Editing Political question (section)

==International use==
=== France ===
A type of act by the French government, the ''[[:fr:Acte de gouvernement en droit français|acte de gouvernement]]'', avoids judicial review as it is too politically sensitive.<ref name=":5">Jully, A. (2019). Propos orthodoxes sur l'acte de gouvernement: (Note sous Conseil d'Etat, 17 avr. 2019, ''Société SADE'', n°418679, Inédit au Lebon). ''Civitas Europa'', 43(2), 165-171. doi:10.3917/civit.043.0165.</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite book|last1=Bell|first1=John|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541393.001.0001/acprof-9780199541393|title=Principles of French Law|last2=Boyron|first2=Sophie|last3=Whittaker|first3=Simon|date=2008-03-27|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-954139-3|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541393.001.0001}}</ref> While the scope of the concept has been reduced over time, there are still acts that the courts do not have jurisdiction over, such as matters that are deemed to be unseverable from France's diplomatic acts, like the President's decision to conduct [[Nuclear weapons testing|tests of nuclear weapons]] or end [[Aid|foreign aid]].<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":12" /> Other acts include the President's decision to dissolve Parliament, award honors, or grant amnesty.<ref name=":12" /> Such ''actes de gouvernement'' need to be politically-based and also concern domains in which the courts are not competent to judge.<ref name=":12" />

=== Japan ===
The postwar constitution gave the [[Supreme Court of Japan]] the power of judicial review.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Po Liang|last2=Wada|first2=Jordan T.|date=2017|title=Can the Japanese Supreme Court Overcome the Political Question Hurdle?|journal=Washington International Law Journal|volume=26|pages=349–79}}</ref> The court developed its own political question doctrine ({{Langx|ja|統治行為}}; tōchikōi), in part to avoid interpreting Article 9 of the post-war pacifist constitution, which renounces war and the threat or use of force.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Chance for court to right a wrong|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/06/23/editorials/chance-court-right-wrong/|date=2014-06-23|website=The Japan Times|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-14}}</ref> Issues arising under Article 9 have included include the legitimacy of Japan's [[Japan Self-Defense Forces|Self-Defense Force]], the [[Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan]], and the stationing of [[United States Forces Japan|American forces in Japan]].<ref name=":1" />

The ''Sunagawa case'' is considered the leading precedent on the political question doctrine in Japan.<ref name=":1" /> In 1957, demonstrators entered a then-American military base in the [[Tokyo]] suburb of Sunagawa, violating a special Japanese criminal law based on the US-Japan Security Treaty.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2018-07-19 |title=Japan Top Court Rejects Retrial over 1957 Sunagawa Incident |url=https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2018071900946/japan-top-court-rejects-retrial-over-1957-sunagawa-incident.html |access-date=2020-05-14 |website=nippon.com |language=en}}</ref> A Tokyo District Court found that the US military's presence in Japan were unconstitutional under Article 9 of the Constitution and acquitted the defendants.<ref name=":3" /> The Japanese Supreme Court overturned the district court in a fast-track appeal, implicitly developing the political question doctrine in the ruling.<ref>Motoaki Hatake, Kenkyū To Giron No Saizensen [Kenpō Article 9 - Frontiers of Research And Discussion], 94-95 (2006).</ref><ref>Yasuo Hasebe, Constitutional Borrowing and Political Theory, INTL. J. OF CONST. L. 224, 226 (2003)</ref> The Court found it inappropriate for the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of highly political matters like the US-Japan Security Treaty, unless they expressly violate the Constitution.<ref name=":2" /> On the Security Treaty, the Court saw "an extremely high degree of political consideration," and "there is a certain element of incompatibility in the process of judicial determination of its constitutionality by a court of law which has as its mission the exercise of the purely judicial function."<ref name=":4">Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Dec. 16, 1959, A no. 710, 13 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 3225 (Japan).</ref> It therefore found that the question should be resolved by the [[Cabinet of Japan|Cabinet]], [[National Diet|Diet]], and people through elections.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1" /> The presence of American forces was held to not violate Article 9 because they were not under Japanese command.<ref name=":4" /> The political question doctrine has remained a barrier for challenges under Article 9.<ref>Tsunemasa Arikawa, Hōri Saikōsai tōchikōi [The Principle of Law, The Supreme Court, and Political Question], 87 HORITSU JIHO No. 5, 4 (2015).</ref><ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Apr. 2, 1969, 5, 23 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 685 (Japan).</ref><ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Aug. 28, 1996, 7, 50, Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] 1952 (Japan).</ref> Under the "clear mistake" rule developed by the Court, it defers to the political branches on Article 9 issues so long as the act is "not obviously unconstitutional and void."<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1" />

Other notable cases on the political question doctrine in Japan include the ''Tomabechi case'', which concerned whether the dissolution of the Diet was valid.<ref>Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] June 8, 1960, 14 Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] (7) 1206 (Japan).</ref> In the ''Tomabechi'' case, the Court also decided against judicial review by implicitly invoking the political question doctrine, citing the separation of powers as justification.<ref name=":1" /> In addition, the Court announced that in political question cases not related to Article 9, the clear mistake rule does not apply and judicial review is categorically prohibited.<ref name=":1" />

===Switzerland===
In 2007, [[Taiwan]] filed a lawsuit before a Swiss civil court against the [[International Organization for Standardization]], arguing that the ISO's use of the [[political status of Taiwan|United Nations name]] "[[Taiwan, China#The United Nations and the ISO|Taiwan, Province of China]]" rather than "Republic of China (Taiwan)" violated Taiwan's name rights.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.roc-taiwan.org/UK/ct.asp?xItem=41952&ctNode=932&mp=132&nowPage=6&pagesize=15| title=Taiwan sues ISO over incorrect reference| publisher=Taipei Representative Office in the UK| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718010636/http://www.roc-taiwan.org/UK/ct.asp?xItem=41952&ctNode=932&mp=132&nowPage=6&pagesize=15| archive-date=2011-07-18}}</ref> On 9 September 2010, a panel of the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland]] decided, by three votes to two, to dismiss the suit as presenting a political question not subject to Swiss civil jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite news| last=Felber| first=René| title=Umweg über Zivilrichter unzulässig: Taiwans Kampf um seinen Namen| newspaper=[[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]]| date=10 September 2010| page=14| language=de}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.bger.ch/de/mm_5a_329_2009_d.pdf| title=Urteil vom 9. September 2010 (5A_329/2009)| publisher=Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland| language=de|trans-title=Decision of 9 September 2010 (5A_329/2009)| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727034710/http://www.bger.ch/de/mm_5a_329_2009_d.pdf| archive-date=27 July 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.bger.ch/fr/mm_5a_329_2009_d.pdf| title=Arrêt du 9 septembre 2010 (5A_329/2009)| publisher=Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland| language=fr|trans-title=Decision of 9 September 2010 (5A_329/2009)| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202075817/http://www.bger.ch/fr/mm_5a_329_2009_d.pdf| archive-date=2 December 2010}}</ref>

===Taiwan===
In November 1993, the [[Judicial Yuan]], the judicial branch of [[Taiwan]], interpreted that the delimitation of national territory would be a significant political question beyond the reach of judicial review.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310509| title=Interpretation No.328: The Boundaries of National Territory Case| publisher=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan)| date=1993-11-26 |accessdate=2022-11-07}}</ref>

===International law===

The [[International Court of Justice]] has dealt with the doctrine in its advisory function, and the [[European Court of Human Rights]] has engaged with the doctrine through the margin of appreciation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Odermatt|first1=Jed|date=2018|title=Patterns of avoidance: political questions before international courts|url=http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/20820/1/Patterns%20of%20Avoidance.pdf|journal=International Journal of Law in Context|volume=14|issue=2|pages=221–236|doi=10.1017/S1744552318000046|s2cid=217026045}}</ref> The [[Court of Justice of the European Union]] has never explicitly addressed the political question doctrine in its jurisprudence, yet it has been argued that there are traces of the doctrine present in its rulings.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Butler|first1=Graham|date=9 November 2018|title=In Search of the Political Question Doctrine in EU Law|url=http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=LEIE2018020|journal=[[Legal Issues of Economic Integration]]|volume=45|issue=4|pages=329–354|doi=10.54648/LEIE2018020 |s2cid=158224219 |access-date=9 November 2018}}</ref>