In 1995, the UN General Assembly said the enemy state clauses in its Charter had become obsolete. In 2005, the leaders of every member state agreed to delete them. In 2026, they are still in the Charter, word for word. On September 22, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi used her first speech at the UN to ask again for them to be removed. Six days later, China’s deputy ambassador answered from the same podium: the clauses should stay.
So what are they? The UN Charter is the founding rulebook of the United Nations, written in 1945 while World War II was ending. Three of its articles still carry the war inside them.
- Article 53 says regional groups need Security Council approval before taking enforcement action. It then makes an exception for action against an “enemy state” that renews aggression. The same article defines an enemy state as any country that was an enemy of any Charter signer during World War II.
- Article 107 says nothing in the Charter cancels actions taken against those countries as a result of the war.
- Article 77 lets territory taken from those countries be placed under UN supervision.
The Charter never lists names. It doesn’t need to. Everyone reading it in 1945 knew it meant Japan, Germany and their wartime allies. Both Japan and Germany later joined the UN as full members. Japan joined in 1956, which makes this its 70th year inside an organization whose rulebook still describes it as a former enemy.
If everyone agreed to delete the clauses in 2005, why are they still there? Because agreeing is not the same as amending. Under Article 108 of the Charter, a change only takes effect after two steps. Two-thirds of the General Assembly must vote for it. Then two-thirds of all member countries must ratify it through their own governments, and that group must include all five permanent members of the Security Council: the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. One of the five saying no is enough to stop it. This is why the Charter has barely changed in its history. The last amendment took effect in 1973.
That rule is what turned an old clause into a live issue. Relations between Beijing and Tokyo broke down after Takaichi suggested in November 2025 that Japan could get involved in a Taiwan crisis. Since then, China has pointed to the enemy state clauses as a reason to treat Japan with suspicion. Japan’s answer is that the clauses died legally when the General Assembly called them obsolete. China’s answer is that they are still printed in the Charter. Both statements are true at the same time.
The pattern isn’t new. I wrote earlier about why China goes quiet whenever Japan is mentioned, and the same history sits underneath this argument. What has changed is the setting. A deletion that once looked like paperwork now needs a signature from the country with the most reason to keep the enemy state clauses exactly where they are.
My take: A clause can be dead in law and alive in diplomacy.