The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake highlighted significant issues within Japan's disaster-related legal framework. Laws established shortly after World War II proved inadequate in addressing modern large-scale disasters, leading to growing demands from disaster victims for new support systems. Nearly 30 years have passed since then, and although there have been gradual improvements in the legal framework, issues continue to surface with each new disaster. We interviewed TSUKUI Susumu, former president of the Hyogo Bar Association and a graduate of Kobe University’s Faculty of Law, who has visited numerous disaster zones and been involved in advocating for legal reforms, about the current state of disaster legislation and future challenges.
You began your career as a lawyer in Kobe in April 1995, shortly after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. What kind of work were you doing at that time?
Tsukui:
As part of the activities of the Kobe Bar Association (now the Hyogo Bar Association), I was in charge of free legal consultations for disaster victims and served as a court-appointed defense attorney for cases that occurred in the disaster area. The most common problems I consulted on were those involving leased land and housing. Additionally, there were cases of fraud that took advantage of the vulnerability of the disaster victims and cases of injury at evacuation shelters, so there were many stories that could not be dealt with lightly.
In our advocacy efforts at the bar association, there were three themes in particular that we were involved in. These included the “Act on temporary treatment of rental land and housing in cities damaged by war,” the “Act on building unit ownership, etc.” related to the reconstruction of disaster-stricken condominiums, and issues related to public support for disaster victims.
The “Act on temporary treatment of rental land and housing in cities damaged by war,” was enacted in 1946 for the purpose of reconstruction from the war. It focused on the protection of tenants and leaseholders affected by the disaster, and some people were saved by it, but the law was designed for postwar barracks, and it was impossible to apply it in today’s society where land prices have skyrocketed. During the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, both landlords and tenants were disaster victims, leading to conflicts and hindering reconstruction.
The “Act on building unit ownership, etc.,” established in 1962, also did not anticipate a situation where condominiums would be affected by a major catastrophe. There were cases where residents ended up in litigation over whether to rebuild or repair, exposing the inadequacies of the law.
Another major problem with public assistance to disaster victims was that at the time, there was no system for providing cash benefits to help people rebuild their lives and homes; only benefits in kind, such as temporary housing, were available. Initially, the Kobe Bar Association aimed to establish a mutual aid system for housing reconstruction. Meanwhile, disaster victims began calling for cash grants, leading to a growing legislative movement.
Improving other disaster areas using lessons from the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake
How were these legal frameworks improved?
Tsukui:
The “Act on temporary treatment of rental land and housing in cities damaged by war” faced several criticisms during the response to the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, which led to it not being applied in the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, and it was ultimately repealed in 2013. Instead, the “Act on special measures concerning land and building leases in areas affected by large-scale disasters” was then newly enacted. This outcome is the result of the efforts of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) and others to raise the issue after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
In 2002, the “Act on facilitation of reconstruction of condominiums” was enacted to address issues related to damaged condominiums and has been repeatedly revised together with the “Act on building unit ownership, etc.” The law has been revised to facilitate the reconstruction and sale of condominiums with safety problems such as lack of earthquake resistance.
In 1998, thanks to the efforts of the victims of the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, the “Act on support for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims” was enacted to support the affected public and included a cash grant. Initially, the maximum grant was ?1 million, with usage restrictions, but it has since increased to ?3 million, with no restrictions on usage. I believe that this law now functions to a certain degree as a system to support disaster victims.
While unresolved issues remain in both systems, incremental progress has been made based on lessons learned from past disasters.
Have there been any other advancements in the last 30 years?
Tsukui:
Measures to address the significant issue of double loans, which remained unresolved since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, have made progress over the past thirty years. After the Great East Japan Earthquake, the “Disaster loan reduction and exemption system (Guidelines for debt consolidation for victims of natural disasters)” began to be implemented. However, this only reduced or exempted past loans, leaving it difficult for elderly people to take out new loans. Therefore, after the Kumamoto Earthquake (2016), a loan scheme for housing reconstruction was established for elderly victims.
I think the issue of double loans was a typical example of the relay-like process wherein various organizations continued to make proposals based on the lessons of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, and then made improvements in the next disaster area and the one following.
Additionally, the “Act on provision of disaster condolence grants,” which provides condolence payments to the families of those who died in the disaster, saw progress following the Great East Japan Earthquake. During the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, siblings were not recognized as family members eligible for condolence payments. After repeated calls for legal revisions by the bar association and others, the law was amended after the Great East Japan Earthquake to include siblings living in the same household as eligible for condolence payments.
Disasters impair human rights, recovery is their restoration
What are your thoughts on the role of legal frameworks in the recovery and rebuilding of disaster-affected areas?
Tsukui:
Many people are unaware of it, but being affected by a disaster is a state in which human rights have been undermined. Recovery and rebuilding lives means restoring human rights, and for that, laws are necessary.
However, the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake revealed inherent issues within the legal frameworks themselves that cause secondary damage. There were instances where no laws existed to address the issues, or the laws that did exist had problematic content. The problems that became apparent in the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake still occur every time there is a disaster, because the legal system that protects human rights has not been sufficiently established.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake, my perspective on human rights has become clearer. I believe that the legal system should be built based on the idea of protecting the human rights of each individual, rather than from the perspective of protecting the country from disasters.
While laws can sometimes exacerbate the suffering of disaster victims, they also have the power to provide relief. Therefore, we should aim to minimize the elements that cause suffering and maximize the aspects that provide relief.
Looking at the changes in disaster legislation over the past 30 years, what areas have not moved forward?
Tsukui:
I think there has been no progress with regard to the “Disaster relief act.” This law was established shortly after World War II in 1947 and stipulates the provision of evacuation centers, temporary housing, and emergency repairs for damaged residences.
Although the period for providing temporary housing can be extended, it is generally limited to a maximum of two years. This has been a persistent issue, with the notion that “we have to leave within two years” continuing to circulate in disaster areas, including after the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake. Despite significant advancements in the construction technology of temporary housing, which now allows for permanent residency, the outdated idea that temporary housing should last only about two years still forces disaster victims to be evicted in a short period.
The conditions in evacuation shelters have also not improved, and there have been a string of disaster-related deaths following the Noto Peninsula Earthquake. The disaster victims are being held back by systems and rules and are in a state of abandonment. We believe that it is a test of the support system for disaster victims in a society facing the challenges of a declining and aging population.
The disaster support funds, which provide loans of up to ?3.5 million to affected households under the “Act on provision of disaster condolence grants,” have also been an issue ever since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
In all disaster-stricken areas, there are ever-increasing cases where borrowers fail to repay their loans, and local governments are overwhelmed by the enormous financial burden and the administration costs of loan recovery. I believe it would be more effective to unify support under a benefit system rather than loans.
Disaster case management is essential for a super-aged society
What kind of measures are required in the future?
Tsukui:
In 2015, we set up an organization to create an act on disaster recovery where each and every person is cared for. Current disaster legislation determines support measures based solely on the classification noted in the disaster victim certificate, which is based on the damage to the home. However, the difficulty of living is not only determined by the damage to buildings. There are multilayered and diverse issues, such as injuries, illnesses, reduced income and existing loans resulting from disasters.
First and foremost, we must fundamentally review the entire legal system related to support for disaster victims, including the “Disaster relief act,” the “Act on support for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims” and the “Act on provision of disaster condolence grants,” and make it a system that helps people whose human rights are impaired.
Merely changing the laws will not solve the issue. We need a concept called “disaster case management,” which involves individually assessing the impact of the disaster on each person and consolidating the necessary support into a cohesive package.
Legal support serves as a problem-solving measure, but it is also essential to offer compassionate support that encourages and uplifts the affected individuals. By empowering victims, we can enhance their endogenous power and connect them to regular welfare services. I believe that this disaster case management system is exactly what is required to support disaster victims in a super-aged society.
While people fear a Nankai Trough megathrust earthquake, the earthquake itself is merely a trigger that can cause underlying societal issues to erupt and worsen. Everyone needs to think about the situation as if it were their own, rather than merely observing what is happening in disaster-stricken areas around the country.
Resume
Graduated from Kobe University’s Faculty of Law in 1993. Completed his legal training in March 1995. Established the Ashiya Nishinomiya Citizen Law Office in 2002. Has held various positions, including president of the Hyogo Bar Association for the fiscal year 2021. Member of a committee for disaster recovery in the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. Co-representative of an organization to create an act on disaster recovery where each and every person is cared for.
