The author summerizes the reports and discussions on law-conciovsness in the past two meetings of Japan Association of Sociology of Law.
(1) The relationship of law-conciousness to law was analyzed. Speakers commented on the difference and interaction between law-conciousness and living law, collision between law-conciousnesses which oppose each other, and fluctuations of law-conciousness caused by it, and the necessity to discriminate two components of law-conciousness, that is, general sense of justice and idea of law.
(2) Speakers talked about the relationship of legal behavior to law-conciousness and media between them.
(3) The characteristics and its change of law-conciousness of the Japanese were discussed. Speakers agreed that Prof. Kawashima analyzed successfully the weakness of right-conciousness of the Japanese, and also that the explanation of the reasons for its remains in contemporary Japan is necessary. Speakers pointed out several causes, for example, on the one hand the suitableness of weak rightconciousness in operating the present legal system, on the other hand the instability of law-conciousness as one of cultures.
(4) Speakers discussed the historical basis of law-conciousness of the Japanese. One argued that it was created in Edo era and not easily changed. Another insisted that it was changed by experiences of litigations in Meiji era which were disadvantageous to the people who criticized the policies of the government.
(5) The necessity of experimental researches on law-conciousness and refining their methods was declared.
The author concludes that sociology of law should offer a general theory which is useful for analyzing phenomena of law-conciousness.

抄録全体を表示

Comme un civiliste, c'est-à-dire un juriste-dogmatique et non pas un juriste-sociologue, je voudrais faire trois remarques.
1) L'intérêt de la recherche de la conscience juridique des Japonais.
Il est bien naturel que je m'intéresse aux coutumes et moeurs au Japon qui sont differents des règles de Code civil importé de l'Occident. Je voudrais aussi savoir si les règles de Code civil gouvernent en vérité la vie sociale japonaise. Mais, personnellement ma principale préoccupation est plutot de découvrir les différences entre la conception japonaise et la conception occidentale du droit en générale: par exemple, la conception du contrat ou de la responsabilité civile. Car, elles concernent des plus profonds problèmes du droit comparé et même de la civilisation comparée. Je suis convaincu qu'il faut maintenant analyser l'histoire de l'occidentalisation du Japon dequis l'ère de Meiji de point de vue de juriste, et distinguer minitieusement les éléments occidentaux et les éléments originaires dans notre système et regles juridiques actuels.
2) Méthode.
Il me semble que les juristes-sociologues s'attachent, un peu trop, á la méthode soi-disant scientifique de la sondage d'opinion publique et à la méthode statistique. Mais, à côté de cette méthode, peut-être orthodoxe, il semble y avoir d'autres, plus faciles et plus simples pour nous juristes-dogmatiques. J'en proposerais deux.
La premiere est de recherches dans les arrets, dans les livres et articles des juristes, et meme dans les lois qui resemblent aux celles de l'Occident, les éléments de la conscience juridique des Japonais qui existe même dans l'esprit des juristes. On peut éspérer que sous le couvert de l'occidentalisme on en trouve quelques-uns. Deuxièmement, chacun de nous juristes, notamment le juristesociologue doit réflechir et analyser sa conscience juridique. On peut trouver, ici aussi, des elements tres Japonais.
3) Questions.
Enfin, je voudrais, comme profane de la sociologie juridique, poser nos collègues juristas-sociologues, quelques questions qui me semble être fondamentales.
Premièrement: qu'est-ce que la conception sociologique du droit subjectif que vous proposez comme l'élément essentiel de la conscience juridique?
Deuxièmement, plus primitive mais plus difficile peut-être: qu'est-ce que la conscience juridique? Quelle est la différence entre la conscience juridique et le droit lui-même?
Troisièmement: est-ce que vous pensez toujours que la conscience juridique des Japonaie est arriérée, comme beaucoup de nos juristes-sociologues disaient depuis la fin de la deuxieme grandes guerre mondiale? Si oui, quelle est la critère pour juger l'évolution de la conscience juridique des peuples d'un pays?

抄録全体を表示

For the further developments of research into the Japanese law-consciousness, it seems necessary to reexamine the concept of law itself underlying such predominant theories as Dr. T. Kawashima's modernistic and legalistic one. From this viewpoint, the author attempts to present an alternative theoretical model for analyzing pluralistic patterns of jegal dynamics and legalization. This tripartite model consists of three types of law-universalistic, managerial and interactional law. Then, the author argues that, judging from the ambivalent characterisitics seen in the notions of right and attitudes toward litigation among the Japanese lawyers and people, the pattern of legal dynamics and legalization in contemporary Japan cannot be grasped fully by the Western universalistic model alone.
This paper consists of the following parts:
Preface
1) Perspective and Framework for the Research
2) Extended and Diffused Notions of Right
3) Avoidance and Utilization of Litigation

抄録全体を表示

Legal consciousness of the Japanese, reflected especially in the smaller numbers of litigations and lawyers, has been mentioned frequently by foreign scholars. Naturally their remarks are much influenced by Japanese scholars' views. Among the observations by non-lawyers, those of R. Benedict, Reischauer, R. Dore and Vogel should be studied, though their remarks on legal consciousness are brief and impressionistic.
Studies by lawyers are increasing. Above all D. Henderson's "Conciliation and the Japanese Law" is a representative work. Recently J. Haley published a challenging article on "Reluctant Litigant", which criticized views of Japanese scholars like Kawashima and Noda by statistical data.
Legal consciousnes is very difficult to explore and compare, and bias-free studies by foreign scholars give unique insight on the problem.

抄録全体を表示

1. Present State of Rationalized Agricultural Water Use Projects-the Case of Kasai Water Use-
Rationalized Agricultural Water Use refers to the enterprise of diverting surplus water yielded from the modernization of agricultural irrigation facilities to other uses. Examination of this enterprise as undertaken by Gongendo and Satteryo of Saitama Prefecture ("Kasai Water Use") reveals that in this case, a considerable change in agricultural water use has arisen. This change has occured in three areas: water rights, water use systems, and water management and use. Such change, in turn, reflects the strengthened control of agricultural water use by river managers.
With this rationalization as the momentum, on the one hand, orderly systeme of water rights developed from the intervention of river managers between agricultural water users and other users. And, on the other hand, management and use are divided within agricultural water use itself, with the formation of the internal order of agricultural water use resulting from the unification of the management aspect. These points require further examination.
2. Legal Issues of Rationalized Agricultural Water Use
In the areas where agricultural water use has been rationalized, "water rights", which had collectively represented various types of water utilization (collection, supply, irrigation, and use) has come to have a multi-layered composition resulting from the division of the function of each type of water utilization.
The diversion of water through rationalization has taken the form of a sale of water. Even if changed to a system of water rights based on official permission, the right to dispose of such water rights remains in the hand of the land improvement district. However, the transfer of water rights in relation to the diversion of water through rationalization is subject to certain restrictions. It may be regarded as so-called public purpose restrictions, which will require further examination as to their contents. In addition, intervention in the process of diversion by river managers are, to some extent, inevitable.
It is essential to examine the terms of restrictions to rationalized diversions and the intervention by river managers, as well as to establish the rules governing the sale of water rights.
3. Types and Problems of Water Use Disputes
Water use disputes can be divided into two major categories: those among the various types of agricultural water users and those between agricultural water users and other users. The causes of disputes among the various agricultural water users include: 1) new rice field development; 2) new agricultural water use projects, 3) improvements of water use facilities; and 4) responsibility for the costs of maintaining and managing such water use facilities. The disputes between agricultural water users and other users can be traced to: 1) overall developments of metropolitan water use; 2) development of power resources; 3) improvement of rivers; 4) deterioration of riverbeds; 5) rationalization of agricultural water use; and 6) damage to water quality due to industrical waste and residential effluents.
Since the end of World War II, among agricultural water uses, irrigation and drainage projects have been carried out and water supplies have shown relative improvement. And while old-fashioned forms of water use disputes have diminished, conflicts between agricultural users and the increasing demands of metropolitan water use or water use developments have begun to attract attention.
Characteristic of the water use disputes are that in settling of the water use disputes, administrative agencies are plaxing the role of mediator and/or arbitrator, while, on the other hand, the national and prefectural governments conduct water use enterprises and have come to hold their own rights in water use.

抄録全体を表示

Justus Wilhelm Hedemann (1878-1963) ist eine wichitige Figur, die vom Ende der kaiserlichen Zeit, über die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft bis zur Nachkriegszeit in der deutschen Privatrechtswissenschaft eine bedeutende Rolle spielte. Dieser Artikel bezweckt, den Wandel der Hedemanns Anschauung über die Generalklauseln zu analysieren.
Drei Stufen werden im Wandelungsprozeß festgestellt.
Die erste Stufe:
Vor dem ersten Weltkrieg und nosh im früheren Zeitraum der Weimarer Republik schätzte Hedemann die Funktion der Generalklauseln zur Rechtsentwicklung sehr hock ein.
Die zweite Stufe:
Das Aufwertungsproblem und die daraus resultierte Feindlichkeit des Reichsgerichts gegen den Gesetzgeber der Republik veranlaßten Hedemann, die nur positive Behandlung der Generalklauseln zu bezweifeln und seine bisherige Stellungsnahne zu wenden.
Die dritte Stufe:
Ende der Weimarer Zeit versuchte Hedemann unter die Anerkennung der politischen Diktatur, die angeblich eigentliche Funktion der Generalklauseln zu rekonstruiren. Wohin führte das?

抄録全体を表示

This article will study a trend of the sociology of law in England, centering around the theory of Alan Hunt in his book 'The Sociological Movement in Law' (1978).
Dr. Hunt examines the work of a limited number of key figures of modern sociology of law; Roscoe Pound, Karl Llewellyn, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Among them, he especially sets a high value on the work of Weber. Because, Weber is thought to give the sociology of law key concepts and relations; law and domination, law and state, and law and economic system.
Thus, Dr. Hunt concludes as follows; it is necessary for the sociology of law to demonstrate that questions about law inuolve major questions which confront contemporary society. Therefore, it will be hoped that he analyzes contemporary society from this point of view.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to examine the theoretical adequacy of Donald Black's The Behavior of Law. Black's aim in The Behavior of Law is to build a general theory of law that predicts and explains legal variation (behavior of law) in social place without regard to the individual as such. He treats law as observable quantifiable fact: the quantity of govermental social control measured by the rate of legislation, litigation and adjudication. Certainly his effort to understand law as a natural phenomenon seems to be quantiative, predictive and general in scope. However, the range of his theory is narrow to grasp the "legal phenomenon" in its totality. So I start by summarizing his theory to understand the theoretical structure of it. And then I raise some issues on the definition of law to make clear the theoretical limitations of his definition of law. Finally, I suggest a new approach that is concerned with understanding "social action" rather than with observing "behavior of law" and understands legal phenomenon within its social context as "the construction of social reality".

抄録全体を表示

In the development process of legal anthropology, its principal objective appeared to be renewed two times. The initial term 'primitive law' founded by Malinowski and developed by Hoebel was replaced during the 1960's by 'tribal law' as Gluckman advocated, which recently seems to be altered by some other terms especially 'folk law.'
This trend of the terms is not limited to the simple replacement of the words but means the significant development of the substantial scope of legal anthropology. 'Primitive law' was truly freed from the conventional doctrine of evolution but still tended to isolate law from the rest of the social settings. 'Tribal law' was adopted to observe law in the whole tribal life but tended to leave the official state law out of its sight. 'Folk law' is used to mean unofficial law functioning along with the official in both Western and non-Western countries, in other words, in legal pluralism which forms the most serious problem of contemporary legal anthropology.

抄録全体を表示

Although the rights of Australia's native people, Aborigines, to land had long been ignored, 1976, Aborigines' acquisition of title to their traditional lands was recognized in. For Aborigines, whose land was their sole property, the usurpation of those lands by the white man amounted to a loss of their traditional cultural values.
While the long struggle culminating in the recognition of Aboriginal land rights via the enactment of the Land Rights Act was attributable to the Land Rights Movement, on the other hand, the enforcement of the Land Rights Act may pose the danger of advancing the destruction of the traditional aboriginal groups.

抄録全体を表示

Latifundismo (ownership of large landed estate) is a feature which Spanishspeaking countries have in common, of which Spain and Mexico are two countries which somehow have experienced agrarian reform. In this article I have tried to pursue the features of agrarian reform laws of these two countries from standpoints of judicial history as follows:
(1) The origin of latifundismo is said to be due to the Spanish reconquer in Spain, Spanish conquer in Mexico, and the laws of Toro enacted in 1502 whereby amortización (amortization) of church property and commons as well as right of primogeniture were established.
(2) In the nineteenth century, laws of desamortización were enacted first in Spain (1812. 1813. 1822. 1823. 1837. 1841. 1855) and second in Mexico (1856. 1859) whereby church property and commons must be sold at auction. The purpose of these legislations was to create a class of small and medium ladholders, however, new bourgeois and great land holders bought these properties and enlarged their holding. Moreover, in Mexico, hundreds of thousands of small farmers lost their property by the Uncultivated Land Law which Porfirio Diaz enacted in 1894.
(3) The solution was carried over to Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) and Second Republic (1931-1939). The peak of Agrarian Reform in Mexico was under the Presidency of Lazaro Cárdenas (1934-1949) which was done under the ideal of collectivismo partially inherited from Aztecan tradition, Calpulli. Agrarian Reform of Second Republic began in earnest when Popular Front came into power in June 1936. and was set back by the victory of Franco. However, Franco undertook also a sort of reform through colonization, although incomplete.
(4) According to Malefakis, the land tenure system of Mexico remained far more unbalanced than that of Spain even after decades of agrarian reform. Thus, in 1940, after the presidency of Cardenas, Mexico had 9, 697 privately owned holdings of more than 1, 000 hectares each, which collectively occupied 61.9% of its total land surface. By contrast, in 1959, the 1, 078 Spanish holdings of this type occupied only 5.0% of the total area.

抄録全体を表示