Japan in the Post–3/11 Era: The Road to Rebirth

Crisis Management in the Aftermath of 3/11

Politics Society

Kobe 1995 and Tōhoku 2011 were both earthquake disasters, but the first saw most deaths from fires and collapsed homes, while the second was a complex disaster involving a tsunami and nuclear power plant meltdowns. Former director of the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office Ōmori Yoshio considers Japan’s crisis management in the light of these two events.

The Lack of an Emergency Act

Next, I want to discuss several factors that have not changed in the 16 years since the Hanshin disaster.

The first is the lack of any provision by the state (or in the Constitution) for special legislation that would apply in a state of emergency. In this respect, Japan forms a striking contrast with Germany. Following its defeat in World War II, Germany engaged in a national debate that lasted some 20 years before finally incorporating state of emergency legislation into its constitution. In Japan, by contrast, the lack of limitations on private property laws can slow down cleanup operations in an emergency situation, since even rubble is treated as private property. Even municipal rezoning and road-widening projects to make disaster areas safer can be brought to a standstill by an uncooperative property owner. Japan’s Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act does grant the prime minister certain prerogatives once a natural disaster emergency situation has been declared, such as the right to put limits on the prices of everyday necessities. But the government of Prime Minister Kan Naoto decided not to declare an emergency following the March disaster. The reasons for this decision are not clear, but as a result it proved impossible to make a dramatic shift from normality to a crisis footing.

However, even in Japan the system has begun to change in recent years, following the introduction of the Armed Attack Situation Response Law and the Civil Protection Law, which have beefed up the legal provisions for dealing with a defense-related national emergency. In its reluctance to mobilize emergency legislation in responding to the recent disaster, the government is likely to have been held back by the restraining influence of conventional interpretations of the Constitution. This led to the everyday, vertically compartmentalized administrative structure being carried over into the realm of emergency response, crippling the government’s chances of reacting speedily.

Insufficient Civilian Evacuation Standards


An October 2010 drill at the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture was based on the loss of power to the cooling systems. In May 2011, Prime Minister Kan requested that the plant be shut down based on the high likelihood of a major earthquake in the region (an 87% chance in the next 30 years, according to some data).

Nuclear power is the one major exception to Japan’s lack of civil emergency legislation. Following the lessons of the criticality accident in a uranium reprocessing facility at Tōkaimura in 1999, the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness was passed, granting the prime minister the authority to issue special orders in the event of a nuclear emergency. Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the prime minister exercised this prerogative by declaring Japan’s first ever nuclear power emergency situation in accordance with this legislation. However, as subsequent events showed, the standards for evacuating local residents were unclear and as a result, a thorough evacuation proved impossible. It is hard to deny that legally speaking, Japan lacked the concrete regulations it needed to cope with a situation on this scale; on a practical level, there was a failure to follow through on the assumptions and training exercises carried out in advance. Prime Minister Kan apparently remembered nothing about a training exercise carried out last October based on a scenario in which cooling system power was lost at the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station. That the person theoretically in overall charge should have forgotten all about this exercise speaks volumes about how complacent the authorities were in their preparations for an emergency.

next: Public Spirit and Community Feeling

Related Tags

earthquake tsunami nuclear disaster

Other articles in this report