English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The continued controversy over the presence of American bases in Okinawa has once again raised the question of whether the issue will ultimately be resolved by the Japanese courts. An examination of the history surrounding the judiciary’s involvement in previous base-related disputes in mainland Japan suggests that the court is itself deeply conflicted over its proper role in mediating these cases, leading to continued uncertainty over the ultimate legal status of the U.S. military presence. Unwilling to take a strong position in support of either the state or of increasingly active local officials, the court’s rulings have repeatedly given way to stalemate, which has ultimately benefitted local opponents to the bases. Local politicians such as mayors and prefectural governors have successfully used anti-base rhetoric to their advantage, promoting local resistance as legitimate expressions of Japan’s postwar democratic ideals, and local and national identities of peace.

The Politics of Stalemate: Local Power, U.S. Military Bases, and the Japanese Courts