• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Japan's Policies on the Control of Arms Exports

The Japanese government has renewed arms exports after decades of an absolute ban on the trade of defense equipment and technologies. Japan’s neighbors expect them to move away from the pacifist stance fixed in the country’s post-WWII constitution. On 01 april 2014, after nearly half a century of exemplary pacifist policies, Japan’s conservative government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a modified, more relaxed version of the three basic principles of the nation’s arms exports.

The ‘new’ principles are internationally recognized and mean no weapons exports to countries involved in conflicts and regimes under UN resolutions. PM Shinzo Abe’s government gave assurances that arms exports will be transparent, securely screened by foreign and trade ministries to prevent possible transfer of Japanese equipment to third parties, and will also contribute to international security cooperation efforts in general. Trade will be accompanied by annual reports and full disclosure of information on all deals. In any case, the final decision on whether to allow military exports will always be made by the National Security Council, a body created in December 2013 specifically for speeding up defense and foreign policy actions.

After the decision to facilitate military exports was sanctioned, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told journalists that the move is set to ease Japan’s cooperation on defense technologies with other countries, primarily with the US. “This is beneficial for Japanese companies in that they can take part in joint development and joint production and have access to cutting-edge technology,” Takushoku University Professor Heigo Sato said, adding that so far the Japanese defense industry has been living “in a closed market,” which is clearly “lagging behind in technological development.”

Rethinking the country’s military exports has become a compliment to the already announced revision of Japan’s pacifist-minded constitution by 2020, and the adoption of a pre-emptive strike strategy against potential aggressors. PM Shinzo Abe’s government is striving for fundamental changes in Japan’s military defense policy. The Japanese government’s decision sparked protests from its neighbors. China spoke out against Tokyo boosting military spending and engaging in a military buildup.

Earlier in 2011, Japan eased regulations on the export of equipment for humanitarian and peaceful purposes, hoping to facilitate cooperation in developing and producing weapons for international trade. The Japanese security council agreed 27 November 2011 to relax the long standing ban on arms exports, to allow Japan to take part in joint development and production of arms with other countries and to supply military equipment for humanitarian missions. Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said at a news conference: "The new standards (on weapons exports) are a result of the government considering measures that required attention amid recent changes to the environment surrounding international defense equipment," referring to rising arms costs that put strains on the government.

He said "The new rules take into account the changing international environment surrounding defense equipment. Upon review of the export of defense equipment overseas, the international co-development and production of defense equipment will allow in missions that contribute to peacemaking, to international cooperation, and to the security of our nation."

Although Japan had the world's sixth largest military budget, it normally paid more than double the prices paid by other states for similar equipment, because local export-restricted manufacturers can only fill small orders at a high cost. Facing a similar problem, Israel's arms industry has long focused on global sales. Japan's export ban dated back to 1967, but the government had long been under pressure from Japanese defense contractors who say the strict policy hampers their competitiveness and access to technology. Development and export of weapons parts by Japanese contractors would help keep costs low.

The Government of Japan had dealt carefully with "arms" exports in accordance with the Three Principles on Arms Exports (hereinafter referred to as "the Three Principles") and their related policy in order to avoid any possible aggravation of international conflicts. Under the Three Principles, "arms" exports to the following countries or regions were not permitted: communist bloc countries, countries subject to "arms" exports embargo under the United Nations Security Council's resolutions, and countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflicts.

The Three Principles had been the basic policy concerning Japan's "arms" exports since they were declared at the Diet session in 1967. Subsequently, in February 1976, the Government of Japan announced the collateral policy guideline at the Diet session that the "arms" exports to other areas not included in the Three Principles would also be restrained in conformity with Japan's position as a peace-loving nation. In other words, the collateral policy guideline declared that the Government of Japan would not promote "arms" exports, regardless of the destinations.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) controlled Japan's "arms" exports, based on the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law. The exports of "arms" and equipment for arms production listed in the Export Trade Control Order (see Annex) require export licenses to all destinations, since those transactions could be obstructive to the maintenance of international peace and security. In addition, "arms" trades mediated between foreign countries by Japanese agent need METT's permission.

The term "arms" as referred to in the Three Principles is defined as "goods which are listed in Item 1 of Annexed List 1 of the Export Trade Control Order of Japan, and which are to be used by military forces and directly employed in combat." Such "arms" include specially-designed parts and accessories as well as finished products. The question of whether each item falls under such "arms" or not will be judged objectively based on its shape, feature and other technical aspects, and regardless of its end-use. On the other hand, so-called dual-use items do not fall under such "arms."

Based on other relevant laws, the Government of Japan also deals with in a strict manner: direct overseas investment for the purpose of manufacturing "arms" abroad, and participation in the overseas construction projects of military facilities. The export of technologies which are exclusively related to the design, production and use of "arms" ("military technologies") is treated in the same manner as the export of "arms."

However, in order to ensure the effective operation of the Japan-United States security arrangements, the Government of Japan paved the way for the transfer of the military technologies to the United States as an exception to the Three Principles. Such transfer of military technologies to the United States is to be implemented in accordance with the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (the MDA Agreement) and the Exchange of Notes concerning the Transfer of Military Technologies concluded in 1983 under the MDA Agreement (the 1983 Exchange of Notes). The latest changes in 2011 extended the exception to other defense partners, including European nations and Australia.

An LDP-Komeito working group on 05 July 2023 agreed on a proposal to de-facto ease existing regulations on the export of lethal weapons, provided that certain conditions are met. The proposal would allow Japan to export lethal weapons falling under five categories: rescue, transport, surveillance, vigilance and minesweeping. These categories had previously been used to regulate the handover of nonlethal defense equipment. After the last revision of the three principles on the transfer of defense equipment in 2014, a holistic debate on whether lethal weapons too could be included had yet to be conducted.

The "three principles on defense equipment transfers," which were approved by the Cabinet in 2014, also include allowing a transfer if it is for the purpose of contributing to peace or international cooperation. In addition, a country importing defense equipment from Japan must obtain Japan's consent to export it to a third country.

The first rule bans the transfer of defense equipment to countries involved in conflicts. But the ruling coalition is trying to expand the countries subject to the rules by adding the concept of "support for a country under invasion." This is to allow Japan to provide Ukraine with active military support, including the provision of lethal equipment. As Western countries and South Korea continue to provide military support to Ukraine and neighboring countries, the ruling coalition hopes to bring Japan in line with those countries that have ramped up exports of tanks and aircraft to Kyiv.

The ruling parties are also trying to allow Japan to export internationally developed equipment to third countries.

The ruling coalition had in mind the next-generation fighter jet that Japan will jointly develop with the UK and Italy. It is expected to have excellent stealth capabilities and advanced information networking. The defense ministry aimed to put the fighter into operation in the mid-2030s. Japan announced in December 2022 that it would be developing a new fighter jet with the UK and Italy.

Lawmakers in favor of exports argue that if the strict voluntary restrictions were to remain in place, Japan's defense industry will continue to decline. Since the end of World War Two, Japan has been cautious about arms exports in light of the pacifism enshrined in its constitution. Some people say the move to review the rules could undermine that principle. They say Japan shouldn’t be a source of weapons, nor should it benefit from arms trading. The ruling coalition will resume full-fledged discussions on the review in the fall or later, based on the points of contention it has compiled this time. Attention focused on how the debate will unfold as it relates to the country's determination to not become involved in overseas wars.