The state of civic space in Japan is rated as ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, as civil society groups were able to undertake their work across the country without barriers, and peaceful protesters were also able to exercise their rights, in most cases, without restrictions. At the same time there are concerns about restrictions on press freedom and censorship. The government has also imposed tougher penalties for criminal defamation, and a draft law on the establishment of a human rights commission has been pending since 2012.
In recent months, Japan adopted a flag desecration law that violates the right to freedom of expression. There are concerns around powers of the new national intelligence body, plans for anti-espionage laws and to allow warrantless communications interception.
Expression
Flag desecration law violates the right to freedom of expression
On 17th July 2026, the Japanese Diet adopted a flag desecration law that criminalises damaging Japan’s national flag.
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, its coalition partner Japan Innovation Party, and three opposition parties supported the bill during a session of the Diet’s upper house, following passage by the lower house on 30th June 2026.
Under existing laws, Japan penalises the desecration of foreign flags to prevent diplomatic disputes, but previously lacked equivalent protections for its own flag, the Hinomaru.
The law prohibits “publicly damaging, removing, or defacing” Japan’s national flag in a “way or situation that evokes significant discomfort or disgust in people.” People charged with this offence face penalties of up to two years in prison or a maximum fine of 200,000 yen (about USD 1,250), identical to article 92 of Japan’s Penal Code, which criminalises the desecration of foreign flags.
Human Rights Watch said the flag desecration law undermines the right to freedom of speech and expression in violation of international human rights law. Japan is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which in Article 19 protects the right to freedom of expression, including symbolic acts. Legal restrictions to protect public order or national security are permitted only if they are necessary and proportionate.
Further, the UN Human Rights Committee has been clear that causing offence to patriotic sentiment or speech regarded as “deeply offensive” does not justify criminal punishment. The committee specifically “expresse[d] concern regarding laws on such matters as … flags and symbols.”
A number of legal scholars have also said that the law was inconsistent with the Japanese Constitution.
The Democratic Lawyers Association of Japan strongly condemned the law, stating that what constitutes “discomfort” is left entirely to the “arbitrary judgment of investigative authorities,” which risks targeting political protests and government critics.
AICA International joined the art community and civil society of Japan, in calling for the urgent repeal of the law.
Concerns around powers of the new national intelligence body
There are concerns around the powers and lack of oversight around the establishment of the National Intelligence Council.
Japan's upper house, the House of Councillors, passed the National Intelligence Council Establishment Act on 27th May 2026, creating a new body to coordinate the government's intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities.
The legislation was approved by a majority comprising the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Nippon Ishin no Kai, and the Democratic Party for the People.
The National Intelligence Agency (NIA), which will serve as the council's secretariat, is expected to be operational as early as summer 2026. Under the new law, government agencies will be required to provide the council with necessary intelligence, materials, and briefings. The council will hold coordinating authority to solicit information from ministries and agencies across government.
Critics, including opposition legislators and civil liberties advocates, have raised persistent concerns that the new framework lacks sufficient mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny or any mechanism to oversee the activities of intelligence agencies. They warn that the law could enable the state to arbitrarily collect personal information on citizens, including those who participate in demonstrations or support specific political parties.
The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) proposed an amendment requiring an annual Diet report and the establishment of an independent body to review any infringement of citizens' rights and check political neutrality, but this was rejected.
CDPJ lawmaker Makoto Oniki said that "if intelligence agencies cannot be properly controlled and are left to go unchecked, they risk severe and unjust infringements on the rights of the public.”
Plans for anti-espionage laws moving forward
The government is also moving ahead with plans to enact a package of anti-espionage laws.
These are expected to include a ‘Foreign Interference Prevention Act’ and a ‘Foreign Agent Registration Act’. Due to Japan’s pre-war and wartime domestic political persecution, post-war demilitarisation and lingering public antipathy towards intelligence activities, the country lacks a legal framework for criminalising spying or the leaking of state secrets. A panel of experts is expected to discuss the specific content of the bills and make recommendations.
As previously documented, in April 2026, NGOs called on the government to ensure that if they enact these laws they must be consistent with the Japanese Constitution and international human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
They urged the Japanese authorities to ensure, at a minimum, that “national security” is interpreted in accordance with international human rights law and standards, and that no restrictions are imposed on the basis of vague and overbroad terms such as “espionage,” “foreign agent,” and “political activity”. They also urged the government to “ensure the protection of freedom of expression, including by adding a general “public interest” clause to explicitly protect those who collect and disclose information in the public interest, including whistleblowers, journalists, academics, activists, and other human rights defenders.
Concerns around proposal to allow warrantless communications interception
In July 2026, it was reported that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party plans to propose that the government introduce a system that would allow, for security purposes, administrative agencies to intercept private communications without a court warrant.
The introduction of “administrative interception” is set to be featured in the second proposal of the LDP’s Headquarters for Intelligence Strategy that will be submitted to the government. The initiative will be a major pillar of anti-espionage legislation that the government aims to enact.
Wiretapping is currently permitted only for criminal investigations under the wiretapping law, which took effect in 2000, and is known as “judicial interception.” By contrast, administrative interception refers to the interception of private communications conducted by administrative agencies for intelligence-gathering or national security purposes. It is severely restricted in light of the secrecy of communications guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Under international human rights law and standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, surveillance must be restricted, as it can interfere with a range of human rights, particularly the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination. Any surveillance regime should include robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms to protect human rights. Safeguards should include requirements for warrants issued by independent authorities for targeted surveillance, and other strict criteria that include limitation periods as well as clear prescriptions for destruction of material.
Surveillance should only be permitted when it is lawful, necessary, proportionate, and subject to oversight. Mechanisms must be available to prevent abuses and protect human rights. These typically include the right to challenge the legality of surveillance before an independent court, the right to access and rectify unlawfully collected data, and the right to compensation for harm caused by unlawful surveillance.