The reason why JCG/Japan Government lavished its cooperation on ASEAN countries is that ASEAN countries are the only countries that can be desired to have the system and power for security on SLOC, that is to say, security and safety of navigation.

 And I presume that there must be a reason for such relatively smooth and progressive change in terms of establishment of cooperative relationship in maritime arena. It is because that the so-called coast guard, not Navy (the distinction between coast guard and navy may be also a relative case), is a police body with law enforcement as its main duty. If I am allowed to jump to a conclusion, I venture to say that there is no problem for a police body, which is basically released from war and rarely affected by politics (political neutrality of police), to have cooperation in securing safety and there are no ideological problems. Protection and suppression of crimes against human are acceptable from the point of view of protecting world common interests. Those nations and those who object to the rescue of lives and properties will belong to the extreme exceptions. Therefore, it can be considered that the actions, which affect public order to some extent, should be primarily dealt with by police authority. It can be said that Japan Coast Guard has developed cooperation and collaboration with respective counties under that understanding.

　

 However, under the situation where a low intensity conflict, such as suspicious/agent vessel from North Korea, armed robbery piracy, terrorism and guerrilla, escalates into hot war, it is natural for coast guard, which basically has light arms of minimum necessity and is restricted by a legal concept "proportionality", to have its limitation. As to the limitation, although administrative decision at high level in each time is necessary, and it is a construction issue of Japan Coast Guard Law and Self-Defense Force Law and other laws and regulations concerned in my country, it is not a purpose to discuss the issue in this paper.

　

 Therefore, in case of change from police situation to military situation, to bring coast guard's ability into full play, the function of coast guard becomes comprehensive efficacy if strong military power, which has overwhelming physical power including information ability, is behind coast guard and Naval force comes to the frontline in response to the change of the situation. These seem to mean that the system that safety of our country can be secured is the current legal system.

 It shows the reasonable allocation of systematic and effective role of many and coast guard is necessary in peacetime. Therefore, the internal cooperation between coast guard and navy and international cooperation and collaboration among coast guards in respective countries located in North-East, South-East and South Asia are extremely important. By the way, needless to say that if coast guard is initially law enforcement body, the provisions of national constitution and laws and regulations are important as action models for coast guard body in the nation however, the common things at sea for each nations is close paces actions in conformity with UNCLOS. It can be said that common consideration based on trust and cooperation between nations and cultivation of sea power as a coast guard as well as UNCLOS, which is common rule are fundamental.

　

 By the way, ocean security dialogue is a gathering of OB of both Navy and Coast Guard in Japan and India

 It might be needed to give some considerations to the study and confirmation of the basic thought of partial responsibility of the role of both Navy and Coast Guard, and furthermore, as a premise for mutual cooperation between the four bodies from the two countries, what and how the cooperation should be, how the partial responsibility of the duties should be, whether such thought can be acceptable without any doubt as a global standard, or whether it can be a model.

 The concept of the dialogue must be acceptable for other countries. It must be able to unite cooperation system among other countries with the same notion.

 Although it might be ideal, I presume the system, which can secure security of SLOC, and formula of new maritime order for 21st century can be formulated.

 Although there was a particular reason, which was Article 25 of Coast Guard Law, during a period of establishment of JCG, a study on the characteristic and duties of Navy and Coast Guard, which is going to be described later, seems to have become an origin of the characteristic of coast guard in the 21st century, an unexpected thing happened.

　

 As to current maritime order, it is a fact that the function of maintaining public order and security in the inland waters and territorial sea over which the coastal states laws and regulations govern is ensured to be in compliance with legal system of a coastal state. However, basically maritime order is maintained according to UNCLOS as a basis, for instance, the right of innocent passage. The subject to exercise authority at sea stipulated in UNCLOS is warships, which embody the nation, followed by government ships, which have police function.

 However, in reality, it seems that coast guard agencies that are different from Nave are established and organized to carry out what UNCLOS stipulates. I will come to that point later on, however, I would like to retrace the history of the development of maritime order maintenance function in Japan after 1945. I would like to explain "maintaining peace and security" by Japan Coast Guard, which has developed for about 50 years with the conscious ness of the role of coast guard in the world under UNCLOS.

　

 JCG Law was enacted in 1948 as Law No.28, Article 1 stated that "For the purpose of securing maritime safety and preventing, detecting and suppressing violation of law in ports, bays, straits and other Japanese home waters, there shall be established the Japan Coast Guard as an external organization under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport."

　

 Nowadays, this Article has been amended as "For the purpose of protecting life and property and preventing, detecting and suppressing violation of law at sea, there shall be established as an external organization under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Japan Coast Guard in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the National Government Organization Law." That is to say, at the beginning of its establishment, JCG's activities were limited to "Japanese home waters", since Japan was under occupation at that time due to its defeat in World War II, which also led to the eradication in 1945 of the Japanese Navy which was once a practical organization playing a role in maintaining the maritime order.

　

 However, large number of maritime disasters caused by underwater mines planted by both Japan and the USA during World War II, wartime standard ships and other vessels with poor or no maintenance, smuggling activities by outlaws, thriving poaching offences, destruction of lighthouses by air attacks as well as other unlawful activities have made Japanese home waters a "dark sea" area. Under such circumstances, restoring maritime order in Japanese home waters and securing navigational safety were recognized to be a matter of urgency that should be addressed at any cost in the postwar reconstruction, and it was believed that some kind of organization, which would be different from Navy, should be established for this purpose.

　

 However, Japan Coast Guard, which is different from Navy in nature, was still considered to have the potential of leading to proliferation of arms. Hence, except for portable guns, firearms and machineguns were prohibited to be used on board patrol ships at the beginning, albeit use of force at sea was a duty. However, it was recognized that maritime safety along the sea routes used for transportation of goods could not be ignored in the postwar reconstruction. If we look back at it now, Japan Coast Guard had started its service without sufficient ships and equipment. I would venture to say that JCG started from zero.

　

 At the time of the establishment of Japan Coast Guard, there was doubt, in particular from the former Soviet Union and Australia, that Japan would re-arm itself. Therefore, Article 25 of JCG Law, as a precaution for construction, stipulated that "nothing contained in this Law shall be construed to permit the Japan Coast Guard or its personnel to be trained and organized as a military establishment or to function as such." The former Article 4 also stated that "ships in Japan Coast Guard shall not exceed 125 vessels in number except for small crafts used in port, shall not exceed 50,000 tonnage in total displacement, shall not exceed 1,500 tonnage in any each displacement, and shall have speed not more than 15 knots."

 With Japan's commitment to peace following the defeat in WWII and the peaceful principles enshrined in its Constitution as the premise, Japan Coast Guard was established in May, 1948 based on JCG Law that was modeled on USCG Act. USCG was established for maritime safety purpose and is different from the US Navy.

　

 The idea of "humanity and justice", which was advocated by Mr. Takeo Okubo, the ex-Director-General and also the first Director-General of Japan Coast Guard, has become JCG's motto.

　

 A maritime organization of enforcement, in other words, a maritime police organization has been established in the form of the coast guard, which has a clear-cut distinction from the Navy.

　

 Especially, ASEAN countries seem to be eager to establish coast guard, which is different from Navy, modeled on Japan Coast Guard. JCG was established after USCG and has more police dispositions than it. Even if not so, as a world trend, it is becoming more and more acceptable that the body responsible for the maintenance of maritime order in the 21st century should be some organization like the coast guard, which is a more proper body to take on this task. In that sense, generally, by reforming or establishing organizations such as coast guards, which are enforcement sections, engaging mainly in law enforcement, customs, fishery, environment, safety of navigation, stowaways and smugglings and thus are different from Navy, it seems that cooperation and collaboration between national agencies, which have the same aims and are outside the scope of the national relationship is possible. It should be recognized that this is in the right direction towards the maintenance of maritime order in the 21st century.

　

 I would like to review the difference between Coast Guard and Navy triggered by the suspicious vessel case at South-West sea of Kyushu.

 The case, which happened on the 21st of December in 2001, had a shocking development and ending.

 After 1400hrs of 21st, Maritime Self-defense Force patrol plane P-3C took off for usual patrol.

 Around 1630hrs, it found a general fishing vessel.

 After 1700hrs, it closed to the vessel and took pictures of the vessel.

 After 2200hrs, Photo analysis was conducted at Maritime Staff office of Maritime Self-defense Force.

 Around 0030hrs of 22nd, Japan Self-defense Agency made a judgment that the fishing vessel could be a suspicious vessel from D.P.R.K.

 Around 0110hrs, Japan Self-defense Agency reported the existence of the suspicious vessel to Japan Coast Guard. JCG immediately dispatched its patrol vessels and aircraft to pursue the suspicious vessel. The vessel was ordered to stop engine for on-board inspection based on the Fishing Law. However, the vessel ignored the order and continued running away. Therefore, JCG fired warning shots to reduce its navigational ability.

 Around 2200hrs, when the patrol vessels tried to put the suspicious vessel in between for prevention of escape, the suspicious vessel started shooting targeting the patrol vessels using AK-47 machineguns and RPG-7 rocket launcher, 3 CG officers were wounded and 3 patrol vessels suffered immense damage. Therefore, JCG shot the suspicious vessel in self-defense. Soon after that, the suspicious vessel blew up itself and sunk to the bottom.

　

 The suspicious vessel was about 30 m in length, had blue hull and white upper structure and the identification as "Chong Yu 3705", but no fishing equipment. It is also reported that the position of sinking was 390km WNW from the Oyamasaki Lighthouse of Amami Ooshima Island, which was 29 degrees, 12 point 7 minutes north and 125 degrees, 25 minutes east, and 90 meters in depth.

　

 The salvage work of the suspicious vessel was completed before the end of 2002, and new findings began to emerge one after another.

 The ship's hull and its arms and weapons salvaged from the sea bed are now being displayed at the park of Sea Science Museum which is open to the public free of charge.

 Even on weekdays, you can find a queue of people waiting to have a look of the display. This indicates that many people in Japan are interested in it.

　

 Concerning this incident, despite the proper and swift correspondence and actions by JCG, there arose the opinion among some people in Japan that the Self-Defense Force should have played a paramount part in dealing with this incident. As an argument in the peaceful 21st century this argument is not correct. In fact, the significant point of reasoning contained in this argument is the confirmation of the differences between Coast Guard and Navy in their nature and duty.

　

 I'd like to review the reasons that explain why it is more appropriate that law enforcement at sea should be conducted by Coast Guard rather than by Military.

　

 It is undeniable that a country should, by fair means or foul, secure its safety. However, in practice, this is not so easy because considerations must be given to the circumstances, social situation and relations with neighboring countries.

　

 First of all, let's examine whether this objective can be achieved by the police and JCG with their current ability power and equipment, and if an anxiety over the protection of the Japanese sea intensifies, whether legal measures and reinforcement of equipment and training can enable the police and JCG to deal with the challenge.

 Indeed, it depends on the situation where the decision must be made in a short time according to the level of urgency or emergency etc.

　

 Let's examine also that whether Maritime Self-Defense Force can take over JCG's duties and functions in an age that these duties and responsibilities, as being related to the essence of the organization of JCG, have become so complicated and highly developed and specialized that JCG is the sole organization to be considered for their performance. As to the investigation and other work in the aftermath of the Terrorist

 Attack on September 11, 2001, although the US Air-force was sent to the Washington area and stationed in the area around the White House to guard against terrorism attack as a defense measure, however, investigation was done by FBI, and the guard of the Potomac and the Port of NY was done by USCG. Such actions were taken, although President Bush said "this is a war".

　

 Military force is pre-emptive and highly concentrated, it is a combination of the power of technology, mechanics and production and hence is not peaceful. The police enforce law on the general public, and the enforcement is restricted by proportionality.

 Military force must be highly centralized and its mobilization must be highly efficient.

 With its existence usually as much scattered as possible, the police can fully perform its function. It is also requested that the police dispatch its force in a gradual manner in order to overwhelm the rebel and perpetrator without the effect of crowdedness.

　

 It is considered that a demonstration at sea also must be dealt with according to the number of the ships, form and aggressiveness of the demonstration with changing power of the guard freely.

　

 'Proportionality' is a legal concept. When the police authority is invoked to deal with the incident of police violation, such as riot and illegal activity by power, the use of power must be proportioned to the actual situation and will be illegal if over-executed.

 For instance, a peaceful demonstration and a demonstration with petrol bombs and setting fire to cars should be dealt with differently.

　

 To maintain order by police is to restrain the activities of the people who disturb public order, and to punish them fairly and appropriately in accordance with legal procedures without taking their lives. It is really an exceptional case that there is no other choice but to kill the perpetrator.

　

 Military will be deployed if a war breaks out, except for the restriction under the law on the use of ABC weapons, there are no other restrictions on the means of attack in principle.

　

 Modern democracy requires that military force should not be dispatched to quell anti-government demonstrations, rebel activities, or protests related to internal affairs.

 The dispatch of military force often results in tragedies.

 The Koushu Incident in South Korea and the Tian An Men Incident in Beijing, China are two examples, which occurred on shore.

　

 Maritime authority, which has the function of enforcing law, should reside in a maritime authority organization. This organization should not be the Navy and should be free from war activities, it should also be more reasonable, economical and democratic. It is possible to enforce law by Coast Guard officers, who have been trained in law and have the respect for human rights. Police has made it a principle to guarantee the human rights in performing its function. However, military has no consideration for human rights.

　

 Now, I would like to move on to the difference between the navy and the coast guard. It is the benchmark for the distinction between the Japan Coast Guard and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force; the United States Coast Guard and the United States Navy. I think this issue regarding the criterion of distinguishing these organizations will be quite a characterized issue in the 21st century and this is also thought to address appropriately the difference between the Coast Guard that is going to be established in Malaysia and the Malaysian Navy.

　

 For example in Japan, it is considered that it is not a peaceful scene if large number of patrol ships station at one place and take actions in a unified way, such as when they are performing defense and security operations, or when they are handling major accidents or incidents. JCG Sea Review is an exception.

　

 These situations are quite exceptional for police authorities. Usually, JCG patrol ships are systematically dispersed as practical as possible, and the land police authority deploy the same method to station its force while under ordinary situations.

　

 On the other hand, one principle of the navy is the action of the fleet. Preemptive and concentrated attacks are the key for naval battles. For navies, concentrated force is nothing uncommon. They are definitely admonished against the use of a small amount of force at a time to avoid being defeated separately. However, police authorities are allowed to use the minimum amount of police force according to the necessity. Police power must be restricted by law and 'proportionality' since police is an administrative authority.

　

 At the same time we acknowledge the authority of performing maritime police power by JCG as an 'administrative maritime power organization', we also acknowledge the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and the navy as the 'military maritime power organizations'. Or, they can also be called as 'peaceful maritime power organization' and 'non-peaceful maritime power organization' respectively. This can be said to be the distinction between the administrative and military affairs in their present-day meanings.

　

 Moreover, the purpose of the coast guard is the application and enforcement of laws and regulations with the protection of human rights as the prerequisite. The object of its law enforcement is targeted ships and the people concerned. Coast guard officers are required to have legal knowledge and legal skills. Navy officers, on the other hand, need to operate modern equipment and prepare for electronic warfare by making full use of the knowledge in electronics. Therefore, the two organizations are quite different concerning the specialties and technical skills they require from their officers.

　

 However, we have to realize that both 'administrative maritime power organization' and 'military maritime power organization' have been specialized so that both of them have their specific way of existence which is justified in their distinct characteristics and also in the necessity and their respective specialty in protecting the human rights in highly-advanced societies. Therefore, in principle, we can not simply substitute one with another.

　

 Please bear in mind that this is a discussion in case of in peacetime.

 Based on those considerations, the maritime power in the peaceful time shall be recognized as the maritime police authority under certain legal framework. It shall be the issue to be mainly discussed in the administrative and legal system.

 Unlike Navy, Police activities are essential for Coast Guard.

 I would like to make clear again that the Article 25 of the Japan Coast Guard law stipulates that 'Nothing contained in this Law shall be construed to permit the Japan Coast Guard or its personnel to be trained or organized as a military establishment or to function as such.' This article was introduced into the Law to eradicate suspicions of some countries who were afraid that Japan had the intention to re-arm itself at the time of establishing JCG.

　

 However, due to this article (due to that suspicion), JCG has been clearly defined not to have military functions and it has become necessary to distinguish the functions of military organization and police authority from the legal point of view.

　

 Now, I will refer to the table which shows the difference of functions between military establishment and police authority.

　

 Please have a look at the table.