Citizen and Civil Society have many historical meanings -from classics over modern legal or political philosophies up to today. They took new aspects in the situation after the end of cold war. The concept 'Civil Society' played a central role to encourage and orient movements of world-wide democratization. Globalization is an important moment of these movements. As transnational moves of people, information, goods, and money gave impact on the development of new 'civil society'. These try to control global governances, which are oft under the strong influence of economical globalization, on issues as human rights protect, prohibit or restriction of use of normal weapons, ecology etc. These activities of international NGOs are examples of new 'Civil Society'. But civil societies are so different in their scales and issues-regional. national and international. They can be crossing of them. Analyzing many phases of this relationship, from private life to international relationship, from the legal and philosophical point of view is the aim of this annual conference. These new 'Civil Societies' do not necessarily opposite to states, but mediate between citizens and states informally. They don't simply speak for interests of citizens itself, but act on (international) public opinions or their own ideas. Therefore they can opposite to 'citizens' sometimes. This means independence of civil societies from up and down. Because the activities of civil society relate to influent on law-making or legal/ moral consciousness, they make a sense to problematic of legal philosophy, as discussions about validity of law: it is situated in cooperation or tension between competence of law and its content, authority and idea. Civil society should be not only independent but also accountable both to citizens (clients) and to state. End purpose of its activities is empowerment of citizens, after all of disable or weak one. State is responsible to support these citizen-support-activities of civil societies (NPO. NGO etc.). Legal and political institutionalization of this role-division is necessary to establish and stabilize the adequate relation among citizen, civil society and state.

View full abstract

NPO law was enacted in 1998 with the strong support of the public opinion. Japanese citizens were inspired by the relief activities by the citizen's voluntary and the grass routs organizations in the disaster site of the massive earthquake in Kobe in 1995, while the quasi-governmental organizations and the government did not work efficiently. The public opinion accelerated establishment of NPO law. As a result, the diet passed the proposal of NPO law unanimously. On March 11. 2011. Japan experienced the more massive earthquake and tsunami that broadlycovered the east side of Japan. And then, the citizen's volunteerism is being flowered again. The amount of charitable giving exceeded within two months that of giving for Kobe. The applicants of the volunteer relief workers increased at the beginning stage. However, I am wondering whether NPOs are being play a role to coordinate effectively those citizen's volunteerism and willingness into relief work like the grass routs organizations in the event of Kobe. As of establishment of NPO law in 1998, the most NPOs are not active with respect to raising charitable giving and volunteer coordination while they are actively working with the government. We may find of its major reasons in the governmental policy. In this essay. I will review the basic theory of the private nonprofit organizations and will explain the current state of the Japanese nonprofit sector with comparison of that theory. Is it remarkable that 50% of NPOs do not collect charitable giving from the citizens and that 20% of them do not collect the volunteers. Consequently. I will analyze 15-year the governmental policy of NPO and will point out the reason why the government stifled NPO's volunteerism. Finally. I will recommend what the government should do and not to do. However, the most significance is that how the NPOs by themselves reconstruct the relationship with the citizens through giving and volunteering.

View full abstract

This report aims to describe the role of the state in Japanese consumer law. Prof. Atsushi Omura in his famous book 'Consumer Law,' discusses the role of the state and proposes the concept of 'Consumer support' This concept is the base for developing consumer policy that values the autonomy of consumers and business operators, but at the same time, offers protection to consumers, which is structurally needed. I have attempted to elaborately explain this concept. First I have discussed the problems of the Consumer Basic Act and 'Consumer Citizenship.' which is especially detailed in the 2008 White Paper on National Life. I have pointed out that on the one hand. Japanese consumer policy tends to emphasize the autonomy of consumers and the importance of the role of consumer organizations, but on the other hand, the strong concerns related to emphasizing the autonomy of consumers are discussed in the literature. Additionally. I have also referred to a tendency for focusing more on empirical studies, such as behavioral economics and law. Second, I have analyzed the rationales for the regulations of the state, specifically the regulations of unfair terms in consumer contracts. I have dealt with the following four issues while discussing the reformation of Japanese Civil Code: (1) What is the justification for the regulation of unfair terms in contracts? (2) Are the individually negotiated contractual terms covered by the unfair terms' regulations? (3) Is the assessment of unfair character made of terms that describe the main subject matter of the contract or the quality/price ratio of the goods or services supplied? (4 ) What is the justification for making 'black list' and 'gray list' of unfair terms? In conclusion. I argue that we have to go beyond the simple dichotomy between neo-liberalism and welfarism, and we have to continue to specifically seek the irght balance between autonomy and protection of consumers.

View full abstract

It is now widely believed that the funds of a person who lacks capacity should not for any reason be regarded as a family resource, and. more importantly, that the right to self-decision (autonomy) should be respected carefully all through the society, even between family members. Furthermore, in the last 10 years, a theoretical change has been emerging that emphasizes the importance of empowering people with limited mental capacity towards their own decision-making and is now becoming recognised in many jurisdictions. In this new culture, families are not automatically treated as advocates for other family members simply due to their relation to the person by birth or marriage. Families must be chosen by the person formally (eg. through the power of attorney), or must apply to the courts for the legal authority to act as deputies for the person lacking capacity (e.g. a guardianship order). In this sense, it seems that no special status is conferred upon families in modem adult guardianship law. If so. where have they gone? It might be said that, under the contemporary adult guardianship system, families have become only one part of the caring society which maintains an alertness to the welfare of its members. The concept of Civil Society is showing its appearance here. In this paper, through a comparative study of the laws and practices of the UK and Japan. I will reconsider the role of families, and explore their interrelationship with Civil Society and the State in the contemporary adult guardianship system. Particularly, through an analysis of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the UK. I will find the operation of the 'Civil Society' which the State tries to encourage, strengthen and sometimes utilize.

View full abstract

Recently, the changes of administrative organizations have become a matter of interest for public law. The structure of the closed bureaucracy has been (at least partially) transformed to institutions open to transparent partnership with various interests and groups in civil society. This article examines the legitimacy of the 'democratization' of administrative organizations with the help of the intense dispute in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court did not recognize the participation of persons concerned in administrative procedure as democratization. The democratic legitimation comes only from the whole people, and the administrative organization receives it only through the election, parliament and government, and so only from the top. The Court thought that the democracy demands the hierarchy in the administration. This hard attitude could be explained by the theory of Bockenforde. a Justice of the Court, that democracy means the 'political' decision of the whole nation as the 'Schicksalsgemeinschaft' The groups of private persons could not be the subject of democracy. This Schmittian understanding of democracy is too narrow to be accepted now. We must add. however, that interestingly Hans Kelsen was also against the 'democratization' of the administration. His concern existed in the possibility that the administration with its own legitimacy could resist against the law adopted by parliament If many laws have only abstract instructions in fact however, the participation of citizens in administrative procedure is useful and necessary to fulfill the duty to realize the aims of laws. This article examines then the recent reforms of Japanese administration. The so-called 'public comments' have been introduced into the Administrative Procedures Act. They are generally accepted, maybe because they leave the initiative of policy-making for the administration. In contrast, the significance of councils (Shingikai) has been disputed. The author thinks that the 'public comments' cannot substitute for the role of councils as the place to discuss face-to-face. The efforts to make them more transparent should be supported. The democratic legitimacy of public hearings which are spreading in local governments is also examined.

View full abstract

The recent theories and debates on civil society have almost exclusively focused on citizen's roles in the processes of national or local politics, especially their participation to the political deliberation. But in that perspective, we tend to disregard the non-political or non-public aspects of their lives, consequently limiting 'citizens' only to those who are willing to associate themselves and participate the process of public decision-making or promotion of public interests with clear public concern. For proper understanding of civil society as a whole, now we need to turn to a minimum definition of citizenship, which constitutes the non-political foundations of civil society. Only through this wider perspective, we can reconsider tensions and positive relationships between the political aspects and non political aspects of civil society, or between civic virtues and civil liberties. Here I introduce an anecdote of a woman who had to commute with her infant daughter by jam-packed trains, very morning. To overcome this awkward and uncomfortable situation, she just figured out certain small tactic and silently carried it out. without making any general claim of her 'rights' or trying to change the normative consciousness of others. This story suggests us some of the most basic elements of citizenship: (1) informality and independence. (2) spontaneity, openness and amateurism. (3) self-centeredness, self-limitation and experimentalism. These qualities suggest that the concept of citizenship do not necessarily imply the public-minded, political-concerned, participatory and justification-oriented 'civic' virtues. Rather, we should be more attentive to the various forming conditions of these virtues out of the non-political aspect of citizenship, that is. more miscellaneous and unorganized, local, experimental and strategic attempt of trial-and-error. I will argue that it is through our exercises of civic liberties - and especially actual experience of errors and failures - that we are led to acquire these civic virtues.

View full abstract

The concept of citizen/society is notoriously malleable. It is often strategically charged with a variety of objectives, such as equality, solidarity, and participation. To the extent that the forces of globalisation cannot easily be cancelled out. one of the main questions in our age concerns the extent to which a citizen/society beyond the national boundaries where the concept has hitherto been confined. The present study is intended to explore the possible conceptual malleability in yet another direction, that is. the possibility of a globalised citizen/society. It does so. by focusing on the experiences of the European Union -- the most advanced form of governance across the borders, hence a crucial case. In particular, it considers whether and to what extent the EU creates and is sustained by a European citizen and society, from the perspectives of rights (or the liberals). identity (the communitarians), and participation (the republicans). On the basis of empirical analysis, this paper concludes that the EU establishes a citizen/society, seen from the liberal perspective, whilst it does so only in a meagre sense from communitarian and republican viewpoints. The mixed picture of the EU suggests difficulties in creating a cross-border citizen/society, as well as in predetermining its impossibility.

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to focus upon the impact of globalization on domestic communities, consequently illustrating the necessity of 'state power' to tame the affluence of such globalization. According to the stock of globalization studies, it is more often than not said that 'state power' is declining, more to say. 'Retreat of the State'. But the reality is contrary to such recognition of 'Retreat'. In this paper, firstly we focus on the arguments of Anne-Marie Slaugter (international law) and Saskia Sassen (sociology) to show that the existing components of the state-government are still at the center role, especially as the 'regulatory power'. Slaugter describes this globally woven 'regulatory web' as the 'trans-governmental order'. Secondary, we pay attention to the important aspect of globalization, that is, the global trend of deregulation. In this rather negative aspect of globalization, we explore the U. S.-Japan comparative case studies, especially in the area of land-use regulation/deregulation as to global big-box retailers in suburbia. In this respect, we take a close look at the history of regulatory legislations in Japan. The conclusion of this U.S.-Japan comparison is that public intervention (regulatory power) is too weak, and the land-ownership is too strong in Japan, compared to other countries, including the United States. Such too weak state intervention and too strong ownership result in the undermining of the basic infrastructure of communities. So if we want to retain viable and sustainable communities, we need the 'state power' to regulate the land-use. This conclusion may seem to be paradoxical, because 'viable' communities are to be based on the free solidarity of citizens. But we should acknowledge that this paradox is inevitable. The point to be stressed is that 'power is too scarce' here.

View full abstract

In order to empower the sphere of civil society, we should make sure of its independence not only from the state, but also from the market Seeing the current globalkation of economy, it is evident that the main 'enemy' of civil society is the market Politics is now mainly expected for its role in marketisation of the public sector, which is actually no more than the long-term erosion of politics itselt What is necessary now for the enhancement of civil society is the revitalization of associations, not necessarily excluding interest-oriented groups.

View full abstract

This paper aims to examine the meaning and the possibility about 'internal-measurement' in law, and more specifically, to demonstrate that internal-measurement relativizes the judge's viewpoint Although this aspect has already been introduced and applied to an analysis of politics or economics by Koichiro Matsuno, little attention has been paid to its implications to legal studies thus far. In a word, internal-measurement is an act of identification that is indispensable in any interaction. It is an idea about interactions between watching and acting. The judge is an actor in a situation of decision. At the same time, he is also an observer. Therefore the above mentioned interaction is also provided on the judicial agents. Of course, we have no doubt about the impossibility of separating between an actor and an observer. However, there also emerges some difference. In terms of tense, a court decision is a synchronous phenomenon that these differences contract, and disappear. In synchronization, the disagreement of these two points of view will be adjusted and it is the internal observer who will do this. (The internal observer who has double sides—actor and observer—appears not merely as a judge, but the other judicial agents such as the lawsuit parties.) The presence of plural internal observers implies to that the system of law can provide an opportunity in which the judge's viewpoint will be relativized. In judicial viewpoint there is no privilege that is transcendental and universal An instance is open to various possibilities, as Critical Legal Studies (CLS) has disclosed. It means that the transcendental instance, a premise in the traditional legal theories, will not be found in anywhere. Therefore, it is required to distinguish what is in charge of an instance from an instance itseff And it is a being that is interchangeable. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicates that the courts as the core of the system of law is a place where the viewpoints of actors and observers will be relativized, which suggests a negative aspect of the privileged judge's viewpoint.

View full abstract

F. A. Hayek calls the society in which we live as 'great society'. Its contrary concept is 'tribal society'. The important character of 'great society' is to make agreement on ends which is necessary in 'tribal society' unnecessary and a reconciliation of divergent purposes possible. Although Hayek admires A. Smith for his invention of the term, 'great society'. Smith has not distinguished 'great society' from 'tribal society' enough. Smith has made an accusation against B. Mandeville. while Hayek praises Mandeville. The ethics which is necessary to maintain and to develop the 'great society' requires us to lose when we must lose within the rules of fair competition, even if we have the might to deter the competition. It is more difficult and more unnatural to obey it than we usually think it is.

View full abstract

A central element of Robert Alexy's theory of constitutional rights is his principle of proportionality. This includes analytically an understanding of basic rights as principle, which is supposed to resolve both the tension between democracy and constitutional court and the problem of collision between public interest and basic rights. The article begins with an outline of this theory and the objections which have been raised by numerous domestic authors. It then takes up the principle of proportionality from the global point of view.

View full abstract

This paper aims to examine the problems of so-called democratic peace theory and the conditions of wars between nation states. This argumentation starts from Kant's 'On Perpetual Peace'. As the conditions of perpetual peace. Kant claimed that every political system shall be republic (constitutional democracy). This claim contains 2 elements. The one is that the citizens who actually fight against other nations don't prefer to begin war. Democracy prevents policy decision-makers from war.And the other point is that a state should be public and moral person. This is the condition of republic state. On the contrary, absolute monarchs regard land and people as exchangeable and acquirable property, so they can easily begin war for the sake of their own benefit. Therefore, absolute monarchy is threat to peace. This thought has developed as the democratic peace theory, which is today advocated by Michael Doyle and strongly supported by John Rawls. However, the democratic state as public and collective person intensified wars between nation states in 19-20 century, associating national identity with individual identity. Land became the divine element of state as same as the bodyof individual persons.

View full abstract