Dispatching ships to the Strait of Hormuz? The US poses a difficult question for Japan

Reference News Network, March 15 According to a report on the Nikkei Asian Review website on March 15, the United States hopes Japan will send ships to “escort” the Strait of Hormuz, but there are legal hurdles within Japan.

The report mentions that U.S. President Trump on March 14 expressed his expectation that Japan and other relevant countries send ships to the Strait of Hormuz.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takashi will visit the United States on March 19, and a Japan-U.S. summit will be held in Washington. At that time, the U.S. is very likely to make this request to Japan.

The report states that Japan received a similar request from the U.S. in 2019, when the Abe Shinzo government studied response options.

In 2019, due to deepening U.S.-Iran tensions, there were attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. attempted to form a convoy escort alliance for the Strait of Hormuz and had previously explored whether Japan was interested in cooperation.

To have the Self-Defense Forces join an escort alliance, the Japanese government at the time had four legal options: ① Use security-related laws that stipulate collective self-defense and support for foreign military forces; ② Conduct “maritime security operations” based on the Self-Defense Forces Law; ③ Apply the “Piracy Response Law”; ④ Enact special measures laws.

The Abe government ultimately decided that Japan’s Self-Defense Forces would not join the escort alliance. Japan considers Iran a “traditional friendly country,” and the Abe government made this decision after carefully weighing the U.S. stance and Japan-Iran relations. Based on the Self-Defense Forces Law, Japan dispatched escort ships to nearby waters to gather intelligence and prepare for escorting Japanese vessels.

It is expected that in this incident, the relevant decision-making framework will follow a similar pattern. If Japan decides to respond to the U.S. call for escort assistance, all four legal frameworks face unresolved issues.

If the security-related laws are applied, the support must be for counterattacks conducted in accordance with international law. The Japanese government has not yet issued an international legal assessment of the U.S. attack on Iran.

Using “collective self-defense” to assist U.S. forces would essentially mean Japan fully considers Iran—a country with which it has historically maintained friendly relations—as an enemy. For Japan, this would represent a major shift in its diplomatic strategy.

Relying on the Self-Defense Forces Law’s “maritime security operations” would mean the Self-Defense Forces could only escort Japanese-flagged ships.

What about the “Piracy Response Law”? This law, enacted in 2009, is based on joint operations with other countries. In this case, Japan can escort foreign ships. However, the law limits attacks to “pirates” who seize ships for private purposes and does not envisage protecting ships from Iranian attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.

The report states that the situation in Iran has become more complex than in previous years, and Japan’s diplomatic space has narrowed. Trump has exerted pressure on allies through tariffs, and a force-oriented diplomatic posture has become increasingly evident. Now, Japan faces the difficult choice of making tough decisions. (Translation by Ma Xiaoyun)