> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theglobalvoice.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Why Japan Is Still Called an “Enemy State” in the UN Charter
- URL: https://www.theglobalvoice.com/why-japan-is-still-called-an-enemy-state-in-the-un-charter/
- Published: 2026-09-24T16:30:12.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-24T16:30:12.000Z
- Description: Japan has renewed its demand to remove “enemy state” clauses from the UN Charter, arguing that language written after the Second World War no longer reflects its place in the international order. Deleting the provisions, however, would require the approval of every Security Council power.
- Author: TGV Desk
- Tags: Japan, World War 2, conflict, geopolitics, The Day So Far, Top Stories, has-audio

Japan has renewed its demand for the removal of provisions in the United Nations Charter that continue to classify former Axis powers as “[enemy states](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text?ref=theglobalvoice.com),” arguing that language written at the end of the Second World War no longer reflects the modern international order.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi raised the issue during her address to the UN General Assembly in New York, saying that the 81-year-old Charter should be reviewed. She pointed to a 2005 agreement in which UN member states resolved to delete references to enemy states and said that commitment should now be implemented.

The provisions appear in Articles 53, 77 and 107 of the Charter. They were included when the organisation was founded in 1945, before Japan, Germany and Italy had been reintegrated into the international system.

[Article 53 defines an enemy state as any country that fought against a signatory of the UN Charter during the Second World War](https://legal.un.org/repertory/art53.shtml?ref=theglobalvoice.com). It originally permitted regional organisations to take enforcement action against such states without first obtaining authorisation from the Security Council when the action arose from the war.

Article 107 states that nothing in the Charter invalidates or prevents action taken against a former enemy state as a consequence of the conflict. Article 77 contains another wartime reference in its description of territories that could be placed under the international trusteeship system.

The clauses were designed for the immediate post-war environment and have not provided a practical basis for international action against Japan in recent decades. The General Assembly declared them obsolete in 1995, and world leaders resolved in 2005 that the references should be deleted.

Despite that agreement, the language remains formally embedded in the Charter because removing it requires a full amendment rather than an ordinary General Assembly resolution.

Under Article 108, an amendment must receive the support of two-thirds of the General Assembly and then be ratified by two-thirds of all UN members. Crucially, ratification must include all five permanent members of the Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Any one of them can therefore prevent the amendment from taking effect.

---

For Japan, the matter is largely symbolic but has acquired renewed diplomatic relevance. Tokyo argues that it is unreasonable for a country that has been a UN member since 1956, a major financial contributor and a participant in international peacebuilding to remain described through the language of wartime hostility.

The clauses have also reappeared during periods of tension between Japan and China. Beijing has previously referred to the enemy-state provisions while criticising changes in Japanese security policy. Tokyo maintains that the clauses are obsolete and cannot be used to justify military action outside the contemporary rules of the Charter.

Takaichi linked the issue to a broader campaign for UN reform. Japan has long sought a permanent seat on the Security Council and argues that an institution created in 1945 cannot remain credible if its governing structure and legal language continue to reflect the balance of power at the end of the Second World War.

Removing the clauses would not alter Japan’s borders, military obligations or security alliances. Nor would it automatically advance Tokyo’s campaign for a permanent Security Council seat. It would, however, eliminate one of the clearest remnants of the post-war settlement from the UN’s founding document.

The international community has already accepted in principle that the language is outdated. Japan’s renewed demand exposes the larger problem: even reforms supported by most member states can remain unfinished when changing the Charter requires the consent of every permanent Security Council power.