Abstract
Those who bring focus on policy-making and/or discussion-facilitating functions of civil litigation are interested not only in its consequences but also in its procedure. They claim unprecedented proceedings unique to each case and not focused on legal disputes. In a so-called "policy-making litigation, " interests of parties and the court tend to conflict on how to proceed it. Under Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, the court has decision-making power and discretion on procedural side of suits, which provides legal framework of procedural decisions. Interactions among three actors (parties and the court) with different interests lead to procedural decisions. In mass-tort litigations like HIV infected blood products cases and Hansen's decease isolation cases, we find that plaintiffs (or their advocates) have managed to carry thorough their demands on exceptional proceedings in exchange of their joint effort with the courts on case management.
