建築基準法施行令の策定過程

－建築基準法制定時の技術基準の検討に関する研究－

抄録

 This article studied the deliberation process of the building standard law enforcement order upon enactment of the building standard law.

 A deliberation of a building standard law enforcement order was necessary as a result of the enactment of the building standard law, and the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) came to play a role of deliberating such an enforcement order pursuant to the custom accepted from before the previous war. A deliberation committee was established, and in this deliberation committee, members who had been involved in building law systems, technologies and practical work since prewar era were chosen to take part freely in some of the subcommittees of the various fields to control related items for deliberation. On the other hand, researchers, architects and engineers from various related fields were encouraged to take part in the deliberation subcommittee from the universities, private sectors and governmental agencies. In addition, committees were provided at local branches, so that the nationwide deliberation could be executed.

 In the deliberations carried out by the subcommittees in an attempt to prepare new building standards, the operation of the new standards after the previous war was clarified in the field of structure, and the related provisions were made more stringent and the specific standards were attempted to be prepared in the field of fire prevention, too. On the other hand, in the field of urban planning, the opportunity was given to deliberate the use district which had not been deliberated sufficiently in preparation of the building standard law. In the field of building equipment and hazard prevention at construction sites, everything necessary to cover the nationally united technical standards was deliberated. Thus, the subcommittees were allowed to deliberate individually the different issues. The certain time was spared for modification work to meet the requests based on the opinions from the local branches.

 In relation to the field of building equipment, the AIJ had not much time to prepare replies to all the drafts presented, and their replies were reflected only to part of the standards that really required their replies, while their replies to the drafts in the fields of hazard prevention at construction sites were put off. As a result, the preparation of the new standards was restricted to the passive level. In particular, in relation to the standards and the details of the guidance that could not be generalized so as to follow the spirit of the building standard law, the AIJ could not replay to them, and the related descriptions were deleted in the modification work carried out in the construction ministry. Thus, the building standard law and its enforcement order were enacted while the problems described above were not resolved.