所谓“存亡危机事态”，是日本对国际法的非法僭越｜国际识局

Core Viewpoint - Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's provocative statement on November 7, suggesting that "Taiwan's situation" could constitute a "survival crisis" for Japan, implies a potential justification for Japan to exercise collective self-defense or intervene in Taiwan affairs, indicating a willingness for military involvement in the Taiwan issue [1] Group 1: Legal and International Relations Implications - Takaichi's attempt to categorize "Taiwan's situation" as a "survival crisis" reflects a disregard for Japan's obligations under international law, challenging the post-World War II international order and undermining fundamental principles of international law [2][5] - The legal basis for Taiwan's status is firmly established in international law, with documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation affirming Taiwan's return to China, thus making Taiwan's issue a matter of China's internal affairs [3] - Japan's invocation of domestic law to justify interference in a sovereign nation's internal matters is a blatant challenge to the principles of sovereignty and non-interference that are foundational to modern international law [5] Group 2: Collective Self-Defense and Military Actions - Japan's linkage of the "survival crisis" concept to collective self-defense represents a significant legal overreach, as collective self-defense is strictly limited to situations of actual armed attack, as outlined in the UN Charter [6] - The vague definition of "survival crisis" expands the interpretation of self-defense beyond the strict confines of international law, potentially allowing Japan to justify military actions without direct provocation [6] - Recent military deployments, such as missile installations on Yonaguni Island, are seen as provocative actions that threaten China's sovereignty and escalate regional tensions, undermining peace and stability [7] Group 3: Domestic Law vs. International Obligations - The fundamental flaw in Japan's "survival crisis" concept lies in its attempt to prioritize domestic law over international obligations, which is explicitly prohibited by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [8] - Japan's domestic legal interpretations cannot serve as a valid excuse for violating established international law principles, including non-interference and the prohibition of the use of force [8] - The attempt to elevate domestic law above international law represents a serious challenge to the international legal system and the spirit of international law [8] Group 4: Historical Context and Commitments - Japan's application of the "survival crisis" concept to the Taiwan issue not only violates specific international law principles but also constitutes a fundamental departure from its post-war obligations as a defeated nation [9] - Japan has previously accepted and fulfilled its obligations under the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese surrender document, acknowledging Taiwan's return to China, making Takaichi's claims a distortion of historical documents and international law [9]