The Dec. 20 high court decision that paved the way for the first administrative subrogation case under the current system is a superficial and narrowly focused ruling.

The ruling, which effectively allows the national government to take over the authority of a local administration for a specific policy action, aligns with the central government’s position.

Given that the court hearings concluded in just one day, doubts are raised about how rigorously and comprehensively the court examined whether administrative subrogation is the most appropriate response in this case.

The Naha branch of the Fukuoka High Court ruling in the lawsuit allows the national government to proceed with the construction of a new U.S. military facility in the Henoko district of Nago, Okinawa Prefecture, to take over the functions of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, a more crowded city in the prefecture.

The ruling allows the central government to approve the Defense Ministry’s application for the Okinawa prefectural government’s permission to make necessary changes in the base construction plan, as the local administration has refused the request.

The ruling has opened the door to invoking a legal mechanism known as administrative subrogation, where the central government steps in to implement a decision or carry out an action directly in place of a local government when the latter fails to comply with its legal obligation or court order.

The court rejected the prefectural government’s argument in a ruling based on the simple logic that the local administration should comply with the Supreme Court's decision concerning the issue.

What is difficult to understand is the high court’s interpretation of "the public interest."

The Local Autonomy Law stipulates that the national government can resort to administrative subrogation only when leaving the matter unaddressed would “seriously harm the public interest."

The court ruling stated that if the prefecture does not approve the application, removing the dangers posed by the Futenma air base to human life and physical safety will be significantly delayed and would thus "harm the social and public interest.”

In considering the dispute, the prefecture argued for a broader definition of the public interest, including the will of the people in Okinawa and the environmental impact.

The ruling expressed sympathy with the local government’s sentiment. Still, it dismissed the argument, saying “it is difficult to recognize (such viewpoints) as factors that should naturally be taken into account" from a legal point of view.

Why didn't the court consider the complicated, underlying issues that are common threads running through the series of lawsuits related to the Henoko base project? Regrettably, the court adopted the narrow and formal interpretation of the public interest.

Regarding another point of contention, whether the situation can be corrected through "methods other than administrative subrogation," the court dismissed the prefecture's argument for a solution through dialogue, stating that this approach does not qualify as an alternative under the provisions of the Local Autonomy Law.

The lawsuit has highlighted the risk of the national government unilaterally imposing national policies when in conflict with local administrations.

The Local Autonomy Law strictly defines the requirements for administrative subrogation because the provision is based on the principle that the national and local governments should be in an "equal and cooperative" relationship, and the Constitution guarantees local autonomy.

The national government's ultimate intervention of stripping local governments of their authority must be exercised with modesty and restraint.

In its last passage, the ruling states that the repeated lawsuits between the national government and the prefecture are hardly acceptable, calling for the national government to "realize policies in line with the sentiments of prefectural residents" and expressing a desire for a resolution through dialogue.

This part captures the essence of the problem, and it's puzzling why the court didn't develop a “living law interpretation" from this perspective.

However, the ruling can be interpreted as a call for the settlement of the dispute through talks, given that while endorsing administrative abrogation in the main text, it ended with grounds for the decision with an argument in the opposite direction.

The national government should revisit whether it is genuinely appropriate to push forward with the Henoko base plan as the “only solution," even at the cost of unilaterally stripping away the right to local autonomy.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 21