Hier behandele ich die Taisho-Novelle (1926) der japanischen Zivilprozeßordnung unter die folgende Arbeitshypothese : Der moderne Zivilprozeß, den man normalerweise als von Parteiherrschaft und Verhandlungsmaxime beherrscht hält, hat von Anfang an eine grundliche Richtung nach der richterlichen Tatsachenermittlung durch Mündlichkeit. Dafür habe ich drei Streitpunkte ausgewählt und erörtert, d.h. Fragerecht, Abschaffung des Versäumnisverfahrens und Verallgemeinerung des vorbereitenden Verfahrens.
Als Ziel der Taisho-Novelle haben die Forscher immer die Prozeßbeschleunigung betont. Dagegen habe ich klar gemacht, dass die meisten Teilnehmer am Gesetzgebungsausschuß zur richterlichen Tatsachenermittlung durch Mündlichkeit ziemlich geneigt waren. Diese Richtung war nicht immer vom Justizministerium erzwingt, eher von den Anwälten und den Parteien gewünscht. Jedoch ist ihre Inhalt auch bei den Ausschußteilnehmer unbestimmt geblieben. Die enge Wechselbeziehung zwischen der Mündlichkeit und der richterlichen Tatsachenermittlung wurde nicht so tief verstanden. Als Hintergrund dieser Richtung kann man wahrscheinlich den Konsens über die niedrige Kapazität der damaligen Anwälte hinweisen. Man hat den Einfluss von der österreichischen "sozialen" Civilprozessordnung (1895) aufmerksam gemacht, aber neuerdings haben einige deutsche Forscher diese Richtung schon in den deutschen Gesetzgebung (Entwürfen) des 19. Jahrhunderts erkannt. Meiner Meinung nach könnte (und sollte) sich diese Richtung bis auf den römisch-kanonischen Prozess im gelehrten Recht zurückführen lassen. Sie ist nicht nur eine der wichtigen Charaktere von der Taisho-Novelle, sondern auch eine "Tradition" des europäischen Zivilprozesses.

View full abstract

The Qing dynasty, in the Code (Lüli 律例), classified capital punishment into different means e. g. decapitation (Zhan 斬) and strangulation (Jiao 絞). Furthermore, they divided the seasons of the execution into Lijue (立決) and Jianhou (監候). In the case of Lijue, the death penalty is always executed immediately after the emperor's sentence. On the other hand, in the case of Jianhou, a procedure for a retrial is always required and held once a year after the emperor's sentence；this procedure of the retrial is called the Autumn Assize (Qiushen 秋審). In Qiushen, there are three treatments for the prisoner of Jianhou. The first one is Qingshi (情実), which is equal to the death penalty. The second one is Huanjue (緩決), which is to postpone the decision whether to execute or not until the next year's Qiushen. And the final one is Kejin (可矜), which is to reduce the penalty.
These treatments in Qiushen are decided under the consideration of criminal circumstances；the same circumstances are already considered in the former judgment, in which the prisoner was sentenced to death e. g. Zhan and Jiao by the emperor. If that is the case, what kind of relation does the standards of Qiushen decision have with the standards of Lüli when evaluating the criminal circumstances and handing down the sentence? And what kind of function does Qiushen have in the legal system of the Qing dynasty? In order to consider these issues, my purpose of this paper is to clarify the construction of the decision in Qiushen, and for this, I analyze what the officials of the Ministry of Justice (Xingbu) focus on, and how they reach the decision in Qiushen. Lüli provides criminal types as actus reus, and it also includes assessable factors which influences the sentence. It also provides every criminal type with a particular punishment by assessing those factors. There is a system of evaluation of crimes in Lüli. However, since it is not necessary that all assessable factors are taken into consideration for all criminal types, there are factors that are not fully considered and left when deciding a case under Luli. But, when a particular case is decided in Qiushen, every assessable factor is reconsidered. This includes not only the factor of the particular criminal type, which functioned as the standard on deciding the former emperor's sentence. It also includes different factors provided in different criminal types in Lüli as well.
The officials take various processes on reaching a decision in Qiushen, but in order to reach for a decision, they generally compare it with assessable factors which exist in other criminal types. Therefore,their decision is made by balancing several different criminal types. Various criminal types of death penalty as Jianhou are reevaluated in this balancing process in Qiushen. In the legal system of the Qing dynasty, Qiushen adds various treatments as penalties to subdivide the penalty system in Lüli which only provides limited types of penalties；simultaneously, Qiushen is an opportunity to restructure the system of evaluation of crimes.

View full abstract

This article aims to compare Silla（新羅）'s statute law with those of the contemporary Chinese dynasties to examine the Chinese influence over Silla in the following three issues；the rule of punishment for treason and larceny, the regulations defining the duties of an official in Silla's statute law before the Tang（唐） dynasty.
As so-called "Luling（律令：constitution）", the code which discriminated between criminal law［Lu（律）］and administrative law［Ling （令）］, did not include the 'primitive luling（原始律令：statute）'of Chinese dynasties which mainly managed with the additional special law before CaoWei（曹魏） period and did not yet have compiled law as a code, it was difficult to apply the conception of the luling to the legal system of Silla.
The punishment rule for treason in Silla's statute law was influenced by the primitive luling up to the Caowei period. The punishment rule for official's corruption in Silla was affected by the primitive luling of the later Han（後漢）'s. Also the common law like the reparation for larceny might have been transformed into the statute law of Silla as Goguryeo（ 高句麗） and Baekje（百済） did.
Goguryeo adopted the primitive luling of Han（漢） dynasty by way of Lelangjun（楽浪郡）. Baekje adopted the primitive luling of the Chinese dynasty for the first half of the 3th century via Daifangjun（帯方郡）. Silla almost adopted the primitive luling from both Goguryeo and Baekje. However Silla might have been partially affected by Tang（唐） regarding the regulations of the duties of an official.

View full abstract

Research on the legal history in Korea began with a political aim to acquire informational data helpful for the colonial regime. The research, which had been individually conducted by a small minority of scholars in deteriorated conditions after the liberation, met a new turning point with the foundation of The Korean Society of Legal History in 1973. Entering the 1980s, the scope of research expanded to the modern and contemporary periods, and this led to the announcement of researches directly linked to reality, gradually providing a basis for the production of new specialists. In the 1990s, the democratization of society and a heightened attention to national identity resulted in the field of legal studies the increase of researchers interested in both Korea and intrinsic Korean traits. Later, the translation and publication of materials such as law books of every kind contributed to the vitalization of research. The level of research improved with doctoral dissertations submitted from the late 1990s and, in particular, with the research on the field of historical studies, as opposed to legal studies, provided mutual stimulus. In the 2000s, the research on Korean legislation history shows dynamism, which could have never been imagined before, such as in the growth of the number of researchers, the expansion of study subjects, and the rise in the level of studies. This paper first aims to introduce, emphasizing the field of jurisprudence, an overall tendency of the research on Korean legal history since the adoption of modern laws and legal studies up to the present day, and subsequently, after clarifying terminus ad quem of the current stage with regard to main issues of the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties, aims to comment on the direction of further research.

View full abstract