Question from a reader:
Is it true that heads of state can start wars and forcibly send citizens to the battlefield without facing any consequences, even though their actions have a greater impact on society than those of serial killers?

Legal Responsibility of Heads of State in Warfare

Recently, questions have arisen about whether heads of state can start wars or
send citizens to battle without facing any legal consequences. This is a theme I often ponder, and I would like to discuss it from a legal perspective.

The Relationship Between War and Law

First of all, the act of war is extremely complex. Under international law, war is referred to as “armed conflict,” and it is subject to regulations based particularly on “international humanitarian law.” For example, the Geneva Conventions establish strict rules regarding the treatment of victims and prisoners of war during conflicts. However, when a head of state decides to go to war, how that decision is treated legally can vary from country to country. In Japan, Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war, while in other countries, it is recognized as a general authority for heads of state to initiate warfare. It is fascinating to consider how this difference impacts international perspectives.

Legal Responsibility of Heads of State

When a head of state initiates a war, their actions can indeed be subject to legal scrutiny. There is the concept of “war crimes,” exemplified by the trials for Nazi war crimes. War crimes include attacks on civilians, abuse of prisoners of war, and inhumane acts. If these crimes are uncovered, the head of state can be prosecuted under international law. For instance, consider the recent situation in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has faced international condemnation for the invasion of Ukraine, and an arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This clearly illustrates the significant impact that a head of state can have on society by instigating war.

Similarities Between War and Serial Killing

As the questioner pointed out, it is indeed true that the actions of heads of state in warfare can have a greater societal impact than those of serial killers. While serial killers are harshly punished for each individual crime, the actions of heads of state are conducted in the name of the state, resulting in a different legal framework. In my view, the difference between the wartime actions of heads of state and serial killing lies in the application of law based on personal emotions and ethics. Serial killers clearly act out of personal desires and emotions, resulting in harm to an unspecified number of people. In contrast, heads of state often justify their decisions to go to war in the name of “national interest,” which can make their actions appear legally permissible.

Social Responsibility and Ethical Issues

The law addresses theoretical legal principles, while the ethical considerations in actual society are a separate issue. The belief that many lives lost in war should never be justified, regardless of the reasons, is something I strongly resonate with. The decisions made by heads of state that affect countless innocent civilians transcend legal issues and become ethical dilemmas. I would like to share a bit of my own experience. While raising children, I work in the entertainment industry. I always teach my children to “value others” and “understand the pain of others.” I believe that such values should also apply when making significant decisions like going to war. The attitude of heads of state who disregard the lives of their citizens contradicts this education.

Conclusion: Legal Framework and Ethical Responsibility

In conclusion, while it may be legally permissible for heads of state to initiate wars within certain frameworks, the ethical responsibilities and societal impacts of those actions cannot be ignored. War is not merely a conflict between nations; it involves the lives of many people, and the resulting responsibilities should be questioned not only legally but also within our hearts. I believe that each of us must understand the reality of war and consider the implications of the actions of heads of state as a step toward improving society. We should demand a deeper sense of ethics and responsibility from those who make decisions about war.