2016年12月13日 06:01
民主主義と地方自治を踏みにじるなら、司法の正義は失墜する。歴史に禍根を残す国追随の司法判断が確定しようとしている。
翁長雄志知事による名護市辺野古の埋め立て承認取り消しを巡り、国が起こした違法確認訴訟で県が敗訴する見通しとなった。最高裁第２小法廷は一審判決を見直すために必要な弁論を開かず、２０日に上告審判決を言い渡す。
立法、行政、司法の三権が均衡を保ち、行き過ぎた権力行使に歯止めをかける－。三権分立の中で司法に課された役割をかなぐり捨て、民主主義と沖縄の自治を否定する判決がこのまま確定していいのか。重大な疑念を禁じ得ない。
１９９９年の地方自治法改正により、国と地方自治体が独自の権限を持ち、対等な関係になった。地方が譲れない重大問題で国に対抗する論理を構築して渡り合い、国も司法もそれを無視できない時代が到来しているのだ。辺野古新基地問題はその象徴であろう。
ところが、福岡高裁那覇支部が下した一審判決は地方分権に逆行し、国と県をかつての「主従」の関係に落とし込んだ。当然ながら、多くの行政法学者が最高裁での見直しは不可避と主張してきた。国土交通相の是正指示に従わない知事判断を違法とした判決は司法の公平性に背を向け、国の主張の引き写しと見なすしかない。
普天間飛行場の移設先を「辺野古が唯一」とする安倍政権の主張を追認し、高裁判決は辺野古埋め立てをやめれば「普天間飛行場の被害を継続するしかない」というどう喝さえ繰り出した。
埋め立てによって米軍基地ができる可能性がある４０都道府県の全知事が拒んだ場合を想定し、判決文はこうも記した。「国防・外交に本来的権限と責任を負うべき立場にある国の不合理とは言えない判断が覆されてしまい、地方公共団体の判断が優越しかねない」
安全保障などで国と地方が対立した場合、自治体の意向など全く考慮することなく、国がやりたい放題できる論理構成だ。全自治体に刃（やいば）が向く危うさがある。
幾多の選挙で示された辺野古ノーの民意を無視し、強権行使一本やりの安倍政権と同調した乱暴な論理がちりばめられている。
基地の重圧にあえいできた沖縄の戦後史に思いをはせることもなく、独断と決め付けによる事実誤認が多い判決が無批判に最高裁で確定することは許されない。
権限駆使しはね返せ
上告審判決を待って、安倍政権は停止していた辺野古での工事再開に突き進むとみられる。翁長知事や県民世論に圧力を強め、諦念を植え付けようと躍起になるのは目に見えている。沖縄は一層厳しい局面に立たされる。
だが、沖縄戦の住民犠牲と米軍統治下と日本復帰後も続く米兵らによる事件・事故を踏まえ、人権保護と環境保全とは相いれない新基地建設に毅然と反対を貫く民意の正当性はいささかも揺るがない。徹底抗戦は続く。
最高裁判決が出ても、翁長知事は「新基地建設をあらゆる手法で阻止する」と明言している。新基地の設計・工法の変更申請に伴う知事の承認権限の行使がある。翁長知事が申請を認めなければ、申請のたびに工事は止まる。
沖縄防衛局は大浦湾のサンゴを移す特別採捕許可を得る必要があるが、生態系に潰滅的打撃を与えると主張する県が許可しない可能性が濃厚だ。名護市の権限も多くあり、国が意のままに新基地建設を進められない要素は多い。
最高裁判決まで１週間ある。戦後７１年、県内移設条件付きの普天間返還合意から２０年余を経ても、辺野古の海の埋め立てを阻んできた民意の力を再確認し、これからも続く試練に立ち向かう県民の気概を研ぎ澄ましたい。
英文へ→Editorial: Expected loss of Henoko lawsuit indicates denial of local autonomy and democracy
＜社説＞「辺野古」県敗訴へ 自治否定は禍根残す 民主主義守る闘いは続く
2016年12月13日 06:01
Editorial: Expected loss of Henoko lawsuit indicates denial of local autonomy and democracy
December 13, 2016 Ryukyu ShimpoThe courts lose any semblance of justice when they trample on democracy and local autonomy. The Supreme Court is about to make a decision that toes the government line and leaves a scar in history.
Okinawa Prefecture is expected to lose the illegality confirmation lawsuit brought by the national government against Okinawa regarding Governor Takeshi Onaga’s rescission of a permit to reclaim from the ocean in Henoko, Nago City. The Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court will announce their judgement on Okinawa’s appeal on December 20 without listening to any testimony that would have been needed to overturn the initial verdict.
Maintaining equilibrium between the three powers–legislative, administrative, and judicial—is meant to put a check on excessive exercise of power. Can we really allow the court to discard the role it has been tasked with within the system of separation of powers and reaffirm a decision that denies democracy and Okinawa’s self-governance? Such an action invites grave misgivings.
Thrown into a relationship of dominator and dominated
Construction of a new military base in Henoko, Nago City to replace U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma has led to full-on confrontation between Okinawa and the Japanese national government over the issues of local autonomy and the authority of local elected officials.
The revision of the Local Autonomy Law in 1999 gave both national and local governments their own particular authority and put them on equal footing. In this age, local governments build their own arguments to counter those of the national government when it comes to grave issues on which they refuse to back down, and the national government and the courts can no longer ignore these arguments. The Henoko base issue is a perfect example of this.
However, the Naha branch of the Fukuoka High Court made an initial verdict that went against the principle of decentralization of power, and threw the national and prefectural governments back into a relationship of dominator and dominated. Of course, many scholars of administrative law declared it inevitable that the Supreme Court would overturn this decision. The judgement declaring the governor’s decision not to comply with the Minister of Land’s rectification order to be illegal went against the principle of judicial impartiality and merely copied the government’s arguments word for word.
The High Court’s ruling even went so far as to echo the Abe administration’s insistence that “Henoko is the only” possible relocation site for U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and to repeat the threat that if the Henoko land reclamation were cancelled, “there would be no alternative but for the harm caused by Futenma to continue unabated”.
The verdict also read as follows, presupposing a situation in which all the governors of the forty prefectures in which a U.S. military base could potentially be built on reclaimed land were to refuse such land reclamation: “A decision that cannot be said to be unreasonable by the national government who is in a position in which it must bear the authority and responsibility inherent in defense and diplomacy could be overturned, and a decision by a local public entity could be given priority.”
Such logic dictates that when a national and local government are in conflict regarding issues such as security, the national government is entitled to do whatever it wants without paying any heed to the wishes of the local government. Such logic puts all local governments at risk.
The verdict is full of outrageous logic that ignores public sentiment against the Henoko base, which has been expressed in countless elections, and sides with the Abe administration, which bulldozes forward single-mindedly in its exercise of state power.
We cannot accept the Supreme Court uncritically reaffirming a verdict that paid no mind to Okinawa’s postwar history of suffering under the overwhelming pressure of U.S. bases and contained countless factual errors based on arbitrary assumptions.
Fight back through exercise of available authority
It is expected that after waiting for the verdict on the appeal, the Abe administration will resume construction at Henoko, which had been halted during the trial. It is plain to see that the government will put increased pressure on Governor Onaga and Okinawan public opinion in their eagerness to instill a sense of resignation. Okinawa is facing an even more difficult situation.
However, in view of the civilian sacrifice during the Battle of Okinawa and the accidents and crimes perpetrated by persons affiliated with the U.S. military during the time of U.S. military rule and continuing even after the return to Japan, the legitimacy of Okinawans’ resolute opposition to the new base construction, which contradicts protection of human rights and environmental conservation, will not waver. Resistance will continue to the very end.
Governor Onaga has clearly stated that even after the Supreme Court decision is handed down, he will use every means available to him to prevent the new base construction. Any changes to the design and construction method of the new base will need to be approved by the governor prior to implementation. If Governor Onaga does not approve applications for such changes, the construction will come to a stop each time an application is made.
The Okinawa Defense Bureau still needs to obtain special approval to harvest coral in Oura Bay in order to replant it, and there is a high likelihood that the prefectural government, which says that such harvesting and replanting would have a devastating effect on ecosystems, will not grant such approval. The Nago municipal government also has authority over a number of matters, and there are many elements that will prevent the national government from proceeding with the new base construction at their own free will.
There is one week left before the Supreme Court decision is to be made. Seventy-one years after the end of World War II, and more than twenty years since the agreement was made to return U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma on the condition of relocating it within Okinawa, the power of the people has prevented the reclamation of the Henoko ocean. We must reaffirm that power and sharpen our unyielding spirit to face the trials that await.
(English translation by T&CT and Sandi Aritza)
Go to Japanese
