Kong Qingjiang, a special commentator for CGTN, is an associate dean at the School of International Law of the Chinese University of Political Science and Law. This article expresses the author's views and does not necessarily reflect the position of CGTN.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takachi recently suggested in parliament that a "crisis situation" concerning Taiwan could constitute an "existential threat" that would allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense. Her remarks have drawn strong criticism from China, which questioned Japan's intentions regarding forces seeking "Taiwan independence" and warned against any interference in China's core interests.

China's reaction is rooted in both historical and legal context. Japan inflicted immense suffering on Asian nations during World War II, with China being the largest victim. After China's victory in the war against Japanese aggression, Taiwan was legally returned to China in accordance with international documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. As a former aggressor, Japan has no right to invoke "self-defense" regarding Chinese territory. Takachi's remarks also violate Japan's commitments outlined in the 1972 China-Japan Joint Communiqué, which recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China and states that Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory.

In this context, the so-called "enemy state" provisions in the UN Charter remain relevant. Articles 53 and 107 – special provisions designed to prevent the resurgence of fascist aggression – allow anti-fascist allied states to take enforcement measures against former Axis powers even without prior authorization from the UN Security Council, provided that these states resume a militaristic policy. Article 53 allows for regional or collective measures against new aggression, while Article 107 affirms the validity of all wartime and post-war actions taken against enemy states.

If Japan were to use force in the Taiwan region under the pretext of "collective defense," it would constitute an act of aggression and could trigger the application of these provisions, thereby granting China and other former allied countries the right to take all necessary measures, including military ones. Japan has been seeking to eliminate these provisions since the 1960s, but repeated historical revisionism and the strengthening of right-wing tendencies have hindered progress. Although the UN General Assembly recommended their elimination in 1995, the provisions remain in effect because amending the Charter requires the unanimous consent of all five permanent members of the Security Council, including China and Russia.

In a situation where Japanese right-wing forces continue to promote militarization and the "normalization" of defense policy, the "enemy state" provisions remain a legal and political deterrent. Their continued validity serves as a reminder to anti-fascist nations of their rights – and also sends a clear warning to Japanese right-wing groups not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

CMG