This writer makes the following comments on the methodology in studying labor law in today's Japan as the fruits from his studies in labor laws and labor relations in European countries as well as in Japan.
(1) The severe restrictions, e. g. statutory prohibitions against strike by the civil servant, and the strong opposing movement from the employee's side caused by those restrictions have increased the number of labor litigations and accumulated case law year after year. Sociology of law is expected to contribute to establish the systematical theory of labor law through the sociological analysis on the labor relations presented in the cases.
(2) The study of labor law should start from clarifying the unfavorable or even offensive nature of modern civil law against employees in order to establish the systematical theory of the employee's right. The function of the goodlooking principle of ‘public welfare’ is one of the examples to be analysed. For this reason it is indispensable for the study to request aid from related social sciences, e. g. science of social policy, history of labor movements, science of labor hygiene, social psychology, etc.
(3) The sociological approach should be applicable to the Japanese Constitutional situations, because the Constitution declares fundamental principles which support the employees' rights. In such an approach the comparative study of the labor organizations and the employees' sense of their rights in more developed countries can not fail to have a beneficial effect.
(4) The sources of labor law not only are confined to the statutes and the cases, but also contain the collective agreements, the rules of employment and so on, which are to be called ‘living’ labor law. The sociological study of the real situations of labor relations and labor organizations is also needed for systematizing the employees' rights existing in the ‘living’ labor law in various forms.

抄録全体を表示

A critical review by a sociologist of law of the postwar study of labor law was presented at the Spring Assembly of the Japanese Association of Sociology of Law in 1962. It has caused a hot discussion as to how much achievement the scholar of labor law has made from the standpoint of sociology of law or social science. The writer raises questions on that criticism as an attorney in labor law as follows:
(1) The first criticism was that scholars of labor law have been inclined to isolate themselves from those of other legal sciences by limiting their activity to the interpretation of labor statutes, whereas they should have furnished sociology of law with the most powerful stimulus to its development. The writer's answer to this is that their isolation does not mean their negligence in social sciences because it is the result brought about by the particular historical situation of Japanese labor law and the study of it, that is, the very short history since its beginning after World War II.
(2) The writer does not give a blanket consent to the opinion of the critic that the development of sociology of law is indispensable for the effective interpretation of law for winning in the law suit. According to the writer, sociology of law, which is interested in the contradictory factors of the capitalistic legal system. and interpretation of law, which aims to persuade judges engaged on the application of that system as it is, are founded on different bases while their cooperation is required for their further development. Therefore, their cooperation cannot be expected until the sociologist of law furnishes interpretation of labor law with scientifical principles enough to be applied to individual cases.
(3) Even when these principles of the sociology of labor law would be furnished, another difficulty woultd appear, the writer states, that it was not easy to apply them in practice to individual cases because of their complicated and various backgrounds.
Finally, the writer adds a comment that his opinion stated above should not be understood as that denying the significant role of sociology of law for the development of the study of labor law, but as that expecting the development of the former for that of the latter.

抄録全体を表示

Since the end of World War II, it has been suggested that sociological approach should be established in the field of labor law by making use of the methods and results of ‘sociology of law’, which has been developped as a new science different from the traditional practical jurisprudence whose task is confined to put consistent logical interpretations on the statutes. This suggestion, however, has not been sufficiently understood by labor law specialists due to the following two reasons:
(1) It has not yet been clearly and distinctly systematized what ‘sociology of law’ is as a science, and accordingly the common notion of the object and method of ‘sociology of law’ can not be found among scientists of law nor among sociologists of law. For instance, though it might be unquestionable among scholars that ‘sociology of law’ has tried to establish scientific laws about legal phenomena, it is quite questionable to what extent and by what method ‘sociology of law’ deals with political and economic phenomena inseparable from legal phenomena.
(2) It must not be ignored that the developped system of labor statutes enacted after World War II has played a leading role in the under-developed labor movements in Japan. Standards and principles of labor relations prescribed in the statutes have made strong support for the labor movements, which have sought to embody the spirit of the labor law in the complicated political and economic situations under and after occupation. And such a contribution of the labor law statutes has been realised through the function of the labor relations board as well as the court as the authoritative decision makers. This situation has made most of labor law specialists devote themselves rather to interpretation than to sociology of labor law.
Such academic attitudes remain unchanged as a whole. Truly, we need today a kind of sociological study of labor law for practical application. It is also true, however, that such a study alone can not afford correct interpretation of law which is expected to be able to persuade the more people and to predict the results of cases in future. Thus indispensable is the scientific study of labor law in its true sense, i. e. pursuit for scientific laws of real legal problems, which is quite different from the practical interpretation of law. Such is the present role of ‘sociology of law’ in the study of labor law. To perform this role ‘sociology of law’ should start from analysing individual problems and establish its own method applicable to the study of labor law.

抄録全体を表示

The object of the science of labor law consists of various kinds of regulations realting to labor relations. It should not be confined, however, to the literal interpretation of labor statutes and case law, since the purpose of the science of labor law is in particular to meet the demand of the reexamination of the labor-management relations in the capitalistic nations from the viewpoint of legal sociology. Its original aim is, therefore, the solution of practical problems in application and legislation of labor regulations in direct relation with community development.
The science of labor law is expected at first to disclose the real conditions of the society controlled by the law and to clarify the function of the law in society. Then, it is confronted with a difficult problem of determining the standard of legal justice. It is very much difficult to determine it scientifically in a society where various opinions of it are conflicting. When we place ourselves in the standpoint where the political choice has been made and it defines the standard of legal justice, however, ‘judicially just’ interpretation of law may well be constructed by the study of history and society in the viewpoint of legal sociology. Thus legal sociology would be able to contribute to make the interpretation of labor law scientific.
To be a valuable science for settling the social contradictions, the science of labor law must overstep the limit of a branch of practical jurisprudence stated above. It must solve problems raised in the field of labor law from the viewpoint of legal sociology, e. g. how law is interpreted in court, what kind of social role the interpretation of law plays in the social development, and other sociological ones.

抄録全体を表示

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.

抄録全体を表示