Professor Yasuo YAMANAKA was one of the famous sociologists in the early postwar period of Japan. His first book, "Civil Society and Civil Law, " (1947) appealed to young students.
In this essay, I examine his philosophical foundation for the concept of civil society and legal categories. According to Yamanaka, the objective legal order inherent in civil society develops in logical, historical, and dialectical form. In other words, legal categories, which he regards as legal institutions and understandings of law, develop dialectically under the influence of economic development.
The essay is divided into three unequal sections.
In section 1, I consider his attitude about Marxism.
In section 2, I consider his arguments concerning the way in which law is connected to civil society and the economy.
In section 3, I discuss his concept of legal categories from the real point of view and from the ideal point of view.
My conclusion is that he mingled Hegelianism and Kantianism and Marxism.

View full abstract

The Center for the Study of Lew and Society in the University of California, Berkeley, is one of the most important of all the institutes which are now making a study of the sociology of law. It was established in 1961, and since then it has done a lot of research related to problems of law and its function in a society. Philip Selznick, one of the leaders of the research program in the Center, has been particularly active having tried to construct a fundamental research category, eg., legality, and showed interest in the private government.
Recently, however, this research direction (after Philippe Nonet, "Berkeley Perspective") has been criticized very severely by Donald Black, a sociologist. Black attacks the Berkeley Perspective on the grounds that it is political because of exaggreated attention to a Positivtistic position, and regards Selznick as a natural-law advocate. Black insists that a socio-legal study should be done within the context of "Pure" sociology of law rather than within the context of "Applied" sociology of law. He also persists in avoiding a value judgement and believes in rigid separation of legal fact and legal value.
Contrary to Black, Nonet defends the Berkeley Perspective. Nonet insists that it should be vital in the interest of the sociology of law to consider the effectiveness of law to some degree and the relation between law and legal policy. He also insists that we should start working for the purpose of realizing legal values. Thus, this essay attempts to introduce this debate between Black and Nonet. It comments on some of the important issues of this discussion within the context of the methodological problems in the sociology of law in Japan.
This essay is divided into the following chapters:
I. Introduction
II. On the Berkeley Perspective
III. A Critique of Donald Black
IV. A Refutation of Philippe Nonet
V. Some Comments and Conclusion.

View full abstract

THE CHEYENNE WAY by Karl Llewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel was published in 1941. It is generally regarded as the most successful example of collaboration between a lawyer and an anthropologist. Since its appearance, many anthropological studies of law have been published, but there has been little advance in collaboration between law and anthropology, especially in Japan. In order to stimulate late this advance, the controversy significant in legal anthropology is revisited and made the object of appreciation in this paper.
One of the recurrent problems in social anthropology is the relationship of ethnography to comparison. Max Gluckman was an anthropologist who sought to deliberately apply the concepts and theories of Western jurisprudence to description and analysis of tribal law.
Conversely, Paul Bohannan maintained that, since the Western concepts and theories have been developed to symbolize Western legal systems, it is wrong to straight-forwardly apply them to the systems of tribal law.
Not only differences in explicit words, but also some of the differences in their backgrounds and the effectiveness of applying Western sociological jurisprudence to tribal circumstances are examined.

View full abstract

This paper seeks to clarify the achievements and problems in theoretical studies of social conflicts recently developed in Japan. From the many works dealing with social conflicts from various points of view, I have specifically selected scholars of law for review of their achievements. They include Takeyoshi Kawashima, Masaji Chiba, Kazuko Hirose and Takao Tanase.
There are of course other scholars from other fields, but the four which I review here are understood to be the most significant ones for the special purpose of the author, that purpase being to explore the theoy of social conflict in terms of its connection with law.
Based upon the review of the relevent works, the four scholars are divided into two groups in respect to the difference in the concept of conflict. That is to say, Kawashima and Hirose (and another one, Naoki Komuro, may be added) assume discrimination between conflict and order, while Chiba and Tanase emphasize their co-existence or their existence on a continuum. The author regards the difference as originating in their basic methodologies in observing und analyzing social conflict. The former scholars tend to rely upon system theory, whether Parsonian or not, while the latter scholars seem to have more or less doubts about direct applicaton of system theory to social conflicts.
The author concludes the study by slating that he finds more prospects for the latter approach than for the former approach in the interest of an efficient development of the study.

View full abstract

Im 18. Jahrhundert herrschte in Preussen ein mit "Gutsherrschaft" bezeichnetes gutsherrlich-bäuerliches Verhältnis vor. Rittergutsbesitzer kontrollierten durch Fronund Zwangsgesindedienst die landwirtschaftlichen Arbeiter. Durch die Stein-Hardenbergsche Reform wurde dieses feudalistische Verhältnis zumindest teilweise aufgehoben. Ausgangspunkt der Reform waren das Oktoberedikt, 1807, und die Gesindeordnung, 1810; beide trugen zur Entstehung des modernen Grundeigentums bei.
Der geschichtliche Charakter des Gutsbesitzes zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts soll anhand dieser Gesetzgebungen untersucht werden. Besondere Beachtung findet dabei, inwieweit die rechtlich auf Grundbesitz gegründete Herrschaft der Gutsbesitzer über landwirtschaftliche Arbeiter durch obengenannte Gesetzgebungen aufgehoben wurde.

View full abstract

This article is a study of "UJI", a family name which has in Japan for a hundred years, and includes materials ralated to its process.
1) I have dealt with "UJI" in terms of the civil law, relating it to marriage and divorce from the period preceding the Meiji Civil Law to the time of the Meiji Civil Law. I have also dealt with "UJI" in terms of its relation to the lawmaking process of the law of husband and wife in the law-making process of the Meiji Civil Law and to the revision of the Civil Law §. 767.
2) The statistics I have referred to all of Japan, and the social research presented in this article is related to "UJI".
3) Referring to the thought-research related to "UJI", I have iutroduced Problems related to the nature of "UJI", "UJI" in terms of devorce between husband and wife, and the different kinds of "UJI" in the area of husband and wife.
4) Two examples of juridicial decision related to "UJI" between husband and wife are presented.

View full abstract

Inheritance of the first-born child ("Ane-Katoku Sozoku" in Japanese) refers to a system which stipulates that if a female happens to be the first-born child, then she (saying exactly, her adopted husband "Muko-Yoshi" in Japan) inherils the family's entire holdings. This system is different from primogeniture, in the strict sense of which the eldest son inherits the family's holdings.
The custom of the first-born child inheriting was found in the North-East Regions of Japan, and exsisted until the early days of the Meiji-period. But after that, it began to break down.
My report explains the following.
1) The actual state of this custom in Satomi-Village in Ibaragi.
2) The reason why this custom efisted.
3) The process by which this custom broke down under the influence of the Act of Conscription and the Meiji Civil Code.

View full abstract

In accordance with accepted theory and juridicial proceedings, when doctors and other employees who work in hospitals are involved in medical accidents it is the general rule that their employer, the hospital authority is subjected to a claim for damage under the provision of the Civil Code § 715.
In spite of the effort associated with modern theory, the employer's liability is still one of vicarious nature, characterized by temporary payment on behalf of another, insofar as it is passible to use the right of indemnity in the Civil Code § 715 III.
The author's conclusion is as follows: Since the hospital, especially a general hospital, has to function as an organic system, if it is not able to fulfil this function, it is liable, (self-liability by nature) to pay compensation to the patient, because of default in its obligation (civil code 415) or because of tort (civil code 709). This is supported by the expectation of the patient. By analysing juridical proceedings against big hospitals, it can also be established that there are cases in which these hospitals owe such self-liability.
In addition, we should not overlook the fact that the number of hospital employees who are guilty of negligence and thus incur personal liability is on the decrease. These problems are discussed in this article.

View full abstract