International law of assistance is an emerging field that governs the principles and rules of assistance across various fields of international law. This article, written by four Japanese scholars, examines the international law of assistance from a Japanese perspective and explores its significance concerning recent Japanese experiences. First, it elaborates on Japan’s contribution as a party to the Food Assistance Convention, followed by an analysis of Japan’s new Official Development Assistance policies. Then, it examines the protection of persons and assistance in the event of disasters, using Japan’s triple disaster as a case study. Finally, it evaluates the international law of assistance in light of existing theories of international law.
According to food security issues, there exists a complex dichotomy between those who delve into the root causes of hunger, tracing it back to settler colonialism’s historical legacy and persistent effects, and those advocating for the enhancement of the existing order, such as the WTO system. This section considers whether, from a Japanese perspective, it is possible to present ideas that overcome this division. The current Food Assistance Convention, adopted in 2012 and entered into force in 2013, can be traced to its predecessor, the Food Aid Convention (a separate legal instrument under the International Grains Agreement), adopted in 1967 due to the Kennedy Round negotiations. Looking back in history, it cannot be excluded that food assistance has included processing surplus agricultural products in developed countries. Japan initiated food assistance in 1968 following the signing of the Food Aid Convention. Japan’s annual commitment for 2024 is set at 10 billion yen, approximately equivalent to 100 million Australian Dollars. For example, Japan contributed 20.7 billion yen, far exceeding the then-annual commitment amount of 10 billion yen. Japan’s food assistance includes bilateral food assistance projects, coordinated assistance projects in collaboration with WFP and UNRWA as part of bilateral assistance, contributions to the WFP as part of multilateral assistance and emergency grant aid. Of these, the first two account for roughly half of the total, or 10 billion yen, but these are provided in the form of stockpiled rice in Japan, so it is questionable whether they can be described as pure assistance. At the same time, however, there are some tangible outcomes if positive aspects of Japanese food assistance are to be noted. First, there are examples of assistance that have restored resilience to international food systems threatened by conflict. For instance, in 2023, Japan provided 300 million yen in grant aid through the WFP to Guinea, where the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a tight food supply and a sharp rise in food prices. Second, there is support for internally displaced persons. In 2024, Japan distributed food through the WFP to 2,800 households in Dayr al Balah in the northern Gaza Strip. TWAIL’s argument that the current unfair international food order must be fundamentally changed is understandable. However, if this is difficult to achieve in the short term, it may be necessary to make better use of existing institutions to improve food assistance. It is worth listening to TWAIL academics arguing that the global food system should be fundamentally changed. There is a definite need for a sustainable food system, such as that advocated by the FAO that delivers food security and nutrition for all, including future generations, and eventually eliminates the need for food assistance.
The second section examines Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) policies and their implications for international law on development assistance. The OECD defines ODA as government aid for economic development in developing countries, which remains essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While ODA is regulated across fragmented areas of international law, scholarly attention to Asian donors, particularly Japan, has been relatively limited. Japan’s ODA is structured through bilateral and multilateral treaties, often formalised through administrative agreements that do not require ratification by the National Diet. Although such treaties are concluded to facilitate ODA, their substantive regulation is primarily governed by Japan’s domestic law, as these agreements typically include clauses referring to “the relevant laws and regulations of Japan” (e.g., Exchange of Notes between the Government of Japan and the Government of Vietnam, Section 1.). The Development Cooperation Charter, first adopted in 1992 and revised in 2015 and 2023, serves as the central policy framework for Japan’s ODA. Debt sustainability is a key priority in Japan’s 2023 Development Cooperation Charter, reflecting concerns regarding China’s lending practices and their impact on the debt burdens of developing countries. In this context, Japan promotes the “Quality Infrastructure Investment” concept, which underscores high standards, transparency, and accountability. These principles have been incorporated into JICA’s operational guidelines and have influenced OECD policies. Japan’s ODA policies help shape soft law and international rules while serving its diplomatic strategy amid growing competition with China. Moreover, Japan advocates for sustainable development and transparency in ODA, proposing new normative standards for international cooperation. However, the effectiveness of these efforts in shaping customary international law ultimately depends on recognition and implementation by other donor and recipient states.
Regarding the obligations of affected States on the protection of persons and assistance in disasters, in December 2024, the UN General Assembly decided to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument by the end of 2027 at the latest, based on the Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2016 (Giulio Bartolini, EJIL: Talk!, 2024). For example, Article 11 of the draft ILC Article provides that “To the extent that a disaster manifestly exceeds its national response capacity, the affected State has the duty to seek assistance from, as appropriate, other States, the United Nations, and other potential assisting actors.” In its commentary on Article 11 of the draft ILC Articles, the ILC indicates that the duty of the affected State to seek external assistance derives from the obligations of the affected State under international human rights instruments and customary international law. In the case of Japan’s triple disaster in March 2011, Japan received many suggestions on offering humanitarian assistance, such as financial assistance and necessities, including water, food, and medical support, from 163 countries and areas and 43 international organisations. The Japanese government accepted many parts of these offers from 128 countries, areas, and international organisations. However, there was much confusion in facilitating, coordinating, and supervising external assistance. One reason for the confusion in the 2011 disaster is that Japan does not have basic legislation on international disaster response. In this regard, the Basic Act on Disaster Countermeasures, which is the fundamental law regarding disaster management in Japan, has only two provisions: the duty of the State and local governments to endeavour to carry out measures concerning the acceptance of disaster prevention assistance from other countries (paragraph 2 (16) of Article 8) and the Cabinet order to take the measures required to accept external assistance concerning the relief of disaster victims (Article 109-2).
International Law of Assistance has important theoretical and practical significance for existing international law. The practice of assistance cuts across many different areas of international law. However, these various types of assistance have been discussed separately in each field. International law of assistance is an attempt to critically ‘re-read’ international law from the perspective of assistance. One of the objectives of the international law of assistance is to unlearn the existing boundaries and reframe international law. It aims to provide a more accurate understanding of current assistance practices and the laws that regulate them. The actual process of assistance is covered not only by international law but also by several areas of law, including domestic law, EU law, and transnational law. Therefore, international law of assistance can encompass approximately all areas of law. For the international law of assistance, it is essential to rethink assistance as a process from the recipient’s point of view. In his well-known work, The Changing Structure of International Law, published in 1964, Wolfgang Friedmann proposed the dichotomy between the international law of coexistence and cooperation. It is well suited to capture the transformation of the international legal order after the Second World War and analyse the two international law vectors. However, the new legal field of international law of assistance presents a third vector, the international law of solidarity. The international law of coexistence or cooperation takes states and international organisations as actors in international assistance and seeks its legal basis in the will of states. On the other hand, the international law of solidarity considers the solidarity of individuals beyond the State as its ultimate legal basis. In the practice of assistance, these three vectors overlap and sometimes collide. For example, in disaster relief, one of the questions is whether individuals have the right to access affected populations without the State’s consent. In this debate, two vectors may collide: the international law of coexistence, based on traditional sovereignty principles, and the international law of solidarity, based on a sense of empathy and duty among individuals across borders. The international law of assistance redefines assistance as a process from the perspective of the individuals as recipients and carefully describes the dynamics relevant to each process.
The International Law of Assistance can provide a valuable framework for understanding the challenges and opportunities in this emerging field.
Jun Matsukuma
Jun Matsukuma is a Professor of International Law at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. He was a university guest in law at the University of Melbourne from 2023 to 2024 and is a member of ANZSIL. He was also a Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, a Visiting Professorial Fellow at Georgetown University, and a Research Associate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
His article, "The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions: An Analysis of Humanitarian Exemptions of Sanctions Regimes and the Right to Minimum Sustenance," is included in Hilary Charlesworth and Jean-Marc Coicaud (eds.) Fault Lines of International Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Norihito Samata
Norihito Samata is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Musashino University, and a Specially Appointed Associate Professor at the Center for International Law and Policy, Tohoku University, both in Japan. He was a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany (2015–2016, 2019). Since 2024, he has been a member of the Committee on the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of International Law (JSIL) and previously served on the editorial board of The Journal of International Law and Diplomacy (2020–2022) and as part of the JSIL Secretariat (2022–2024). His research focuses on the law of international organizations, the law of the sea, and regime interactions in international law.
Emika Tokunaga
Emika Tokunaga is currently working as a Specially Appointed Associate Professor (Lecturer) at the Graduate School of Human Sciences of The University of Osaka in Japan. She was previously a visiting researcher at the Modern East Asia Research Centre of the Institute for Area Studies of Leiden University in The Netherlands, and at the Asiatic Research Institute of Korea University in South Korea. Her research focuses on the protection of persons in the event of disasters and disaster law. She is also a member of the Editorial Committee of the Yearbook of International Disaster Law.
Her articles written in English include “Chapter 4 Evolution of International Disaster Response Law: Towards Codification and Progressive Development of the Law,” in David D. Caron, Michael J. Kelly, and Anastasia Telesetsky (eds.), The International Law of Disaster Relief (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp.46-64.
Satoshi Kodera
Satoshi Kodera is a professor at the Faculty of Law in Seinan Gakuin University, Japan. He has also worked as a visiting researcher in Aix-Marseille University, France (2017) and a visiting professor in Deakin Law School, Australia (2023-2024). He is chair of the public relations committee of the Japan Chapter of the Asian Society of International Law, a board member of the Japanese Association of International Economic Law, and a member of ANZSIL. His research focuses on public international law, international economic law, international law of development, international labour law, international law of culture, and critical approaches to international law.
He has published numerous books and articles, including The Introduction to WTO and FTA Law, 2nd ed. (co-author, Horitsu Bunkasha, 2021, in Japanese); “Significance of “Special and Differential Treatment” in the Free Trade System: From the Perspective of the Theory of Plurality of Norms”, Public Policy Review, Vol.20, No.4 (2024); “Flexibility of Norms in International Labour Law: The Situatedness of States and Individuals in Contemporary International Law”, The Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol.121, No.1 (2022, in Japanese); Dynamics Between Multilateralism and Regionalism in Relation to Trade Liberalization and Culture,” Public Policy Review, Vol.16, No.5 (2020).
