Legal History Review Vol. 61(2011)

This article explores what were the civil court system and civil procedure of Matsue-han from 1868 to 1871, by analyzing the historical materials named "Matsue-han kouri-bugyosho monjo". This period is a so-called "missing link" for legal study. In 1985 Prof. Ishii Ryousuke said, "we hardly know the substance of the civil procedure law of the time. "Then, in spite of the development of the research in late years, things aren't changing. If we make clear this "missing link", we understand both Edo era and Meiji era, both early modern law (feudal law) and modern law (westernized law), continuously. Eventually I arrived at the conclusion that even in 1871 the early modern law-Osaka regional law-was valid in west Japan, especially from Osaka to Chugoku-District, contrary to legislation by Meiji government, and Kankai system of Meiji era succeeded one of Osaka regional law.

This article examines the relation between ando (a confirmation document of land titles for feudal lords) and sigyo (execution) in the legal procedure of the Muromachi shogunate in terms of the effect of possession (tochigyo). A previous study mentioned that possession in medieval Japanese land law was endowed with the right to receive ando and to take action in order to maintain possession. However, these effects were not the same throughout the medieval age; therefore, it is important to recognize the differences in the legal effects among the political authorities.
The Kamakura shogunate issued ando as an acceptance of succession, while the Kenmu government issued ando as a confirmation of the plaintiff's tochigyo. The Kenmu government protected the actual possessor through sigyo based on ando and an action taken for the maintenance of possession.
As opposed to the Kenmu government, the Muromachi shogunate in the period of Tadayoshi Ashikaga and Yoshiakira Ashikaga issued ando on the basis of the succession of the land or the document which proved the plaintiff's right to the land. Ando thus departed from the system of sigyo. The possessory remedies contained not only an action for the maintenance of possession but also one for the recovery of possession. In this procedure the Muromachi shogunate also confirmed the property right to an estate which the plaintiff claimed.
In the period of Yoshimitsu Ashikaga, ando largely increased. Till then, it meant an acceptance of the succession, but beginning in the Ouei era (1394-1428), it was known more as a confirmation of a plaintiff's tochigyo. An Ando was issued whether an individual was a possessor or not. Moreover, ando became the object of sigyo. The reason for the enforcement of sigyo was the expansion of the legal effect of ando.
In the period of Yoshimochi Ashikaga, especially from the 20s of the Ouei era, the Muromachi shogunate made it a rule that ando should be issued as a confirmation of a plaintiff's tochigyo. Following the law en-acted in Ouei 29, sigyo based on ando was abolished. On the other hand, the Muromachi shogunate developed a legal procedure with an emphasis on the confrontation between the parties. The change in the legal institutions meant that the Muromachi shogunate revised the policy from recovery of a dispossession to protection for the order of possession. Then, the provincial military governors issued ando for the possessor in their sphere of jurisdiction as well.
The system of sigyo enforced by Yoshimitsu Ashikaga is distinct from the viewpoint of ando's effect. Though possession had an effect on the legal systems in medieval land law, differences existed among political authorities. Understanding ando as a political authorization and its relation to possession can contribute to the development of research on chigyo.

This article pays attention to "Partyizing the judiciary", becoming the undercurrent of the Judicial system under the Party-state. "Partyizing the judiciary" means the Judiciary being under the control of a party. I examine the personnel affairs and the process of setting up Fanxingyuan that the Intelligence Bureau of the Party Organization participates in. Fanxingyuan is the special educational institution to reform a political offender. I clarify cooperation of Guomindang and the judiciary in Chinese Nationalist China. The judiciary authorities under the Party-state have thought that national prosperity and power give priority to over personal freedom. The judiciary established a special law to clear the enemy including Chinese Communist Party. The aim was construction of the judicial system to contribute to Guomindang. On the other hand, the judiciary groped to "the modernization" for the constitutional government. The faction which promotes "Partyizing the judiciary" placing more weight on the former fights with the faction aiming at establishment of the constitutionalism. The former faction ran the judiciary in succession to a policy of "The judiciary should be under the instruction of the party". When jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice was changed from the Judicial Yuan to the Exective Yuan in 1932, the Judicial Yuan lost the personnel affairs authority of the judicial officer and the authority of the judiciary expense. And the route of conventional "Partyizing the judiciary" was suppressed when human rights and civil liberties were attached great importance to by Luo Wengan of Minister of Justice. The Western Hills group almost monopolized an important post of the Judicial Yuan and occupied the important post of a party and the government in the ratio of uniformity. CC clique is under the influence of Chen Lifu summarizing Intelligence Bureau of the Party Organization. The Western Hills group and CC clique returned the Ministry of Justice to jurisdiction of the Judicial Yuan and intervened in the personnel affairs of a minister and senior vice minister and endeavored to let a judicial officer join a party member. After a coup d'etat in April, 1927, Shen Xuanlu of the Western Hills group established Zhejiang-Fanxingyuan. The Ministry of Justice established "the ordinance of Fanxingyuan" based on a modified draft of Zhejiang-Fanxingyuan on November 25, 1929 and established Fanxingyuan which corrected a political offender. The inside of Fanxingyuan had general affairs, management, three section of the education. Unlike a general prison, it was the special educational institution where an education section played a key role. Fanxingyuan accommodated a lot of party members of Chinese Communist Party. The director of the High Court held an additional post of a Director General of Fanxingyuan at first, and the side of the judiciary held real power of Fanxingyuan. When "a plan to change each Fanxingyuan to the central direct control" was given in 1933, Intelligence Bureau of the Party Organization held real power of Fanxingyuan and gradually lengthened a power. On the judiciary under the Party-state and the back of the connection of Intelligence Bureau of the Party Organization, I point out that strong participation of the Western Hills group and CC clique existed in Guomindang.

The aim of this paper is to reconsider whether Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, presented the theory against double punishment in a conflict between him and Henry II, the king of England. This quarrel is called the Becket dispute, which is often referred to in the historical context of the double jeopardy.
According to the third clause of the Constitutions of Clarendon of 1164, Henry II proposed that a clerk accused of some serious crime should be delivered to the royal court, and that the clerk who was deposed after condemnation in the church court should be punished in the royal court. To this proposal, it is said, Becket opposed from the following point of view. Firstly, any clerk should not be judged before a secular judge. Secondly, 'God does not judge twice in the same matter.' A common view basing upon studies on the Becket dispute so far explains that Becket himself certainly objected that the third clause is contrary to the benefit of clergy and the theory against double punishment. However, what they relied on in their studies is not anything written by Becket himself but the Lives of Thomas Becket or a treatise written for him after his death.
Close analysis of his letters shows that he did not present the theory against double punishment, but he seems to have asserted that any clerk in any case should not be judged before a secular judge for the clerical immunity from secular jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bolognese and the Anglo-Norman canonists, the king of England and prelates in England accepted the double punishment during the Becket dispute. Therefore, it should be noted that the theory against double punishment appears only in the Lives of Thomas Becket and the treatise after his death.

This paper analyzes the recent studies of Taiwanese legal history based on scholarship come from land law studies, especially land law studies of modern Japan and that of traditional China.
Through this analysis we have found the similarity between Japan and Taiwan about development of legal land system and people consciousness of land. We also have found similarity to Japanese situation in the legal argument for land problem in Taiwan after the war.
Beside similarity we need it clear what is the specialty of land system and people consciousness about land in Taiwan. In my opinion, doing it evolves the studies of Taiwanese legal history. And this studies means the connection of three special fields : legal history, sociology of law and civil law.

In der vorliegenden Abhandlung sollen im Überblick die bemerkenswerten Richtungen in der neueren Literatur über die moderne Strafrechtsgeschichte in Deutschland dargestellt werden, um daraus Hinweise für die weitere Vertiefung der Forschung in Japan über die deutsche moderne Strafrechtsgeschichte zu erlangen. Im Schrifttum über das deutsche Strafrecht vom Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart, das in den letzten zehn Jahren in Deutschland veröffentlicht wurde, kann man unter anderem folgende Richtungen unterscheiden:
(1) Das Lehrbuch, Einführung in die moderne Strafrechtsgeschichte von Thomas Vormbaum, ist ein bahnbrechendes Werk für das Studium der deutschen Strafrechtsgeschichte. Dieses Buch konzentriert sich auf "die moderne Strafrechtsgeschichte", gibt eine durchgängige Übersicht der deutschen modernen Strafrechtsgeschichte und erörtert die Grundfragen der Forschungsmethoden in diesem Bereich.
(2) In einer weiteren Richtung (z.B. Wolfgang Naucke) wird die herrschende Meinung zu einigen fundamentalen Themen der deutschen modernen Strafrechtsgeschichte (z.B. die Strafrechtslehre von P.J.A. Feuerbach, der sogenannte "Schulenstreit" usw.) erneut kritisch geprüft.
(3) Relativ neu ist die Auffassung, die Methode der Forschung stärker zu differenzieren. Neben den Schriften, die sich vom Thema her mehr oder weniger auf die Geschichte der strafrechtlichen Lehrmeinungen und Strafgesetzgebung beschränken, gibt es nun auch zunehmend Literatur, die z.B. in sozialgeschichtlicher Hinsicht die wissenschaftliche und praktische Tätigkeit der Strafrechtler anschaulich schildert oder versucht, die Methode der sogenannten "Wissenschaftsgeschichte" auf die Geschichte der Strafrechtswissenschaft anzuwenden.
(4) Im Vergleich zu früher nimmt schließlich in der Forschung die Tendenz zu, die Entwicklung des deutschen Strafrechts in Verbindung mit der Strafrechtsgeschichte in anderen europäischen Länder (vor allem in Frankreich und Italien) zu erörtern.
Durch den umfangreichen Nachdruck von strafrechtlichen Schriften und Gesetzbüchern aus der Zeit vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert wird außerdem die Quellenlage in diesem Bereich immer besser.
Was nun die Forschungslage der deutschen modernen Strafrechtsgeschichte in Japan betrifft, so kann man hier wesentlich deutlicher als in Deutschland die Tendenz erkennen, dass nur die herausragende Leistung des Strafrechtsgedankens in der Aufklärungszeit einseitig betont und weniger auf dessen Problematik eingegangen wird. Besonders die Strafrechtstheorie von Feuerbach spielt in Japan als Ideal des modernen Strafrechts eine große Rolle, wenn die heutige Situation der Rechtspflege und Gesetzgebung kritisch diskutiert wird oder an der jeweiligen staatlichen Politik Kritik geübt werden soll. Diese Bedeutung der Theorie Feuerbachs als Modell eines idealen Strafrechts an sich soll zwar auch heutzutage nicht vernachlässigt werden. Es ist aber auch wichtig, auf die problematischen Seiten seiner Theorie aufmerksam zu machen, wie dies z.B. Wolfgang Naucke tut. Auf diese Art und Weise können wir die Bedeutung der Strafrechtslehre von Feuerbach in der deutschen Strafrechtsgeschichte vielseitiger und präziser verstehen. Um "das moderne Strafrecht" in seiner Vielfältigkeit, Vielschichtigkeit und Dynamik zu begreifen, darf man sich nicht auf die Methoden der Theorien-und Gesetzgebungsgeschichte beschränken, sondern muss auch mit den Methoden der Wissenschafts-und Sozialgeschichte die historische Entwicklung des Strafrechts und der Strafrechtswissenschaft in Deutschland erforschen. (The length of the original abstract exceeds the prescribed limit of J-STAGE)