Can A Moral Wrong Be Made Right Again?:  The Japanese Government's Treatment of Post-World War II Comfort Women
Baltimore, Maryland
6 March 1998

For over fifty years after the end of World War II, the horrifying details of atrocities perpetuated against women as military sexual slaves during World War II was relegated to the dust bin of history until Korean women surfaced in 1991, thus paving the way for other women survivors to come out.  Their stories tell of heinous acts of torture, captivity, sexual enslavement, and forced labor.  The women's suffering, however, did not cease with the war.  In peacetime, they fled their hometowns to escape from the stigma attached to rape, and lived in abject poverty in the big cities where they sought anonymity.  Invisible, however, to the naked eye, are the psychological remnants of their wartime ordeal.  Fifty years following the end of the war, Filipino women survivors continue to reel from nightmares, phobias, psychosomatic disorders, and the existential angst attendant to public stigma.  Their legal battle for individual compensation and public apology from the Japanese government seeks justice not only for their actual wartime victimization, but for the damaged lives and psyches long after the end of the war.

On August 15, 1995, 50 years after the Empire of Japan surrendered to the Allied Forces to end World War II, Japan's Prime Minister, Tomiichi Murayama, in a seven paragraph statement, issued the clearest apology yet for Japan's deeds in the war.  "In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard in a spirit of humility these irrefutable facts of history and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology," the prime minister was quoted as saying.1  The wording of the official apology "was cleared by all three partners in his ruling coalition."2  This was also the first time that any Japanese Prime Minister has used the term "apology."  However, Murayama "firmly ruled out reopening discussions on compensation for victims."3

Last January 1, 1998, former Filipino Comfort Women received a letter of apology from Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto.  I will quote the letter here:

Dear Madam,

On the occasion that the Asian Women's Fund, in cooperation with the Government and the people of Japan, offers atonement from the Japanese people to the former wartime comfort women, I wish to express my personal feelings as well.

The issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at the time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women.

As Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

We must not evade the weight of the past, nor should we evade our responsibilities for the future.

I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibility, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations.

Furthermore, Japan also should take an active part in dealing with violence and other forms of injustice to the honor and dignity of women.

Finally, I pray from the bottom of my heart that each of you will find peace for the rest of your lives.

Respectfully yours,

Ryutaro Hashimoto
Prime Minister of Japan

For years, the Japanese government denied any involvement or knowledge of the recruitment of comfort women.  It was not until after the discovery of Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a history professor at Chuo University in Tokyo, of documents in Japan's Defense Agency that directly linked the Imperial Army to the operation of comfort women stations that Japan finally acknowledged its involvement.4

The system came into practice in 1931 when Japan invaded Northeast China using the Manchurian Incident.  In 1932, Japanese aggression spread to Shanghai where the Japanese army and navy set up comfort houses one after the other.  Five years later, in July 1937, when Japan launched a full-scale war against China and deployed about 800,000 troops in the Chinese Mainland, comfort stations were extensively established in areas under Japanese occupation.  During the Nanking Massacre, the massive rape and looting along the Yangtze River angered the Chinese, in embarrassment, the Japanese military immediately issued a notice for the creation of more comfort facilities.  Ironically, the comfort houses merely institutionalized and contained sexual violence in these stations.  The system, however, proved advantageous to the Japanese military, i.e., it prevented the spread of venereal diseases, protected military secrets, and forestalled espionage.

There were several types of comfort houses:  those under the direct management of the military, those under the management of private traders (who were actually under the control of the military), private brothels designated by the military for its use with some benefits to military users.  By the time Japan occupied most of Southeast Asia and parts of the Pacific during World War II, its military establishment was already proficient in the recruitment or capture of young women and in putting up comfort houses.  Since its inception up to the end of the Pacific War, the total number of military comfort women is estimated to have been between 80,000 and 200,000.

Soldiers in the Imperial Army would come to the comfort houses when they were off-duty.  The fees that they paid were based on a "sliding scale" which was based on the rank of the soldier and the ethnicity of the woman that they chose.  Higher fees were usually charged for Korean women.5  The fees that the soldiers paid never went directly to the women.  The women were usually provided with cosmetics and clothing, with some being fortunate enough to receive an occasional tip from the soldiers.6

Part of the argument towards reparation for comfort women was whether they were kidnaped or coerced under false pretenses.  Many former comfort women say that they were "recruited" with the promise of overseas jobs as "hospital assistants, file clerks, or teachers."7  Parker & Chew describe one such "recruitment" method of a Korean comfort woman:

Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered territories in Southeast Asia.  The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. . . . On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty.8
Japan claims that "it has not found any proof of that the government coerced or forced the women into prostitution."9  However, there is testimony to the contrary from comfort women and even some of the soldiers themselves.  One military doctor stated that "soldiers forced many Korean women at gunpoint to serve Japan as prostitutes."10  Another soldier says that the soldiers "herded young mothers into trucks, separating them from ‘clinging, wailing Korean children.'"11

What is interesting to note of Japan's claim to not find proof of coercion is the fact that the Minister of War, just prior to the Japanese surrender to the Allied Forces, "issued an order to every Army headquarters to immediately destroy all confidential documents,"12 leading to the assumption that any records about the recruitment of comfort women and the operation of comfort houses were destroyed.13

While in the custody of Japan, the comfort women underwent severe torture.  While the women were subject to rape and sexual abuse, they endured other forms of torture as well.  Women could be beaten, mutilated, or even murdered, many time being witnessed by other comfort women, if they refused to give in to the soldiers sexual demands.

In 1951, six years after Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers to end the Second World War, the government of Japan formally applied to the United Nations for membership.  As a condition of support for the application, Japan and the Allied Powers signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco.14  This is noted in the preamble to the treaty:

Whereas Japan for its part declares its intention to apply for membership in the United Nations and in all circumstances to conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations; to strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to seek to create within Japan conditions of stability and well-being as defined in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations and already initiated by post-surrender Japanese legislation; and in public and private trade and commerce to conform to internationally accepted fair practices;

Whereas the Allied Powers welcome the intentions of Japan set out in the foregoing paragraph. . . .15

Article 14 of the San Francisco Treaty states, "It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war."16  But it was also noted that the Allied Powers "recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations."17  Because of this the Allied Powers, with certain exceptions spelled out in the treaty,
waive[d] all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.18
Japan's contention is that all claims for reparation were settled by this treaty, presumably because of the above clause.19  This probably would be true with the current parties to the treaty, but Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, and China never signed the treaty.20  This will support the theory that reparations are still due to comfort women who are citizens of those countries.

Along with the San Francisco Treaty, Japan also entered into treaties with many of the countries that it occupied during the war.

a. China
On April 28, 1952, a peace treaty was signed between Japan and China.21  Under a protocol that was deposited with the treaty, the government of China "[a]s a sign of magnanimity and good will towards the Japanese people . . . waives the benefit of the services to be made available by Japan pursuant to Article 14(a)1 of the San Francisco Treaty."22  Under this waver, China only waived compensation from Japan to rebuild the country after the war, not the claims of Chinese nationals against the government.23
b. Indonesia
On January 20, 1958, Japan entered into a peace treaty with Indonesia.24  In Article 4 of the treaty, Japan agreed to pay reparations to the government of Indonesia "in order to compensate the damage and suffering caused by Japan during the war."25  However, as the Allied Powers recognized in the San Francisco Treaty, Indonesia
recognized that the resources of Japan are not sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all the damage and suffering for the Republic of Indonesia and other countries caused by Japan during the war and at the same time meet its other obligations.26
In order to compensate for this situation, the government of Japan
agreed[ed] to supply, in accordance with detailed terms as may be agreed upon, the Republic of Indonesia by way of reparations with the products of Japan and the services of Japanese people, the total value of which will be eighty thousand three hundred and eight million eight hundred thousand yen (¥80,308,800,000), equivalent to two hundred and twenty-three million eighty thousand United States of America dollars ($223,080,000), within the period of twelve years.  The supply of such products and services shall be made t an annual average of seven thousand two hundred million yen (¥7,200,000,000), equivalent to twenty million United States of America dollars ($20,000,000) during the period of the first eleven years, the outstanding balance to be settled on the twelfth year.27
Although there was a time limit put on the rebuilding of the country, there was no limit on claims by nationals of Indonesia against Japan.  Indonesia did not waive that right in the treaty.

Clinical interviews and psychological tests point to long-term effects of wartime victimization among surviving Filipino comfort women.  Adolescents at the outbreak of war, these women were forcibly taken away from their families, witnessed the slaughter of the same, underwent torture, rape, sexual slavery, and forced labor.  Today, more than 50 years later, hounded by memories of their wartime experience, these women continue to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The following psychosocial dysfunctions among 30 survivors were documented:

1. Fear and Anxiety Responses
Feelings of terror, vulnerability, and loss of control were reported by the participants of the study.  The panel found that many comfort women suffer from generalized anxiety, fear of a wide range of stimuli, fear of being alone, nightmares, fear of men and panic reactions.28  As recorded by Sancho and Gates, "memories are spontaneously recovered without conscious retrieval and intrude upon present-day perceptual and cognitive functioning."29
 2. Somatization
Disturbances in the biological system can also be triggered by fear and anxiety, "particularly stress adaptation and arousal."30  Among some of the physiologic reactions discovered were palpitations, tremors, chocking sensation/nausea/vomiting, and numbness of body parts.  Psychosomatic disorders discovered included abdominal, back or pelvic pain, tension headaches, hypertension, ulcers, allergies and asthma.31
3. Depression
 Fifty-three years after the surrender of Japan to the Allied Forces the "[m]ajority of the comfort women still harbor anger and bitterness towards their assailants[.]"32  Sancho and Gates report that many of the Filipino comfort women experienced "extreme emotional expression, on one hand, and emotional inhibition to the point of passivity, on the other hand."33  Among the depressive patterns that the panel found were hopelessness/despair and loneliness, the inability to feel anything, irritability and mood swings.  Passivity behaviors included inertia, overcautiousness, and non-assertiveness.
4. Dissociative Tendencies
Tendencies of daydreaming, recalling memories of happier times, and living in a fantasy world were discovered by the panel during their interviews.  The panel observed one subject assume three distinct personalities.
The three personalities were as follows:  (1) the mediatrix -- subject regards herself as God's chosen intercessor, (2) the businesswoman/millionaire -- subject talks about her investments and vast tracts of land under her name; she mentions names of several metro manila mayors with whom she is negotiating for business ventures, (3) her normal self -- subject mentions about her wartime trauma where she lost her family, her frustrations with her grown up sons who have rejected her in her old age.34
5. Social Relations/Adjustments
They identified four areas of difficulty were identified:
1. inability to restore kinship with family members, relatives, and friends since social stigma relative to rape and prostitution was upheld;

2. tendency to flee the site of victimization; in the present sample, majority indicated that they left their hometown after war to avoid shame and public censure; two reported having been rejected by siblings;

3. the tendency to conceal or suppress their wartime experience;

4. feelings of "worthlessness" hindered initiative and drive for advancement in life.35

There are several human rights instruments that are applicable with respect to the comfort women's claim of reparation from the government of Japan.  This section will briefly examine those instruments.

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 In the San Francisco Treaty, it was noted that Japan "strive[s] to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"36 when it applied for membership in the United Nations.  In the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is noted

the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.37
As a member of the United Nations, Japan agrees to this principle.  Within the declaration itself, we can look at articles 5 and 8 to substantiate our claim for reparations for comfort women.  Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."38  Article 8 states "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."39  This is not a treaty, but has been treated as one.  Most conventions and treaties that have been put into force since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on its principles.

2. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Torture is defined in this convention as

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.40
As a party to this convention, Japan is bound by articles 2, 4, 5, 10, and 14, which is significant justification for the awarding of compensation to former comfort women.41

3. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women

This declaration was approved by the U.N. General Assembly without a vote on February 23, 1994.  In the declaration, "violence against women" is defined as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life."42  Article 2 gets into more specific terminology, stating that violence against women could include "[p]hysical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution."43  Article 3 states that "Women are entitled to the equal enjoyment and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. . . ."44  Those human rights include "The right not to be subjected to torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."45

It has now been 53 years since the Empire of Japan surrendered to the Allied Forces and brought the Second World War to a close.  As we have stated in this paper, although the Japanese government has expressed its "sincere apologies" for their wartime activities,46 the official position of the government is that all claims for reparations to war victims were settled under the San Francisco Treaty.47  We are not in agreement with this position.

Therefore, the Institute for Women and Children's Policy requests the following from the government of Japan:

  1. To issue a sincere and formal apology and admittance of wrongdoing by Imperial Army troops to the governments of Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Philippines and to the women who were used as comfort women.
  2. To pledge reparations to surviving comfort women and their heirs in the amount of  2.4 million yen each (approximately US$20,000).  This money should come directly from the national treasury and not from a private fund.
  3. To have Emperor Akihito, whose father, Emperor Hirohito was head of state at the time, issue a formal apology on behalf of the Imperial Palace to the women who were used as comfort women as a symbolic gesture.
Points one and two are pretty straightforward but the logic behind point three will need to be explained.  In 1944, Emperor Hirohito promulgated Imperial Ordinance No. 51948 which "established legal grounds for the recruitment of comfort women."49  Under Article 6 of the ordinance, "governors, mayors and school presidents could order recruitment of comfort women whenever needed."50  Professor Yoshimi's research showed that comfort houses were established as early as 1932.51  By promulgating Imperial Ordinance No. 519, it can be assumed that Emperor Hirohito had knowledge of and approved of the comfort houses.  The Emperor also "ha[d] supreme command of the Army and Navy[,]"52 and "determine[d] the organization and peace standing of the Army and Navy."53  As head of state and commander-in-chief of the Imperial Army, the final responsibility for the conduct of the soldiers rested with the emperor.  Emperor Hirohito died in 1989 from cancer,54 and never issued a formal apology.  On the 50th anniversary of the Japanese surrender to the Allied Forces, Emperor Akihito, Hirohito's son, issued the following statement, "I earnestly wish that the pains of war will never be repeated and with all citizens, I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to those who fell in battle or were killed in the war and pray for world peace and the prosperity of our nation."55  Although two prime ministers have used the word "apology" in their statements, the word has never been uttered from the Imperial Palace.  Since the Imperial Throne is "dynastic" under the Japanese Constitution,56 it is only logical that a sincere apology come from the descendant of the man who authorized the comfort houses during World War II.

During World War II, over 100,000 women were conscripted into service as comfort women.  Today, less than 2,000 of these women are still living.  Many of these women never married.  All of them died in shame for circumstances that were not their fault.  What these women went through was indescribably horrible and compensation for lives that they had lost are the only way to recognize this.  It is our hope that one day, Japan's government and its Emperor will acknowledge its wrongs and make a moral wrong right again.

ENDNOTES

1.  Teresa Watanabe & David Holley, "Japan Premier Offers Apology for WWII Role," L.A. Times, Aug. 15, 1995, at A1.

2.  Brian Williams, "Japan Prime Minister Murayama Apologises for WW2," Reuters, Aug. 15, 1995.

3.  Id.

4.  Yvonne Park Hsu, "'Comfort Women' From Korea:  Japan's World War II Sex Slaves and the Legitimacy of Their Claims for Reparations," 2 Pac Rim L. & Pol'y J. 97, 99 (1993).

5.  Id. at 505.

6.  Id.

7.  Id.

8.  Id. at 505-6 (quoting United States Office of War Information, "Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater," Japanese Prisoner of War Information Report, No. 49 1 (1944)).

9.  Hsu, supra note 4, at 100.

10.  Id.

11.  Id.

12.  Id. at 101.

13.  "'Confidential' documents included any information unfavorable to Japan, as well as other secret papers."  Id.

14.  Treaty of Peace with Japan, Sept. 8, 1951, 3 U.S.T. 3169, 135 U.N.T.S. 45 [hereinafter San Francisco Treaty].

15.  Id., 135 U.N.T.S. at 48.  Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter covers international economic and social cooperation.  Article 55 states:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Charter of the United Nations, art. 55.  Article 56 states, "All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."  Id. at art. 56.

16.  San Francisco Treaty, art. 14(a), 135 U.N.T.S. at 60.

17.  Id.

18.  Id. at art. 14(b).

19.  Karen Parker & Jennifer F. Chew, "Compensation for Japan's World War II War-Rape Victims," 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 497, 500 (1994).

20.  The current parties to the treaty, along with Japan, are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Laos, Liberia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, South Africa, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.  Japan has separate peace treaties with both China and Indonesia.

21.  Treaty of Peace Between the Republic of China and Japan, Apr. 28, 1952, P.R.C.-Japan, 138 U.N.T.S. 37.

22.  Id., 138 U.N.T.S. at 44.

23.  Article 14(a)(1) of the San Francisco Treaty states:

Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question.  Such arrangements shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for, they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan.

San Francisco Treaty, art. 14(a)(1), 135 U.N.T.S. at 62.

24.  Treaty of Peace Between Japan and the Republic of Indonesia, Jan. 20, 1958, Japan-Indon., 324 U.N.T.S. 234.

25.  Id., art. 4(1), 324 U.N.T.S. at 237.

26.  Id.

27.  Id., art. 4(1)(a), 324 U.N.T.S. at 237.

28.  Nelia Sancho & Cristina Gates, Wartime Trauma:  Long Term Effects on Psychosocial Functioning Among Women Survivors of Military Sexual Slavery 7 (unpublished paper) (on file with the authors).

29.  Id. at 6.

30.  Id. at 7.

31.  Id.

32.  Id. at 8.

33.  Id.

34.  Id. at 9.

35.  Id. at 10.

36.  San Francisco Treaty, 135 U.N.T.S. at 48.

37.  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, preamble, reprinted in International Human Rights Instruments of The United Nations 1948-1982 5 (1983).

38.  Id. at art. 5.

39.  Id. at art. 8.

40.  Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 1(1), 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1983).

41.  Article 2 states in part, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."  Torture Convention, art. 2(2), 23 I.L.M. at 1028 (emphasis added).  Article 4 states in part, "Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.  The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture."  Id. at art. 4(1).  Article 5 states in part,

1.  Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a)  When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b)  When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c)  When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Id. at art. 5(1) (emphasis added).  Article 10 states in part,

Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

Id. at art 10(1), 23 I.L.M. at 1030.  Article 14 states in part,

Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for a s full rehabilitation as possible.  In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.

Id. at art. 14(1).

42.  Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, art. 1, 33 I.L.M. 1049, 1051 (1994).

43.  Id. at art. 2(b).

44.  Id. at art. 3, 33 I.L.M. at 1052.

45.  Id. at art. 3(h).

46.  See Eugene Moosa, "Japan Prime Minister Murayama Apologises for WW2," Reuters, Aug. 15, 1995; "Text of Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto's Letter of Apology," Agence France Presse, Aug. 14, 1996.

47.  See text accompanying supra note 31-32.

48.  Joshi teishinro rei (Women's volunteer labor corp. ordinance), Imperial Ordinance No. 519, Horei Zensho, 517-519 (Aug. 23, 1944).  Under Article 8 of the Meiji Constitution, which was Japan's constitution at the time

[t]he Emperor issues, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the Imperial Diet is not sitting Imperial Ordinances in the place of law.  Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them to be invalid for the future.

The Constitution of the Empire of Japan (visited Mar. 4, 1998) <http://133.12.177.12/Faculty/devine/documents/meijicon.html>.  However, under Article 4 of the Constitution of Japan, promulgated November 3, 1946, "The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government."  The Constitution of Japan (visited Mar. 4, 1998) <http://www.ntt.co.jp/japan/constitution/english-Constitution.html>.

49.  Hsu, supra note 4, at 105.

50.  Id.

51.  See text accompanying supra note 11.

52.  The Constitution of the Empire of Japan, supra note 48, at art. 11.

53.  Id. at art. 12.

54.  See supra note 9.

55.  Moosa, supra note 65.

56.  The Constitution of Japan, supra note 48, at art. 2.