Accepting Capital Punishment? Human Rights Trade-offs in the EU–Japan Strategic Partnership

The EU-Japan Strategic Partnership and the Value of Human Rights

Although it does not appear prominently in European media, Japan cannot be ignored in considering the global affairs of the EU. Under the current global turbulence, the EU and Japan are enhancing ties as strategic partners (also here). Moreover, in announcements and statements, the EU regularly emphasises Japan as a partner that shares fundamental values such as human rights (also here). This was also indicated in the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) and Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) that are the international legal basis of the EU-Japan strategic partnership. But, to what extent does this commonality hold true?

Especially regarding capital punishment, the EU and Japan have a clear disparity on the understanding of human rights. The death penalty has been abolished in all EU member states as a severe violation of the right to life and the right to live free from inhuman punishments. However, it exists in Japan with 83.1% support among Japanese nationals, according to 2024 opinion polls. This shows a divergence between the EU and Japan in the value of human rights, in clear contrast to the political statements.

It is essential for the EU to support and promote fundamental values internationally, as stated in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In fact, the EU has been making efforts to suspend and abolish capital punishment around the globe. Considering its position, the EU cannot openly state that it shares fundamental value of human rights with Japan.

The Promotion of EU Values to Japan

It should be emphasised that the EU is indeed unhappy with and does criticise Japan for maintaining capital punishment in its legal system. Recently, the EU showed its disappointment with Japan’s continuing enactment of the death penalty in its 2020 statement. Also, when an execution took place in June 2025, the EU made joint statements with the member states, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland (see here and here).

The EU has also on occasion made direct efforts to suspend and abolish capital punishment in Japan. Such attempt was seen during negotiations on the EU-Japan SPA and EPA. For the EU, trade policy is not merely about trade but also about the promotion of European values. Thus, it is standard for the EU to conclude a political agreement along with a trade agreement, so that a linkage can be formed between trade and human rights. Japan was initially considering only having an EPA, but an SPA was also concluded as a result of the EU’s demand.

To form a strong link between trade and human rights, the key is the introduction of an essential elements clause in a trade agreement, which suspends or terminates the agreement when a severe violation of human rights occurs. During negotiations, the EU demanded the inclusion of an essential elements clause in the EU-Japan EPA. Such a clause could pressure Japan to follow EU values; otherwise, the EU could invoke the clause and suspend or terminate the EPA, potentially causing severe damage to the Japanese economy. Ultimately, the inclusion of an essential elements clause in the EPA would have the potential to change the Japanese policy on capital punishment.

The EU’s Tolerance towards Japan

However, in the end the EU-Japan EPA was concluded without an essential elements clause, as a result of Japan’s opposition. Rather than pursuing efforts to suspend or terminate capital punishment, the EU decided to accept Japan’s position. Moreover, the EU tacitly approved of Japan’s continuing to enforce the death penalty. The EU informally communicated to Japan that it can be tolerant as long as the number of executions remains less than five per year, as Paul Bacon and Hidetoshi Nakamura found in their research. 

Not only was tolerance over the death penalty accorded Japan, the EU decided not to make mention of the disparity of positions. Indeed, it was stated in the treaties that the EU and Japan share the value of human rights. The same was stated and announced when the EPA and the SPA were signed (for example here). 

Why did the EU extend tolerance to Japan, and assert that the two entities share fundamental values? The most likely reason is the urgency of concluding the agreements with Japan. Both the EU-Japan EPA and SPA were signed in 2018. Since around the 2010s, the crisis of liberal international order had become a significant concern. The decline of US power and a weakening of multilateralism were considered as sources of the crisis. To protect and sustain liberal international order (here or here), strengthening a partnership with a major “like-minded” country seemed a meaningful way to replace US leadership and to support multilateralism. However, in this instance prioritising strategic partnership with a “like-minded” country meant downplaying promotion of the value of human rights. 

Key Takeaways

It should not be forgotten that human rights is also a significant element of liberal international order. The discrepancy outlined above poses a serious question to our common understanding. Is human rights really a priority for the EU, as has been stated and believed? Critical assessments on this issue can help deepen our understanding of the role of values in EU foreign policy.

Acknowledgements and Author

Yuki Moritani is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Law, Hitotsubashi University. He also teaches part-time at several universities such as University of Tsukuba, Professional University of Beauty & Wellness, and Tokiwa University. His research is on international relations, mainly the theories of international relations and international order, but also Japanese foreign policy and its relations with the EU.

The author expresses gratitude to the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) for providing the scholarship that supported his research in KU Leuven in the academic year 2019, which became the basis of this article. This is based on the presentation made in the conference “The European Union’s External Action: EU-Values in Policy Making” in Istanbul, Turkey.

The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.