Why Japan wants the UN Charter's 'enemy state' clauses deleted
Why does the UN Charter, 81 years on, still single out the defeated powers of World War II?
Published 27 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi used her address to the UN General Assembly on 22 September to call for deleting the 'enemy state' clauses from the UN Charter, arguing that the General Assembly had already resolved that they should go. China pushed back sharply. Its foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun called the clauses a vital institutional arrangement and accused Japan of denying its wartime history and remilitarising. The row turned dormant Charter text into a live diplomatic issue.
Three provisions are involved. Article 53 lets regional arrangements take enforcement action against an enemy state without Security Council authorisation in certain cases and defines enemy states as those that were enemies of any Charter signatory in World War II. Article 77 allows territories detached from enemy states to be placed under trusteeship, and Article 107 says nothing in the Charter invalidates action taken against an enemy state as a result of the war. The states meant were Axis powers such as Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The General Assembly declared them obsolete in 1995 (resolution 50/52), and the 2005 World Summit called for their deletion.
They survive because amending the Charter is hard. Under Article 108, an amendment must be adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. China and Russia can therefore block it; Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia criticised Japan's military build-up in May 2026. Analysts also note that reopening the Charter could revive wider fights over Security Council reform, the same amendment process that India's bid for a permanent seat must clear.
Prelims facts
- Articles 53, 77 and 107 of the UN Charter refer to 'enemy states', meaning countries that were enemies of Charter signatories in World War II.
- Under Article 108, a Charter amendment needs adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members of the Security Council.
- UN General Assembly resolution 50/52 (1995) declared the enemy state clauses obsolete, but they remain in the Charter text.
Quick recall
- Which UN Charter articles contain the enemy state clauses?
- Articles 53, 77 and 107.
- Which countries were the 'enemy states'?
- World War II Axis powers such as Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
- Which UNGA resolution declared the clauses obsolete, and when?
- Resolution 50/52, in 1995.
- What did the 2005 World Summit say about the clauses?
- It called for their deletion.
- Which Article governs amendment of the UN Charter?
- Article 108.
- What does Article 108 require?
- Adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members.
- How did China respond to Takaichi's call?
- Spokesperson Guo Jiakun called the clauses a vital institutional arrangement and accused Japan of denying history and remilitarising.
- Why does this matter for India's UNSC bid?
- An expanded Council also needs an Article 108 amendment, so every P5 member must ratify.
Prelims practice question
Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, an amendment comes into force for all members when it is adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratified by:
- a simple majority of UN members
- two-thirds of UN members, including all permanent members of the Security Council
- all members of the Security Council
- the five permanent members of the Security Council alone
Show answer
Answer: (b) two-thirds of UN members, including all permanent members of the Security Council. Article 108 requires ratification by two-thirds of the members of the UN, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. This gives each P5 member an effective veto over Charter change.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Reform of the United Nations and its Security Council
- How to use this
Use the enemy state clauses row to show how great-power rivalry and the P5 veto over amendment freeze even widely agreed UN reform.
- On 22 September 2026 Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi asked the UN General Assembly to delete the 'enemy state' clauses (Articles 53, 77, 107); China called them a vital institutional arrangement.
- Resolution 50/52 (1995) declared the clauses obsolete and the 2005 World Summit called for deletion, yet they survive because Article 108 requires ratification by all five permanent members.
- Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia also criticised Japan's military build-up in May 2026; analysts note reopening the Charter could revive wider Security Council reform fights.
Discuss the impediments India is facing in its pursuit of a permanent seat in UNSC.
How to use thisUse it to explain the core procedural impediment to India's permanent seat: any Council expansion needs a Charter amendment that every permanent member must ratify.
- Article 108 requires adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members; this is the route India's bid must clear.
- Even the 'enemy state' clauses, declared obsolete in 1995 (resolution 50/52), remain in the Charter because China and Russia can block deletion, showing the P5's veto over Charter change.
- Only a handful of amendments have ever been made, such as enlarging the Security Council from 11 to 15 members in 1965.
Mains practice question
The 'enemy state' clauses of the UN Charter were declared obsolete three decades ago yet remain in force. What does this reveal about the difficulty of reforming the United Nations, and what lessons does it hold for India's quest for a permanent seat in the Security Council? (250 words)
Model answer
Articles 53, 77 and 107 of the UN Charter still refer to 'enemy states', the Axis powers of World War II. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's September 2026 call at the UN General Assembly to delete them, and China's sharp rejection, show how frozen the 1945 architecture remains.
Why obsolete text survives
- Consensus on paper: UNGA resolution 50/52 (1995) declared the clauses obsolete; the 2005 World Summit called for deletion.
- Article 108 lock: amendment needs two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members. One P5 objection is enough to block.
- Geopolitics over law: China calls the clauses a vital institutional arrangement against a revival of militarism; Russia has also criticised Japan's military build-up.
- Fear of opening the box: any amendment invites demands on Security Council composition and the veto.
What it reveals about UN reform
- The P5 hold a double veto: over Council decisions (Article 27) and over Charter change (Article 108).
- Even symbolic, widely supported edits stall when they touch great-power narratives.
- Only a handful of amendments have ever been made, such as the enlargement of the Security Council from 11 to 15 members in 1965.
Lessons for India
- India's G4 bid needs the same Article 108 route, so P5 buy-in is indispensable.
- Build broad General Assembly majorities with Africa (Ezulwini Consensus) and small states.
- Frame reform as representativeness and effectiveness, not privilege.
- Use text-based intergovernmental negotiations to lock in progress.
Conclusion
If the world cannot delete clauses that everyone agrees are dead letters, restructuring the Council will need patient coalition-building and a moment when great-power interests align.
The basics
Why this matters
The UN Charter is the constitution of the international order, and it still carries text written for a world at war. When Japan's Prime Minister asked the General Assembly to delete the 'enemy state' clauses, China refused to agree. For UPSC, the episode is a compact case study of why UN reform, including India's bid for a permanent Security Council seat, is so difficult.
What the clauses say
Each clause does a different job. Article 53 deals with regional arrangements and allowed action against a revived enemy state without Security Council approval. Article 77 covered trusteeship for territories taken from enemy states. Article 107 protected any action the Allies took against enemy states as a result of the war. Together they placed the losers of World War II outside some of the Charter's normal protections.
- 1Article 53Regional enforcement action against an enemy state; defines 'enemy state'
- 2Article 77Trusteeship for territories detached from enemy states
- 3Article 107Nothing in the Charter invalidates wartime action against enemy states
Declared dead, still on the books
The world has agreed several times that the clauses are obsolete. Japan and Germany have been UN members for decades and are among its largest funders. In 1995 the General Assembly passed resolution 50/52 calling the clauses obsolete, and in 2005 world leaders again backed deleting them. Yet no amendment followed, and in 2026 Takaichi raised the issue once more.
- 1945UN Charter signed with Articles 53, 77 and 107
- 1995UNGA resolution 50/52 declares the clauses obsolete
- 2005World Summit calls for their deletion
- 2026Japan's PM Takaichi demands deletion at UNGA; China objects
Why deleting three lines is so hard
Article 108 sets the bar. An amendment must win two-thirds of the General Assembly, and then two-thirds of all members, including every one of the five permanent members, must ratify it. China says the clauses guard against a revival of militarism, and Russia has attacked Japan's military build-up. Many states also fear that once the Charter is opened, every old quarrel about Security Council seats and the veto will spill in.
- 1AdoptionTwo-thirds of the General Assembly votes for the amendment
- 2RatificationTwo-thirds of UN members ratify under their own constitutional processes
- 3P5 conditionAll five permanent members must be among those ratifying
- 4Entry into forceThe amendment then binds all members
The lesson for India
India, with Brazil, Germany and Japan in the G4, wants the Security Council enlarged. That too needs an Article 108 amendment with every P5 member on board. If a symbolic edit that almost everyone supports cannot pass, a change that dilutes P5 power will need far more. India's strategy therefore rests on building large General Assembly majorities and winning over each permanent member.
You now know
- Articles 53, 77 and 107 of the UN Charter refer to World War II 'enemy states'.
- Japan's PM Sanae Takaichi called for their deletion at the UNGA on 22 September 2026; China objected.
- UNGA resolution 50/52 (1995) declared the clauses obsolete.
- Article 108 requires two-thirds of the UNGA plus ratification by two-thirds of members, including all P5.
Go deeper
In one line: Japan wants old World War II 'enemy state' wording removed from the UN Charter, but China says no, and the Charter is very hard to change.
Why it matters for UPSC
UN reform is a steady GS2 theme, and India's permanent seat bid depends on the same amendment rule. The story also shows China-Japan tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
The core idea
The UN Charter was written in 1945 by the victors of World War II. Three articles still treat the defeated Axis powers as 'enemy states'. Everyone agreed in 1995 that this wording was obsolete, yet it survives because of the Article 108 Amendment Process, which lets any permanent member of the UN Security Council block change. China, a permanent member, links the clauses to its fears about Japanese militarism. The same lock is why the G4 and UNSC Reform push has made little progress: changing the Council's size also needs every P5 member to agree.
Numbers and dates to remember
- Articles 53, 77 and 107: enemy state clauses
- Article 108: amendment procedure (two-thirds UNGA, two-thirds ratification including all P5)
- 1995: UNGA resolution 50/52 declares clauses obsolete
- 2005: World Summit backs deletion
- 22 September 2026: Takaichi's UNGA speech
Where to go next
- UN Charter: The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
- Article 108 Amendment Process: The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
- UN Security Council: Fifteen members, five of them permanent with a veto
- G4 and UNSC Reform: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan's joint push for permanent seats
Go deeper: history, symbolism and power
The enemy state clauses are widely seen as a dead letter. Japan and Germany are major contributors to the UN, and the General Assembly called the clauses obsolete in 1995. Yet China and Russia still invoke them in diplomatic rows with Tokyo. So why does the text matter?
For Japan, the clauses are a stain on its post-war identity as a peaceful nation. Removing them would formally close the war chapter. For China, the clauses carry a political message: the post-1945 order was built on the defeat of militarist Japan, and Beijing wants that memory kept alive, especially as Tokyo raises defence spending. Russia takes a similar line.
The legal mechanics favour the status quo. The Article 108 Amendment Process lets any permanent member of the UN Security Council block change by refusing to ratify. That is a second veto, separate from the Council voting veto under Article 27.
There is also a strategic fear of opening the UN Charter at all. Once one amendment is on the table, the G4 and UNSC Reform camp, the Uniting for Consensus group and the African Union would all push their own agendas. Some states prefer to leave the text untouched rather than risk a wider bargain.
For India, the lesson is that Charter reform needs a rare alignment of P5 interests, not just General Assembly numbers.
Where to go next
- UN Charter: The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
- Article 108 Amendment Process: The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
- UN Security Council: Fifteen members, five of them permanent with a veto
- G4 and UNSC Reform: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan's joint push for permanent seats
UN Charter
The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
In one line: The rulebook that created the United Nations in 1945.
What it is
The Charter is a treaty signed in San Francisco in 1945, after World War II. Every UN member agrees to follow it. It sets up the main UN bodies, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
What it promises
It asks countries to settle disputes peacefully, not to use force against each other except in self-defence or when the Security Council allows it, and to respect human rights.
Why it looks old
Because it was written by the winners of the war, some parts still reflect 1945, such as the clauses about 'enemy states' that Japan now wants removed.
Where to go next
- Article 108 Amendment Process: The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
- UN Security Council: Fifteen members, five of them permanent with a veto
Article 108 Amendment Process
The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
In one line: The rule for changing the UN Charter, and why it is so hard.
The two steps
First, two-thirds of all countries in the General Assembly must vote for the change. Second, two-thirds of all UN members must ratify it at home, through their own parliaments or governments.
The catch
Those ratifying countries must include all five permanent members of the Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. If even one refuses, the change fails.
Why it matters
This is why obsolete wording like the enemy state clauses survives, and why adding new permanent members, as India wants, is so difficult.
Where to go next
- UN Charter: The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
- UN Security Council: Fifteen members, five of them permanent with a veto
UN Security Council
Fifteen members, five of them permanent with a veto
In one line: The UN body responsible for keeping world peace.
Who sits on it
It has 15 members. Five are permanent: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Ten are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.
Its special powers
Its decisions can bind all UN members. It can impose sanctions or authorise the use of force. Each permanent member has a veto, so one 'no' can stop a decision.
Link to this story
The same five permanent members must also agree before the UN Charter can be changed. That gives them great power over any reform, including removing the enemy state clauses.
Where to go next
- UN Charter: The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
- Article 108 Amendment Process: The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
G4 and UNSC Reform
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan's joint push for permanent seats
In one line: Four countries, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, working together to win permanent Security Council seats.
What they want
The G4 argue that the Security Council reflects the world of 1945, not today. They want more permanent and non-permanent seats, including for Africa, so the Council is more representative.
Why it is slow
Any change needs a Charter amendment under Article 108, which every permanent member must ratify. Rival groups, such as Uniting for Consensus, oppose new permanent seats.
Link to this story
Japan is a G4 member. Its struggle to remove even the outdated enemy state clauses shows how hard the bigger reform will be.
Where to go next
- UN Charter: The 1945 treaty that is the UN's constitution
- Article 108 Amendment Process: The rule that gives each permanent member a veto over Charter change
Take the 27 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers