By Huang Huikang

A spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the "Enemy State Clauses" in the Charter of the United Nations, as a special set of rules for World War II defeated states, are still valid today. Against the backdrop of Japan's "neo-militarism" posing a threat to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, it is essential to fully comply with the UN Charter and reaffirm the "Enemy State Clauses".

Not long ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also publicly reaffirmed the legal validity of the "Enemy State Clauses," explicitly stating that Japan was initially designated as an "enemy state" in the UN Charter. Japan joined the UN after having atoned for its militaristic policies and the crimes it committed. By joining the UN, Japan recognized the principles enshrined in the Charter in their entirety.

This series of solemn statements has once again placed the "Enemy State Clauses"—a core balancing mechanism that embodies the shared will forged in humanity's war against fascism and has binding force under international law—under the international spotlight.

Japan's admission to the UN was predicated on its acknowledgment of the crimes of militarism and its acceptance of the UN Charter in its entirety, including the "Enemy State Clauses." The UN Charter retains the "Enemy State Clauses" to this day, and the relevant provisions, including Articles 53, 77, and 107, remain valid.

This special institutional arrangement aims to prevent states defeated in World War II from once again posing a threat to international peace and security, providing an important institutional safeguard for defending the post-war international order. Far from being a historical text that can be casually dismissed, the "Enemy State Clauses" are an institutional arrangement that reinforces the legal foundations of the post-war international order in three respects: historical accountability, territorial order, and security checks and balances.

Article 107 of the UN Charter, with the authority under highest international law, permanently establishes the culpability of fascist states for their aggression, confirms the legality of the military actions taken by the Allies against enemy states during World War II, and completely forecloses any legal avenue for defeated states to reverse the verdict on their history of aggression.

Article 77of the UN Charter sets clear limits for the post-war territorial order, defines the territorial boundaries of Japan's territory, provides legal support for the territorial principles established by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, and forecloses any attempt to legitimize gains obtained through aggression.

Article 53 of the UN Charter reinforces security safeguards. Addressing the risks of renewed expansion by enemy states and breaches of military restrictions, it authorizes the founding members of the UN to take enforcement measures when necessary without the usual authorization of the Security Council, thereby providing a direct legal basis and authorization for action to prevent the resurgence of militarism. The entire system strikes directly at the root causes of war and serves as a key legal safeguard for the international community to punish aggression and uphold peace and justice.

In recent years, right-wing forces in Japan, in disregard of history and legal principles, have vigorously promoted the claim that the "Enemy State Clauses" are obsolete. Their core aim is to distort legal principles and mislead international public opinion in support of their efforts to deny the history of aggression, breach military restrictions, and challenge the post-war international order. Such arguments are highly deceptive and destructive and are completely untenable in both legal and practical terms.

In terms of continuing legal validity, the UN Charter is a fundamental framework governing international relations and an important cornerstone of the modern international order. Its authority and validity remain stable, unaffected by changes over time or the demands of individual countries. For more than 80 years, the UN has never revised, abolished, or weakened the "Enemy State Clauses," which have remained unconditionally in force since taking effect. The so-called claim of "obsolescence" is nothing more than a specious argument used by Japan to evade its legal obligations as a defeated state and challenge the authority of the UN Charter. Such an argument seriously violates the basic norms of international law and lacks any legitimacy.

In terms of the nature of the provisions, the "Enemy State Clauses" are directed at fascist systems of aggression and acts of militarist expansion, targeting war crimes and acts that disrupt order rather than the people of any particular country. Their fundamental purpose is to restrain aggression through the rule of law, eliminate the risks of war, and safeguard peace for all humanity, thereby embodying the universal sense of justice of the international community. The deliberate distortion of these clauses by Japanese right-wing forces as so-called "country-specific political suppression" is a complete departure from the original intent of the UN Charter.

In terms of practical relevance, the role of the "Enemy State Clauses" as a check and counterbalance remains indispensable today. At present, right-wing forces in Japan are going to great lengths to deny the history of aggression, distort history, and glorify war. At the same time, Japan continues to substantially increase its defense budget, vigorously develop offensive armaments, push beyond post-war military constraints, and accelerate its "remilitarization". Japan's "neo-militarism" has already bared its fangs. Against a complex and grave geopolitical backdrop, the value of the "Enemy State Clauses" as a constraint and counterbalance has not diminished; on the contrary, it has become increasingly prominent. They can in no way be considered obsolete.

All peace-loving forces in the international community must remain highly vigilant, resolutely resist the adventurist actions of Japanese right-wing forces, and firmly curb any signs of a resurgence of militarism. Any perverse act that undermines the international rule of law, challenges the post-war international order, or revives militarism will inevitably face opposition from the international community and the judgment of history and justice.

(The author is a specially appointed professor and doctoral supervisor at Wuhan University)