The current Japanese Constitution prescribes "Judiciary" on the seven clauses, from Article 76 to Article 82 in the 6th chapter. Neither the Diet nor the Cabinet is named due to their functioning powers, but the Judiciary is named due to its functioning power. The Meiji Constitution had the same chapter names. So it wouldn't be possible to find the special meaning there. But to use the same chapter names means that there are so big difference between the old and the new constitution in the impression received from and the contents to put the word Judiciary. Of course it is usually described that there is great difference between the old and the new constitution in their territory and authority and that is clear when we compare the actual systems. However the more its difference is emphasized in the actual system, the more we miss a lot of things. In this paper, I have tried to examine what kind of the Judiciary system was tried to be envisaged when the current Constitution was drafted, and at least, until its enforcement the Court Act was legislated upon review of the discussion that has been done around the judiciary. In particular, I have tried to clarify the issue of reappointment of the judges and the term of office of the judges of the inferior courts.

抄録全体を表示

Art. 81 Japanische Verfassung bestimmt die Befugnis, "Der Oberste Gerichtshof ist das Gericht letzter Instanz, das die Befugnis daruber zu entscheiden hat, ob die einzelnen Gesetz, Verordnung, Vorschriften, und Ve rfu-gungen mit der Verfassung in Ubereinstimmung stehen oder nicht." Und Artikel 76, Absatz 1, bestimmt "Die Justizgewalt liegt samt und sonders beim Obersten Gerichtshof und den nach Massgabe des Gesetzes eingerichteten Unteren Gerichtshofen." Damit ist ausgelegt worden, dass auch Unteregericht die Befugnis hat, die Verfassungswirdrigkeit der Verwaltungsakte etc. zu entscheiden. Weil der Oberste Gerichtshof die letzte Instanz ist, wird der Oberste Gerichtshof nach dem Volkmund "der Huter der Verfassung" genannt. Folglich ist es kein Wunder, dass unter den Entscheidungen des Unteren Gerichta gibt es Urteil, die den Prayedenzien des Oberste Gerichtshofes widersprechen. Hiermit mochte ich als ein Beispiel solches Urteile, ein Urteil eines Fukuoka Landesgerichts anzugeben und es kommentieren. In diesem Gericht wurde der Fall uber den Schreinbesuchedes ehemaligen Ministerprasidenten "Koizumi" verhandelt und um die Verfassungswirdrigkeit dieser Akte gestritten, weil Artikel 20 Absatz 3 bes timmt, "Der Staat und seine Organe haben sich der religiosen Erziehung und jeder anderen Art religioser Betatigung zu enthalten." Dauber hat das Fukuoka Landesgericht den Schreinbesuch von Koiyumi verfassungswidrig erklart und die Anklage des Anklage des Anklager abgewiesen. Ich mochte bei dieser gelegenheit dieses Urteil aufnehmen und es kommentieren.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は, わが国における国民の司法参加の諸制度が, どのような原理によって基礎づけうるかについて検討するものである。第一に, 本稿の意義と課題を述べたうえで, 第二に, これまで国民の司法参加として理解されてこなかった, 法律による裁判所の設置, 法律による裁判の原理, 裁判官の選任手続, 裁判官弾劾制度などについて, 代表民主主義の観点から, これらを司法参加の制度と定位すべきと主張した。そして, 第三に, 民事司法における国民の参加の制度に関して, その多様な形態を概説したうえで, その意義について分析した。これら民事司法における参加は, 刑事司法における参加とは異なり, 裁判所内部で蓄積されていない専門性を外部から調達しようとするものである。国民の司法参加を正統化する原理は, 参加の形態が多様であることと同様に, 一様ではないことを明らかにした。

抄録全体を表示

In modern bourgeois states, two types of criminal procedure have evolved historically and exist now; a continental type of officialist criminal procedure called “half-inquisitorial and half-accusatory”, and an Anglo-American type of more accusatory and adversary criminal procedure.
The continental type of criminal procedure has its essence in the procedure before trial (especially in the procedure of Voruntersuchung) which maintains the inquisitorial procedure approximately as it is, and therefore, this can be called inquisitorial proceeding by Untersuchungsrichter, in that it makes Untersuchungsrichter a substantial judge for all criminal procedures. It is generally known that this “inquisitorial proceeding by Untersuchungsrichter” takes its original form in the French Criminal Procedure of 1808, and that the Prussian Criminal Procedure of 1847 and the German Criminal Procedure of 1877 belong to this type. But these two types of modern criminal procedure have been made several revisions in each country.
In Japan the Criminal Procedure of 1880 and that of 1890 received the French Criminal Procedure of 1808, and the Criminal Procedure of 1922 was under the great influence of the German Criminal Procedure. As regards the old Criminal Procedure of 1922, entirely amended by the new Criminal Procedure of 1948, the previous “inquisitorial proceeding by Untersuchungsrichter” was revised and evolved to “inquisitorial proceeding by a prosecutor”. However, the reformations and revisions in each country did not result in the abandonment of the “original type”.
From this discussion, our problems can be set up as follows. First, what is the fundamental cause of the formation and development of these two types? Secondly, what is the cause of the development from “inquisitorial proceeding by Untersuchungsrichter to the “inquisitorial proceeding by a prosecutor”?
In this paper, I dare focus my research on the second problem with a perspective of the first problem.

抄録全体を表示

It is a distinctive feature of the post-war system of judiciary nurture to train uniformly judges, procuratorial officials and the bar in the Judicial Research & Training Institute within the province of the Supreme Court. The author has analyzed the conditions of working and the policy of projecting reformation of its system by virtue of the import of the discussion in the Consultative Committee of the Administration on the Judicial Trainig.

抄録全体を表示

This paper studies a movement in Japan in the 1970s and 1980s for a new adoption system to give women reproductive freedom by providing an alternative to abortion. The study examines why the adoption movement resulted in failure and reveals how concurrent campaigns to restrain abortion influenced this failure. In 1973, Dr. Noboru Kikuta publicly confessed to arranging 100 illegal adoptions using false birth certificates in cases of unwanted pregnancy to protect the mothers and save their fetuses. Subsequently, he started a movement to deny abortion to any woman past her seventh month of pregnancy, when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, and to establish a new adoption system protecting women's privacy in records of childbirth and adoption to provide an alternative to abortion. However, jurists did not embrace the protection of unmarried mothers from stigma and the Special Adoption Law established in 1987 did not reflect Kikuta's proposal. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Kikuta developed his movement, some religious groups and politicians criticized the Eugenic Protection Act, which was enacted in 1948 and allowed abortion within the seventh month. They campaigned to amend the act to prohibit most abortions and include disabled fetuses in eugenic policies instead. However, feminist and disabled people's groups protested against and frustrated the campaigns. As a side effect of this controversy, Kikuta's movement for a new adoption system was seen as being radically pro-life or anti-feminist. Moreover, obstetricians making a living by performing abortion and feminists did not actively support him. Kikuta's new adoption system was a simple proposal to protect fetuses' lives and add to women's choices, but the concurrent anti-abortion campaigns made Kikuta's beliefs and actions seem overly political. Kikuta's failure and the present situation of adoption in Japan are representative of the limitations of women's reproductive freedom in Japan.

抄録全体を表示

二次世界大戦が終結してから六〇年が経過した現今、「戦後」を対象とした歴史研究が盛んであり、法史学の立場からの言及も見られるようになってきた。本稿は如上の現況を踏まえ、「占領史研究」の立場からの戦後改革研究、及び、実定法学者による占領期法制改革研究の中から、「戦後日本法史」あるいは「現代日本法史」の構築に資すると筆者が考える業績を紹介するものである。その前提として、第二次世界大戦後の我が国における「占領管理」の枠組みと、その実施のために用いられた「ポツダム命令」を中心とする法令についても若干の検討を試みた。
この領域で最も研究が進んでいる日本国憲法の制定過程についての研究は、一九五〇年代の憲法調査会の活動により先鞭がつけられたが、アメリカ側史料の公開と日本側史料の整理が進んだことにより、多角的視点による通史的叙述、逐条的な実証研究、占領側の多様性の分析、本格的な史料批判などが行われている。それ以外の法領域については、本稿では一九四六年に設けられた臨時法制調査会の活動に即して研究動向を紹介したが、多くの法領域では、日本側立法関係者の同時代的な研究及び史料翻刻に加え、アメリカ側史料の利用がようやく始まった段階である。
地方制度改革・教育改革・経済改革などの「占領史研究」が盛んな分野では現在、占領政策の実施過程への関心が高まりつつある。「戦後日本法史」あるいは「現代日本法史」は、戦後占領期の我が国における「アメリカ法継受」のあり方の検証も視野に含めて、これらの研究に積極的に応答する必要があるが、そのためには洗練された方法論が不可欠である。

抄録全体を表示