National Defense Academy of Japan.
- March, 2021, "The Biden Administration and Japan's Security Strategy" written by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
- February,2021, "US Foreign and Security Policy Direction Viewed from the Biden Administration's Lineup" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- February,2021, "Trade Policies of the Biden Administration" written by Takaaki Asano, Senior Analyst, Sumitomo Corporation Global Research Co. Ltd.
- February,2021, "The Biden Administration's Policy toward Russia" written by Taisuke Abiru, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January,2021, "Will US Policy Toward China Change?" lectured by Ryo Sahashi, Associate Professor, the University of Tokyo
- January,2021, "How will China View the Biden Administration?" written by Bonji Ohara, Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January,2021, "An Assessment of the 2020 US Presidential Election－American Democracy Now－" lectured by Fumiaki Kubo, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- January,2021, "Two Trumpian Mysteries－Why did Trump win over 70 million votes? Why is his outrageous behavior unchecked?－" lectured by Kazuhiro Maeshima, Professor, Sophia University
- September, 2020, "The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic and Internationa Relationsl" by Matake Kamiya, Professor, National Defense Academy of Japan
- September, 2020, "The Policy Agenda for the Xi Jinping Administration- COVID-19 Countermeasures and China's International Relations -" by Shin Kawashima, Professor, The University of Tokyo
- "Control in the United States and International Relations" by Koji Murata, Professor, Doshisha University
- September, 2020, "The EU's Response to COVID-19 and International Relations" by Yuichi Hosoya, Professor, Keio University
- August, 2020, "The Corona Crisis Seen from a Macroeconomic Perspective" written by Motoshige Itoh, Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo
- August, 2020, "The Coronavirus Pandemic and Japan's Infectious Disease Control" written by Takashi Mihara, Senior Research Fellow, NLI Research Institute
- August, 2020, "Infectious Disease Crisis Control in Japan- Recommendations on an Exit Strategy -" written by Kazumasa Oguro, Professor, Hosei University
- August, 2020, "Security against Infectious Disease Threats --- Policy Responses Abroad" written by Takashi Sekiyama, Associate Professor, Kyoto University
- June 2020,"Transformation of the International Order in the Middle East--- Varying Degrees of "Stateness" and Three Directions of the New Order" written by Satoshi Ikeuchi, Professor, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo
- June 2020,"Destabilization in the Middle East and its Impacts on Japan's Energy Security" written by Amane Kobayashi, Research Fellow, The Institute of Energy Economics
- May 2020: Urgent Recommendations "Toward a V-shaped Recovery after the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic "Coronavirus Testing for All" --- the First Step of the Next Phase"
- May 2020: "US Diplomacy toward Iran: Economic Sanctions as a Diplomatic Tool" Hiroki Sugita Columnist, Kyodo News
- "Russian Factors in the Middle East" Taisuke Abiru Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- "The SDF Dispatches to the Middle East --- History and Significance" Ippeita Nishida Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- March 2020, "Space and Security" Kazuto Suzuki Professor, Hokkaido University
- March 2020, "The US Security Space Policy --- With a Focus on the Establishment of Two Space Forces" Yasuhito Fukushima Chief Researcher, The National Institute for Defense Studies
- March 2020, "China's Recent Activities in Space and Cyberspace" Bonji Ohara Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- March 2020, "Environmental Security and Japan" Takashi Sekiyama Associate Professor, Kyoto University
- March 2020, "Changes in Global Environment and Security --- US Security Strategy" Hideshi Tokuchi Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
- February 2020, "Cyberspace Security" Motohiro Tsuchiya Professor, Keio University
- February 2020, "Japan's Space and Cyberspace Policy" Yukinari Hirose Former President of the National Institute for Defense Studies
- December 2019, "The US-China Confrontation --- Where Will Hegemony Reside Next?" Akio Takahara Professor, the University of Tokyo
- December 2019, "Challenges Facing the Chinese Economy" Osamu Tanaka Chief Senior Researcher, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO
- December 2019, "US Strategic Perception on China: Implications for US Allied Partners" Tsuneo Watanabe Senior Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- November 2019, "The Xi Jinping Administration's View of the International Order– China's emphasis on United Nations diplomacy and liberal economic policies−" Shin Kawashima, Professor, the University of Tokyo
- November 2019, "The Future of China's Security Strategy" Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- November 2019, "China --- Its Confidence and Anxiety" Bonji Ohara, Senior Research Fellow, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- August 2019: Several Perspectives on the Korean Peninsula Issue--- The Deteriorating Japan-South Korea Relationship and the Uncertain Denuclearization of North Korea --- By Masahiro Akiyama Chairman, the SSDP
- July 2019, "An Outlook on the Denuclearization of North Korea--- What is the Stance of North Korea?---", Junya Nishino, Professor, Keio University
- July 2019, "An Outlook on the Denuclearization of North Korea --- How will the US move?", Narushige Michishita, Vice President, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2019, "Discussion on Denuclearization of North Korea", SSDP Discussion Meeting on May 8, 2019
- May 2019: "Current Status and Prospects of South Korea and Japan's Frictions over History: How to address the Judicial Problems", Masao Okonogi, Professor Emeritus, Keio University
- May 2019: "South Korea and Japan's Frictions over History" (Comments), Junya Nishino, Professor, Keio University
- May 2019: Japan and South Korea Relationships (Question & Answer)
- March 2019: "The Present State and Prospects of the Indian Economy and Economic Policies" written by Koji Kobayashi, Senior Economist Mizuho Research Institute Ltd.
- March 2019: "The "Modi diplomacy" in the History of Indian diplomacy--- Departure from or maintenance of the traditional diplomacy? ---" written by Toru Ito, The National Defense Academy of Japan
- February 2019: Dynamics of Indian Politics and the 2019 General Elections, written by Chiharu Takenaka, Professor of Rikkyo University
- February 2019: "Cooperative Strategy" to Realize "Competitive Strategy"--- The composite structure of Japan's "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" strategy (vision) ---, written by Matake Kamiya, Professor at The National Defense Academy of Japan
- January 2019:, A paper, "How will the US midterm elections results affect the Trump administration's foreign policy for 2019?" written by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January 2019:, A paper, "The Present and Future of the International Trade Order" , written by Akihiko Tamura, Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- December 2018: The US-China Competition and Japan, written by Ryo Sahashi, Professor at Kanagawa University
- December 2018: An Outlook for the US-China Trade War―What makes the two economically interdependent superpowers confront each other?―, written by Takashi Sekiyama, Associate professor at Toyo University
- September 2018: Proposal, "The Denuclearization of North Korea and the Restoration of Peace in the Korean Peninsula― Correct Perceptions and Eight Proposals on Japan's North Korea Diplomacy－" edited by the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
- September 2018: "The Taiwan Policy of the Xi Jinping Administration in its Second Term: An Outlook on Cross-Strait Relations in the New Era" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Professor of the Tokyo University
- July 2018: "The EU States and Russia on North Korea Issues- Expansion of Influence through Diplomacy: Attempts and Limitations -" lectured by Yuichi Hosoya, Professor of Keio University
- "An Assessment of the US-North Korea Summit and an Outlook for the Future of the Korean Peninsula" lectured by Junya Nishino, Professor of Keio University
- "Korean Peninsula Issue and Japan's Future Security Policy" written by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2018: "US North Korea policy affected by personnel changes in the Trump administration" lectured by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
- "China-North Korea relationship under Xi Jinping" lectured by Shin Kawashima, Professor of the Tokyo University.
- "North Korean Denuclearization and Russia" lectured by Nobuo Shimotomai, Professor of the Hosei University.
- March 2018: "The Network Hegemony Theory for a Security Architecture in The Asia Pacific Region" lectured by Masahiro Akiyama, Chairman, the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
- January 2018: "A Destabilized Middle East" lectured by Koichiro Tanaka, Professor, Keio University
- December 2017: "Problems in Sino-Japanese Relations, 1992-2042" lectured by Ezra F. Vogel, Professor of the Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University
- November 2017: "The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region" written by Yoriko Kawaguchi, Fellow, the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs, Former Minister Foreign Affairs
- October 2017: "A New Trend in India's Foreign Policy and Japan" Written by HIROSE,Takako, Professor, Senshu University
- August 2017: "The Shocks that shook the Transatlantic World and their Implication for Japan's Foreign Policy" written by HOSOYA, Yuichi, Professor, Keio University
- August 2017: "Does Economic Interdependence not Encourage Collaboration? ―Thinking Japan-China Relations from an Economic Perspective―" written by Takashi SEKIYAMA, Ph.D., Toyo University
- July 2017: Proposal article "The Trump Administration's Impact on the Cross-Strait Relations" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Ph.D.
- June 2017: Proposal article "The outlook for the relationship between two great powers and implications for Japanese diplomacy" written by Professor Shin Kawashima
- May 2017: (Emergency Proposal) Facing the Inconvenient Truth: Re-examining Policy for Peace and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (Chief author, Masao Okonogi)
- March 2017: "Economic Influences of the Trump Administration" written by Professor Motoshige Ito
- February, 2017: Proposal article "Trump's Foreign and Security Policy - Unpredictable President, Realistic Secretaries - " written by Mr. Tsuneo Watanabe is posted on the website of SSDP.
- December, 2016: Proposal article "Reconsidering North Korea Policy: How to Deal with a Nuclear Armed Divided States" written by Professor Masao Okonogi is posted on the website of SSDP.
- March 2022, A remembrance seminar "Remembering Professor Ezra Vogel" held on January 17, 2022
- March 2021, Japan-ROK Parliamentary Dialogue -Japan-ROK Cooperation in the Era of US-China Competition- held on March 11, 2021
- December 2020: The report of the Japan-ROK Future Dialogue held on November 21 to discuss "Japan-ROK Cooperation in the Post-Covid-19 Era
- October 2020: "Responses to COVID-19 and Agendas for the Post-COVID-19 Era", A Brief Overview of the Japan-Korea Experts Dialogue held on July 29,30, 2020
- October 2020: "The China-Taiwan Confrontation over Corona Response and Taiwan's Security" written by Makoto Ogata, Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- May 2020: "Rivalries in the Middle East in New Security Dynamics", Written by Sayed Ghoneim, Major General (retired) of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Chairman, Institute for Global Security & Defence Affairs
- March 2020: The Japan-South Korea Relationship in a Cul-de-Sac--- Where is an Exit ? Masao Okonogi Professor Emeritus, Keio Universit
- December 2019: The Hong Kong Upheaval and the Future of Cross-Straits Relations－The 2019 Japan-Taiwan Strategic Dialogue Report OGATA, Makoto Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- August 2019: Report; 2019 FUTURE CONSENSUS DIALOGUE --Sustainable Prosperity and Future of Korea-U.S.-Japan Cooperation-- By Future Consensus Institute (Yeosijae)
- June 2019: Report on India – Japan Security Dialogue 2019 by Ms. Vindu Mai Chotani, Ph.D Student, The University of Tokyo
June 2019: Four papers on Japan-India Cooperation submitted to India-Japan Security Dialogue 2019
Japan's Rationale for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision
Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, The Sasakawa Peace Foundation
The Significance and Possibilities of India-Japan Cooperation in the Concept of the Indo-Pacific
Toru ITO Associate Professor, National Defense Academy of Japan
Japan-India Defense Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Context - Operationalizing the Security Aspect of the Indo-Pacific Vision –
Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
India-US-Japan Defense Cooperation: What's next?
Dr. Satoru Nagao, Hudson Institute
- Japan's Rationale for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision
- November 2018: "The Present State of the Japanese Economy and Policy Issues" lectured by Motoshige Itoh, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo.
- November 2018: "Expanding Social Security Expenses and Fiscal Reforms" lectured by Kazumasa Oguro, Professor at Hosei University.
- September 2018: "Taiwan Identity and Cross-Strait Relations and Trump's Taiwan Policy and the Future of Taiwan-US Relations-Discussion at The Second Japan-Taiwan Strategic Dialogue (June 21, 2018, Taipei)-" written by OGATA, Makoto
- September 2018: "Japan-Taiwan Dialogue 2018 Minutes", 21st June 2018, Taipei, Taiwan.
- July 2018: Report on The Second Japan – Philippines Strategic Dialogue prepared by Ms. Vindu Mai Chotani, Ph.D. Student, Graduate School of Public Policy, Tokyo University.
- May 2018: "Civilian Control "at Crisis"? – Perhaps Not, for the Case of the Field Sit-reps from SDF's South Sudan Mission" reported by Ippeita Nishida, Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January 2018: "Fukushima, Genki？Project－Young Taiwanese volunteers introduce the facts on Fukushima's revival through documentary films－" reported by OGATA, Makoto, Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- December 2017: "Commemorating a Quarter Century of Dispatches of the JSDF's PKO Units: Challenges and Possibilities in the Post South Sudan" written by Takayuki Shoji, Lecturer, Nihon University
- November 2017: "19th CCP National Congress" written by Mr. Bonji Ohara, Senior Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Fondation
- October 2017: "What is Japan's Role in the Indo-China border conflict?" written by Dr. NGAO,Satoru, Research Fellow, Institute for Future Engineering
- July 2017: "Overview of the Current Situation in Taiwan-" the Naturally Independent Generation" will affect the Taiwan"s politics-" written by Makoto Ogata MGE.(Ret.)
- June 2017: "Japan-U.S. Economic Dialogue" written by Mr.Takaaki Asano
- March 2017: "The Japan-Philippines Strategic Dialogue" written by Mr. Hideshi Tokuchi
- February, 2017: Current topic "The Importance of Japan's Security Role Under Trump" written by Dr. Satoru Nagao is posted on the SSDP website.
- December, 2016: Current topic "Widening Security Task: Will SDF do the Job?" written by Mr. Ippeita Nishida is posted on the SSDP website.
- October 2022, Research Jounal "Security Studies (vol 4 no 3)" - Xi Jinping's China - Politics, Economy, Society and Diplomacy - was published.
- Jun 2022, Research Jounal "Security Studies (vol 4 no 2)" -The Russia-Ukraine War and Its Global Impact- was published.
- March 2022, Research Jounal "Security Studies (vol 4 no 1)"-What is Economic Security?- was published.
- December 2021, Research Jounal "Security Studies (vol 3 no 4)"-Korean Peninsula Situation- was published.
- September 2021, A research journal "Security Studies vol03 no03" -Asia's Security II- (English edition)
- June 2021, A research journal "Security Studies vol03 no02" -Asia's Security I- (English edition)
- March 2021: Research journal "Security Studies (vol3 no1) "- US Foreign Policy in the Biden Administration / The 2020 US Presidential Election and American Democracy -(English edition)
- December 2020: A research journal "Security Studies (vol2 no4) "- Normalize Japan-South Korea Relations trough Dialogues -(English edition)
- September 2020: A research journal "Security Studies (vol2 no3) "-The Novel Coronavirus and Security-(English edition)
- July 2020: A research journal "Security Studies (vol2 no2) - Middle East Situation and Japan's Security - " (English edition) was published
- May 2020: A research journal "Security Studies (vol2 no1) - Cyber, Space, Environment and Security - " March 2020 (English edition)
- February 2020, "A research journal "Security Studies (vol1 no4) " (English edition)"
- September 2019: A research journal "Security Studies (vol1 no3) " (English edition)
- August 2019: Korea-Japan Joint Seminar: FUTURE CONSENSUS DIALOGUE
- April 2019: "Security Studies (vol1 no2) April 2019"
- March 2019: A research journal "Security Studies vol1 no01" just published
- February 2019: The Denuclearization of North Korea and the Takeshima Issue
- December 2018: Former Vice Defense Minister Masahiro Akiyama's Memoirs (An Ad)
- November 2018: Participation in the Future Consensus Forum held in Beijing
- September 2018: "2018 Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue" reported by Masahiro Akiyama
- 2017 December: "The Butterfly Project-A possibility of showing a solution to the North Korea problem-"
- October 2017: Campaign on the problems with North Korea
- August 2017: A New Containment Policy Strategy
- June 2017: Korean peninsla
- March 2017: President Duterte
- February, 2017: Kazakhstan
- November, 2016: Participated in Astana Club 2016 held in Kazakhstan on November 14- 16, 2016.