詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "南部甕男"
6件中 1-6の結果を表示しています
  • 小田中 聡樹
    法制史研究
    1980年 1980 巻 30 号 312-315
    発行日: 1981/03/30
    公開日: 2009/11/16
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 最も利用された紛争解決制度の考察
    林 真貴子
    法制史研究
    1998年 1998 巻 48 号 61-91,en6
    発行日: 1999/03/30
    公開日: 2009/11/16
    ジャーナル フリー
    Unlike the Western legal system of the late 19th century where the emphasis was soundly based on the importance of making decisions, in the Japanese legal system in the same periods, Kankai conciliation played more important role.
    The main purpose of this paper is, therefore, to analysis the importance of Kankai within the Japanese legal system, and the process of evolution from Kankai to Tokusoku Mahnverfaren, which started in 1891, in regard to importance and reasons of evolution.
    Dispute resolution from the 1875 to 1890 were mainly based on Kankai, and approximately eighty percent of the litigation was resolved by Kankai. The other twenty percent of the litigation was solely based on adjudication. Kankai was largely in favor of the defendant, being able to assert claims on an equal standpoint against the plaintiff. The judges conciliated both interveners, and when the defendant did not accord, the plaintiff had to newly bring an action.
    This process was, however, greatly changed from the 1890s onwards with the introduction of Tokusoku Mahnverfaren system of dispute resolution. The plaintiff was to put forth his claim to court which would then make a decision without hearing the defendant's opinion.
    This procedure was different from that of Kankai where there was communication between the plaintiff and the defendant.
    This change in the process of dispute resolution in Japan did not take place mainly as a result of the introduction of German Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung vom 30. Januar 1877). It was rather a result of the way in which this law was interpreted and transmitted in drafts form to the courts which played a greater role in the transition stages which took place from about 1886 to 1890. In this period, traditional Kankai declined in popularity, and generally speaking the process of dunning in litigation was generally taken by the courts. The judgment record in Osaka District Court gives authenticity to this idea. Kankai had changed its own procedure to dunning. It seems reasonable to suppose that Tokusoku wasled from the Kankai's reform and the German Civil Procedure. It was forced to yield in the end tothe more efficient and cost-effective system of Tokusoku.
  • 市川 美佐子
    日本の教育史学
    1977年 20 巻 4-19
    発行日: 1977/10/05
    公開日: 2017/06/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 臨時法制審議会における行政裁判所の役割を手掛かりにして
    小野 博司
    法制史研究
    2009年 58 巻 47-81,en5
    発行日: 2009/03/30
    公開日: 2014/03/31
    ジャーナル フリー
    本稿の目的は、昭和三年の行政裁判法改正綱領の歴史的意義およびその策定に対する行政裁判所の役割を明らかにすることである。
    日本における行政裁判制度の歴史を取扱った従来の研究のほとんどは、明治国家システムにおける行政裁判の特徴の解明を目指して、明治二三年の行政裁判法の制定過程に関心を集中されてきた。そしてまた、こうした先行研究の多くは、戦前と戦後の行政裁判制度の違いを前提にして、行政裁判所を「過去の遺物」と捉え、その内部実態を本格的に分析することはなかったのである。
    これに対し、本稿は、第二次世界大戦後の行政訴訟法制の制定にあたって昭和七年の行政訴訟法案が基礎資料として重要視され、そして一部は法制に取り入れられた事実を重視して、この行政訴訟法案の基礎である昭和三年の行政裁判法改正綱領の内容および歴史的意義を明らかにすることで、行政訴訟制度史研究に新たな地平を開拓することを目指した。また、行政裁判法改正綱領の策定にあたって行政裁判所が主導的な役割を果たしている点に注目し、行政裁判所においてそのような改革構想が生み出されてくる背景に自己の政治的影響力の増大という目的があることを明らかにした。
    その結果、従来の研究では、単に行政活動の法的正当性を担保するだけの機関であると考えられてきた行政裁判所が、実は、他の行政機関からの独立を強く求めており、改革構想もそういった動きのなかで作りだされたことを明らかにしたのである。幸いにも、この行政裁判所の改革構想は政治体制の民主化を求める国民から支持され、さらに弁護士や法学者の協力を得て、行政裁判法改正綱領の完成に至ったのである。しかしながら、国民の権利救済と行政統制を内容とする行政裁判法改正綱領は、内務省が計画した新たな国民統合政策(普選・治安維持法体制)の実現にとって障碍になるものと考えられたために行政官僚たちの強い抵抗に遭い、挫折してしまったのであった。
  • 前橋始審裁判所判決例から
    瀧川 叡一
    法制史研究
    1994年 1994 巻 44 号 1-41,en3
    発行日: 1995/03/30
    公開日: 2009/11/16
    ジャーナル フリー
    "Civilprocedure" (1885), showed to Mr. Kirkwood, said, Hikiainin (_??__??__??_) is a intervener in civil process. I found several judgements of Maebashi-Shishinsaibansho (court of first instance), from 1877 to 1882, now preserved by Maebashi-district court, gave decisions against or in favor of Hikiainin as interveners. This usual practice was not derived from French law, but from the precedent of court in Tokugawa era.
    This paper analyzes the grounds of the above-mentioned derivation, and explains legal character of Hikiainin in the early Meiji period.
  • 国分 航士
    史学雑誌
    2015年 124 巻 9 号 1545-1579
    発行日: 2015/09/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    During the late Meiji era, the Imperial Household Research Committee headed by Ito Hirobumi 伊藤博文 drafted laws and ordinances pertaining to the imperial family system. Imperial Ordinance pertaining to state documentary forms (Koshikirei 公式令) enacted in 1907 is one of the most representative laws the Committee was involeved in. The present article outlines the process involved in the enactment of this ordinance and examines its impact on issues pertaining to the commissioner of coronations, in order to focus attention upon the emergence of debate over the relationship between the "imperial court" and "provincial offices" during the era of Meiji Constitutionalism and upon the perceptions held by the two entities. Deputy Governor Ito Miyoji 伊東巳代治, who interpreted the Imperial Household Research Committee's focus to be one prescribing imperial affairs through a judicial system, worked to reinterpret its affairs in a "constitutional" context by recognizing the existence of ambiguous margins when attempting to categorize matters into those of the imperial court and those of the provincial offices. The Koshikirei was revised to expand the scope of the Imperial Household Ordinance (Koshitsurei 皇室令) further than the Committee's original draft submitted to the Emperor, leading to the creation of the imperial rescript and the imperial writ documentary forms, in addition to the Imperial Household Ordinance itself. This enactment process not only gave rise to contradictions between existing imperial ordinances and the Imperial Household Ordinance, but also became the cause of a debate regarding the commissioner of coronations that occurred later on during the early Taisho era. The commissioner of coronations was responsible for state ceremonial affairs, including the Emperor's enthronement ceremony and Daijo-sai 大嘗祭, the first fruits festival celebrating imperial succession. Regulations Governing the Accession to the Throne in the Imperial Household Ordinance enacted in 1909 provided that the commissioner of coronations shall be appointed by the imperial court, and in 1913, the commissioner was established through imperial order. The above official interpretation also stirred debate concerning the relationship between the imperial court and provincial offices, in addition to its form of promulgation. The Diet and the Cabinet, which constituted the "provincial" entity at the time, debated over the positioning of the two entities. The matter was also referred to the Privy Council after the Imperial Household Ministry filed for mediation. Consequently, both parties came to recognize the subtly inseparable nuances between what should be considered "imperial" and "provincial", which had seemed clearly distinct and in principle contrasting from the time of the establishment of the cabinet system.
feedback
Top