Sociology of law or sociological approach to law set forth and developed in postwar Japan, as a measure to overcome the difficulties inherent in the conceptual jurisprudence, has brought about not a few results. There remains, however, much to be accomplished in order to establish the ‘science’ of law in its strict sense, i. e. the research system which provides us with such appropriate and reliable means as those in the field of natural science or in other branches of social sciences for our analysis and observations of various legal phenomena occuring in our community. It should also be applicable for analysis in the judicial decision making processes.
Such was what Prof. Yozo Watanabe of Tokyo University wanted to say in his report as the result of a joint research with some younger associates presented at the Spring Assembly of the Japanese Association of Sociology of Law in 1962. He delivered his critical view on scientific maturity of labor law researches, on the one hand, but he did not deny their progressive nature as compared with other fields of legal researches, on the other. His report aroused a heated arguement among both legal sociologists and labor law specialists, as to whether or not the academic studies in labor law have so far made much scientific contribution and how they could not put effective influences upon the labor law practice.
Such is the circumstance under which this symposium was planned to draw some conclusions from the discussion by six panel members including two lawyers engaged in labor law practice. Though the emphasis of arguement was placed to examine to what degree and why Japanese courts tend to favor the conceptualistic approaches to their decision making, the following can be said to be the conclusion accorded by the panel members:
(1) Anti-labor prejudice on the side of authoritative decision makers, i. e. judges.
There can be found a deplorable tendency, which leads to unfavorable decisions for employees, in courts' conceptualistic way of thinking. It must not be neglected that the accused employees are, in most cases in its reality, forced to behave themselves as ‘out-law’ in order to protect their own rights against the pressure derived from unreasonable labor relations and other unsatisfactory labor situations. The authoritative decision maker tends to ignore such factual situations by some reasons or other. The higher the level of instance goes up, the more prejudice unfavorable for employees can be perceptible in the decision making.
(2) Unsatisfactory activity on the side of trial lawyers.
The trial lawyers should be equipped with more effective skills in presenting their cases. They would make stronger cases if their legal reasonning were more logical, more systematical and their professional activities outside the court house were more organized.
(3) Scientific study of labor law needed.
Scientific study of labor law and relations should be developed by academic lawyers for the improvement of authoritative decision making in labor cases. Its results are expected especially to affect judges' way of thinking and their understanding of employees' situations.
(4) Establishment of sociology of law indispensable.
Sociology of law, i. e. the science of law, is indispensable for the systematical analysis of labor law and labor relations. It should be noted, however, sociology of law as a science is not always useful in terms of immediate efectiveness for the defence in the court house.
