The Committee recalls that the exercise ofthe right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, in particular the obligation not to disseminate racist ideas and calls upon the State party once again to take into account the Committee's general recommendations No. 7(1985) and No. 15(1993), according to which article 4 is of mandatory nature, given the non-self-executing character of its provisions.
The Russian government has already made it completely clear some weeks ago that the use of violence against protesters in eastern and southern Ukraine would compel the Russian government to send in the Russian army to protect Russians, just as Russia had to do in South Ossetia when Washington instructed its Georgian puppet ruler to attack Russian peacekeeping troops and Russian residents of South Ossetia.
In other words, the provision of paragraph 1 of Article 9 should be interpreted as prohibiting the threat or the use of force as means of settling international disputes to which Japan is a party. The provisions should be interpreted as not prohibiting the use of force for the purpose of self-defense, nor imposing any constitutional restrictions on activities that are consistent with international law.
The Government, referring to both the Preamble and Article 13 of the Constitution, then went on to articulate that Japan could take measures of self-defense necessary to maintain its peace and security and to ensure its survival. At the same time, the Government came to express the opinion that such measures should be limited to the minimum extent necessary and thus the exercise ofthe right of collective self-defense is not permitted under the Constitution.
English
中文
عربى
Български
বাংলা
Český
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Suomi
Français
עִברִית
हिंदी
Hrvatski
Magyar
Bahasa indonesia
Italiano
Қазақ
한국어
മലയാളം
मराठी
Bahasa malay
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenský
Slovenski
Српски
Svenska
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
ไทย
Tagalog
Turkce
Українська
اردو
Tiếng việt