Abstract
The differences between the role of the law in the Japanese and Western societies has been one of the favorite topics in the sociology of law. Recently, Western commentators have viewed the relatively small role of law and the legal profession in Japan as evidence of smooth social management. For many years after the surrender of Japan in World War II, however, the same phenomenon was often interpreted by Japanese commentators as evidence of Japan's under-development or pre-modernized condition. The limited role of law and lawyers was considered to be a weak point of Japanese society, especially in the past when the Japanese were not confident of the validity of their cultural system. Now, when Japan is enjoying prosperity, the limited role of law and lawyers is considered one of the merits of the Japanese society. Anyway, the difference of the role of the law and the legal proffessions has been considered as been culturally based. Recently another approach has developed. This opinion asserts that the differences between the role of law and lawyears in the Japanese and Western societies is not a reflection of cultural differences, but rather a reflection of the relative inefficiency of the Japanese judiciary or the inconvenience of obtaining the legal services of practitioners in Japan. According to this opinion, the different role of law and lawyers in the Japanese and Western societies is a reflection of superficial differences in the legal institutional settings of the societies and is not deeply rooted in their cultures.
In this report, I proposed the third type of the interpretation of the differences of the social function of the law and the legal professions of the Japanese and Western societies. The detail has been already made public in: Kato, The Role of Law and Lawyers in Japan and the United States, 1987 No. 2 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 627-698 (1987).
