The Nagoya High Court Thursday ruled that the Air Self-Defense Force's mission in Iraq includes activities that violate the war-renouncing Constitution. It rejects the government's explanations concerning the dispatch of an ASDF unit to Iraq. Although the government says that the ruling does not bind its actions — because the constitutional issue was not addressed in the main part of the ruling — the political parties should deepen discussions on the ASDF's role in Iraq by fully considering the ruling. Now that the ruling has been made, it is the government's minimum duty to disclose additional information related to the matter.

The lawsuit was filed by about 1,100 people who asked for a halt to the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq and solatium payments for their psychological pain caused by the dispatch. Similar lawsuits were filed at 11 district courts, but the plaintiffs lost these cases. The Nagoya High Court's ruling is significant in that for the first time in 35 years, a court squarely dealt with the question of whether the SDF or its activities are constitutional.

But the high court turned down the plaintiffs' request for a halt to the mission and compensation. As far as the formality is concerned, therefore, the defendant, which is the state, is the winner. Nonetheless, the high court's decision concerning the constitutionality of the ASDF's Iraq mission will be finalized because the state, which won the ruling, cannot appeal the ruling and the plaintiffs decided not to appeal it.