{"id":2248,"date":"2026-04-27T12:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T03:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.janic.org\/en\/?p=2248"},"modified":"2026-05-14T11:54:41","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T02:54:41","slug":"joint-letter-to-prime-minister-sanae-takaichi-on-japans-anti-espionage-law-and-foreign-agents-registration-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.janic.org\/en\/2026\/04\/27\/joint-letter-to-prime-minister-sanae-takaichi-on-japans-anti-espionage-law-and-foreign-agents-registration-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Joint Letter to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Japan’s Anti-Espionage Law and Foreign Agents Registration Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

*Download the PDF version<\/a><\/p>\n

23 April 2026<\/p>\n

Dear Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi,<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/div>\n

We, the undersigned nongovernmental organizations, are writing to call on your administration to ensure that should your government decide to enact an anti-espionage law and a foreign agents registration act, such laws should be consistent with the Japanese Constitution and international human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).<\/p>\n

While we recognize that protecting national security and tackling the unlawful influence of money in politics are important to promote and protect the country\u2019s democratic institutions, your government should adopt a rights-respecting approach. This means ensuring that any measures that may restrict human rights in the pursuit of national security aims comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. It is also crucial that any restrictions are non-discriminatory and monitored by an independent body to identify and prevent any harm.<\/p>\n

Specifically, we urge the Japanese government to ensure that the proposed anti-espionage law and new foreign agents registration act do not violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution, including the rights to freedom of thought and conscience (Article 19), as well as freedom of assembly, association, speech, press and all other forms of expression (Article 21), and the rights set out in the ICCPR.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Regarding the proposed anti-espionage law, we urge the Japanese authorities, at a minimum, to ensure that \u201cnational security\u201d is interpreted in accordance with international human rights law and standards, and that no restrictions are imposed on the basis of vague and overbroad terms such as \u201cespionage,\u201d \u201cforeign agent,\u201d and \u201cpolitical activity\u201d. We also urge your government to ensure the protection of freedom of expression, including by adding a general \u201cpublic interest\u201d clause to explicitly protect those who collect and disclose information in the public interest, including whistleblowers, journalists, academics, activists, and other human rights defenders.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In parallel, we urge your government to ensure that the proposed new foreign agents registration act is consistent with recommendations by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the UN special rapporteurs on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, among other international human rights mechanisms. It should not unduly hinder or prevent organizations from seeking and receiving funding from foreign sources, nor penalize them solely due to their receipt of foreign funds. The government should establish independent oversight bodies that are consistent with the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (Tshwane principles<\/a>) to monitor both laws.<\/p>\n

A number of countries that have adopted anti-espionage laws and foreign agents registration acts have come under serious criticism by domestic, regional, and international human rights bodies for their failure to comply with international human rights law and standards. The requirements referenced above are based on the international human rights framework and its application by relevant UN human rights mechanisms, the details of which are set out in the Annex.<\/p>\n

Thank you for your consideration. We would be pleased to discuss these and other matters of mutual concern with you and the pertinent government officials at any time. We can be reached at.<\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/p>\n

3 Coordinating Organizations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Human Rights Watch<\/p>\n

Amnesty International Japan<\/p>\n

Green Peace Japan<\/p>\n

15 Organizations (Japanese alphabetical order)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (WAM)<\/p>\n

Center for Prisoners\u2019 Rights<\/p>\n

Greenpeace Japan<\/p>\n

Amnesty International Japan<\/p>\n

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation<\/p>\n

Cambodia National Rescue Movement in Japan<\/p>\n

Japan NGO Action Network for Civic Space (NANCiS)<\/p>\n

Nagoya NGO Center<\/p>\n

Human Rights Now<\/p>\n

Development Education Association and Resource Center<\/p>\n

Japan International Center for the Rights of the Child (C-Rights)<\/p>\n

Human Rights Watch<\/p>\n

Anti-war Network<\/p>\n

Lady Liberty Hong Kong<\/p>\n

Students for a Free Tibet, Japan<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Annex: Legal basis under international human rights law and standards<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anti-Espionage Law<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Adhere to the principle of legality under international human rights law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Under the ICCPR, for a law to be valid, it needs to be sufficiently clear so that an average person can reasonably foresee the consequences of their actions and in particular when they may be in violation of the law. That is, the law must be accessible, clear, precise, foreseeable, and non-arbitrary, and applied prospectively, not retroactively.<\/p>\n

This means, in any proposed law, definitions of key terms including \u201cnational security\u201d should be consistent with internationally-recognized definitions where possible, and otherwise narrow and clearly defined.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Explicitly protect the right to freedom of expression, including for those who collect and disclose information in the public interest, consistent with the Japanese Constitution and international law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Article 19, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR\u00a0states<\/a>\u00a0that \u201c[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds….\u201d Paragraph 3 states that this right may be subject to certain restrictions only if provided by law and necessary for the \u201crespect of the rights or reputations of others\u201d and for \u201cthe protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee, an independent expert body that provides authoritative interpretation of the ICCPR,\u00a0stated<\/a>\u00a0in its General Comment No. 34 on article 19 that \u201cwhen a State party imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself\u201d and that \u201c[e]xtreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure that treason laws and similar provisions relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3. It is not compatible with paragraph 3, for instance, to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists, human rights defenders, or others, for having disseminated such information.<\/p>\n

Thus, in any proposed law, safeguards including a general \u201cpublic interest\u201d defense should be included, to explicitly protect those who collect information in the public interest, such as whistleblowers, journalists, academics, activists, and independent observers.<\/p>\n

Foreign Agents Registration Act<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Ensure\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations\u2019 right to seek, receive, and use funds, including from foreign sources.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2012, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association\u00a0stated<\/a>\u00a0that \u201c[a]ny associations, both registered or unregistered, should have the right to seek and secure funding and resources from domestic, foreign, and international entities, including individuals, businesses,\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations, Governments and international organizations,\u201d adding that \u201c[i]n many countries, domestic funding is very limited or non-existent, leading associations to rely on foreign assistance to conduct their activities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, any proposed law should not prohibit or hinder\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations\u2019 ability to seek and receive funding from foreign sources.<\/p>\n

Prevent the stigmatization and misperceptions of\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In March 2025, Georgia\u2019s parliament\u00a0adopted<\/a>\u00a0a \u201cforeign agents\u201d law, requiring individuals and entities to register as \u201cforeign agents\u201d if they operate under the vaguely defined \u201cpolitical activities\u201d in the interests of this principal. It also requires that they file onerous annual financial declarations by providing excessive details, submit copies of any public statement within 48 hours of publication, and mark all such statements with the pejorative \u201cforeign agent\u201d label. Failure to comply carries criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison.<\/p>\n

The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe\u2019s advisory body on constitutional matters,\u00a0concluded<\/a>\u00a0that the rights restrictions that the law imposes fail to meet the \u201crequirements of legality, legitimacy, and necessity in a democratic society\u201d and \u201cstrongly recommended\u201d the authorities to repeal it.<\/p>\n

In 2024, Kyrgyzstan\u00a0adopted<\/a>\u00a0an abusive \u201cforeign representatives\u201d law, that applies the stigmatizing designation of \u201cforeign representative\u201d to any nongovernmental organization receiving any amount of foreign funding and engaging in vaguely defined \u201cpolitical activity.\u201d Before the bill was passed, Matteo Mecacci, director of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe\u2019s (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights said the bill would have a negative impact on\u00a0civil society<\/span>, human rights defenders, and the media.<\/p>\n

In 2017,\u00a0Hungary adopted a nongovernmental organizations Transparency Law<\/a>\u00a0targeting non-profit organizations receiving foreign funds and engaging in almost any type of activity. Affected groups had to identify themselves in all published and online material as \u201cforeign funded organizations.\u201d The law was\u00a0repealed<\/a>\u00a0in 2021 after the European Union Court of Justice\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0in a landmark case that it violates EU law, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court identified the right to access funding as a substantive element of freedom of association and recognized the chilling effect of such laws, which can foster a climate of distrust in the work of associations.<\/p>\n

In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0that Russia\u2019s foreign agents law violated the rights to freedom of expression and association. The court found that \u201cthe requirement to use the stigmatizing and misleading \u2018foreign agent\u2019 label in public communications\u201d created an \u201cenvironment of forced self-stigmatization.\u201d It said that the Russian legislation \u201cbears the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime.\u201d This followed a 2022\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0by the European Court of Human Rights that found Russia\u2019s law violates the rights to freedom of assembly and association.<\/p>\n

The 2024 ruling illustrates the risks associated with labeling requirements. Such labels allow governments to present the crackdown against\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations through a narrative that has a greater chance of certain public acceptability than that of blunt government control over civic activity. They also delegitimize causes that many of these organizations work for, including civil and political rights, equality, and anti-discrimination, as the agendas of foreign powers rather than universal values.<\/p>\n

Thus, in any proposed law,\u00a0civil society<\/span>\u00a0organizations that receive funding from foreign sources should not be labeled a \u201cforeign agent\u201d solely because they receive foreign funds. Terms central to the law including \u201cforeign agent\u201d and \u201cpolitical activity\u201d should also be narrow and clear to prevent the arbitrary use of the law.<\/p>\n

Independent Oversight<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Establish independent oversight bodies consistent with international best standards.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Principle 31<\/a>\u00a0of the Tshwane Principles provide that \u201c[s]tates should establish\u2026independent oversight bodies to oversee security sector entities, including their operations, regulations, policies, finances, and administration\u201d and that they be \u201cinstitutionally, operationally, and financially independent from the institutions they are mandated to oversee.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, the Japanese government should ensure it establishes independent oversight bodies consistent with the Tshwane Principles if it decides to strengthen intelligence capabilities, including legislating an anti-espionage law and a foreign agents registration act. In a February 20, 2026 statement, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations urged the Japanese government to establish such bodies to monitor Japan\u2019s intelligence agencies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n