The International Justice Clinic submitted a letter to the Tokyo District Court in a case concerning the Japanese government’s rejection of a passport application by a Japanese journalist, Junpei Yasuda. Mr. Yasuda has expertise in reporting from conflict zones such as those in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In 2019, his passport application was rejected on grounds because of his past journalistic endeavors such as those in Syria. Since then, he has been unable to visit any country outside of Japan, including Ukraine or Russia, severely curtailing his freedom of movement, which is protected under Article 12(2) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) restricted.

Back in 2015, Mr. Yasuda visited Syria for his work and got detained by an anti-government armed group, as was the fate of other journalists from the US and Europe. After three years of captivity, he went back to Japan via Turkey, which imposed a five-year entry ban on him although the reason behind the ban is not entirely clear. The Japanese government then rejected his application for a passport in 2019. As a consequence, Mr. Yasuda brought suit against the government, seeking to cancel the government’s rejection. In the resulting proceedings, the government argued that the rejection was because of the entry ban by Turkey as well as his detention in Syria and his past travels to Turkey and Syria without these countries’ permissions. In short, the government imposed limits on his journalistic work– all on the assumption his predicted entry into foreign countries without permission or violation of the law of those countries would damage Japan’s trust within the international society.

However, such an abstract justification lacking evidence of careful consideration is likely to fall short of compliance with the ICCPR, which Japan ratified decades ago. As Mr. Yasuda’s lawyer submitted to the Court, the ICCPR and established interpretation clearly requires that any restriction of freedom of movement is illegal unless the government demonstrates that the restriction is (1) provided by law and (2) necessary to protect (3) a legitimate objective, which is either of respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of ordre public, or of public health or morals (the so-called “three-part test”). Regrettably, the Japanese government has been reluctant to explain why they think the rejection of Mr. Yasuda’s passport application suffices these requirements.

In our letter, we have conveyed two messages to the Court based on international human rights law.

First, the unique, high value of journalism in conflict zones has been long recognized by international courts and political bodies. For example:

As the most notable jurisprudence is the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)’s so-called Randal case (stating, because “accurate information is often difficult to obtain and may be difficult to distribute or disseminate,” “journalists in conflict areas play a ‘vital role’ in both bringing to the attention of the international community the horrors and reality of the conflict.”).
in 2015, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution in response to the series of murders of journalists, including Japanese journalists, by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), stating that journalists “can play an important role in the protection of civilians and conflict prevention by acting as an early warning mechanism in identifying and reporting potential situations that could result in genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

Second, as a performance of a state duty to “ensure” fundamental human rights (Article 2(1)), ICCPR requires a state, when denying a passport application in consideration of reasons associated with or incidental to journalism in conflict zones as in the present case, to demonstrate sufficient grounds to avoid interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 19(2) and chilling future reporting in conflict zones by journalists.

We hope the Court will consider the important value of the work of journalists in conflict zones, as recognized by international organizations and international law, and carefully apply human rights law’s three-part test to the present case. A thorough examination of the case would ensure Japan’s compliance with ICCPR – which is a legal obligation as well as an essential pillar for international trust.

Clinic students, Eric Nguyen and Robia Amjad, supported the research and drafting work.