On Wednesday, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) held a press conference to announce it would freeze funding for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which is managed by the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR), in response to the committee’s report, issued last October, saying that Japan must end its male-only imperial succession policy. The MOFA spokesperson, Toshihiro Kitamura, said that the Japanese government every year grants funding to HCHR to the tune of ¥20-30 million that is earmarked for CEDAW, but it has informed the CEDAW that, according to an AP report, “it will be excluded from a list of [Japan’s] annual voluntary contributions” from now on. In addition, Japan is suspending a visit to Japan by CEDAW members this spring. 

Thursday’s print edition of the Asahi Shimbun said that the CEDAW’s opinion in its October report recommended that Japan “amend the Imperial Household Law,” which specifies that only males from the imperial line on the male side can become emperor, saying that it violates the spirit of the CEDAW treaty, which Japan ratified in 1985. Kitamura said that if the CEDAW does not remove the part of the report citing the male succession matter Japan will withhold its funding, but MOFA also admitted that since 2005 none of the grant money that goes to HCHR has actually made its way to CEDAW, so, for the most part, the threat is only symbolic. Nevertheless, Kitamura insisted that the government wants to make sure none of the money is used to fund CEDAW “so as to clearly express the government’s position.” 

The reason given for the government’s displeasure is that the concept of human rights cannot be applied to the Imperial Household and imperial succession, so, according to government logic, by definition the Imperial Household Law does not discriminate against women. To put a finer point on it, members of the imperial family do not possess basic human rights, so the law cannot be prejudicial against female members. In addition, imperial succession is “fundamental” to Japan as a state, so it is inappropriate for CEDAW to involve itself with the issue, meaning the treaty does not apply. 

It should be noted that CEDAW has been badgering Japan for years over the status of women, and that in the most recent report male-only imperial succession was just one of several concerns. Others had to do with the unfairness of requiring married couples to adopt the same name, which the CEDAW has cited five times already. Previously, the Japanese government never threatened to withhold funds with regard to the same name matter and didn’t condemn the CEDAW’s recommendation, but merely repeated that it was still under study, which is the exact same thing they say to the Japanese public. Other issues the CEDAW wants Japan to address is the relative paucity of women in elected office and the law that requires spousal approval for a woman’s abortion. 

Nevertheless, the handling of the same-name matter is instructive in parsing the government’s reaction to the CEDAW’S imperial succession finding. Almost every survey, including those carried out by the government, has found that the Japanese public supports allowing married couples to have the option of separate names, and yet the government, held hostage by conservative elements who claim that same names are crucial to the integrity of the “Japanese family,” repeatedly says that there is no consensus on the matter. And as pointed out by Shinto expert Akinori Takamori in an article about the CEDAW report that appeared in a Nov. 22, 2024,  post on President Woman, the Japanese public has overwhelmingly supported the idea of allowing a woman to ascend the Chrysanthemum Throne. In fact, this widely held opinion contradicts one of the complaints that the Yomiuri Shimbun made against CEDAW in an editorial condeming its report. The Yomiuri says the CEDAW has no authority over Japan’s Constitution, which states that the emperor “deri[ves] his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.” However, if we take this constitutional pronouncement at face value, it means that it is the people who decide who the emperor can be, and at the end of the President Woman article there is a list of surveys showing that more than 80% of respondents are in favor of allowing a female emperor. Moreover, Takamori’s research found that of the 465 people who ran for lower house Diet seats in October, only 68 had stated in campaign questionnaires that they were in favor of restricting imperial sucession to the male line. These findings have been well publicized, and yet the government willfully ignores them, even refusing to contemplate a referendum on the subject while continually asserting that since male succession has always been the rule in the past it will always be the rule in the future. 

There is also the question of the CEDAW’s authority to make such a demand. The government claims that the treaty it signed does not take precedent over matters of Japanese sovereignty, but, in fact, international law, which includes statutes imposed by treaties, supersede domestic law, as also stated in the Constitution. It is thus the government’s responsibility to protect women’s rights in Japan and ban discrimination, and whatever else the Imperial Succession Law accomplishes, it is clearly and self-evidently discriminatory. Even the government admits as much, but they insist that imperial succession is a special case where discrimination doesn’t apply. Discrimination is the whole point of the law. 

In another editorial that responded to the government’s outrage at the CEDAW last fall, Tokyo Shimbun mentioned that some government officials and media outlets challenged the CEDAW claim by asking why the agency didn’t condemn the Catholic Church for restricting the papacy to men or the Central Tibetan Administration for maintaining the same rule for the Dalai Lama, and the answer is simple: The Holy See is not a signatory to the CEDAW treaty and the Dalai Lama is no longer politically affiliated with the Tibetan government-in-exile. (For what it’s worth, the CEDAW has condemned the treatment of women in Chinese-controlled Tibet.) In a show of cheek, Tokyo Shimbun recommended that the Japanese government “study the matter further,” because it’s obvious they don’t know as much as they think they do. At any rate, the Constitution says nothing about male succession in its opening chapter about the Emperor. The one sticking point mentioned by Takamori is that while separate name usage for married couples can be achieved through a change in the Civil Code, the Constitution’s precept that the Emperor is subject to the will of the people could be construed as meaning that imperial succession is not subject to outside forces, such as international treaties. But it needs to be said that the people have repeatedly been in favor of having a female emperor, even before the CEDAW released its report.

Another important point that Takamori makes is that the matter of imperial succession remains in crisis mode, since there is only the possibility of a single male heir on the distant horizon, Crown Prince Akishinomiya’s son Hisahito. The sanction against the CEDAW does nothing to alleviate this crisis and, in fact, simply draws attention to the government’s stubbornness. This situation will likely never change as long as the male line remains the only source of imperial stock because female members of the royal family are not allowed by law to contribute heirs, unless they marry another member of the royal family, which would be incest; or it would be considered such in light of modern sensibilities. So the government’s and the right wing media’s over-reaction to the CEDAW report (according to Takamori, the Sankei Shimbun editorial “almost screamed” at the committee’s perceived interference with national sovereignty) seems more like desperation, and one wonders why the MOFA waited so long to withhold grant money. Maybe that decision itself was influenced by outside forces. It is, after all, a distinctly Trumpian move.