本研究は今日的な課題である『エネルギー環境教育』の実践に着目し,アメリカにおけるNEEDプロジェクトの内容を用いて,初等中等教育における授業の提案をするものである。この方法を用いることにより,理科および技術科ではない小学校教員や中学校における総合的な学習の時間での授業に有効な方法を提示できる。

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines the formation of the 1879 Educational Code. Previous studies focusing on this issue were hampered by the limited number of historical materials available. This study analyzes part of the process, based on documents uncovered by the author, such as: archives of the Legislation Bureau, letters of its officials, etc. The results are as follows: 1) While the 1872 Educational Code included a variety of regulations, the 1879 Educational Code was the educational "law" that put in place a system of classifying official documents that was established by the Legislation Bureau in 1877. This included public matters relating to both government officials and the population. 2) In relation to the management of elementary schools, while the Ministry of Education regarded it as important that local officials encourage the population to participate, the Legislation Bureau considered the issue a matter of community autonomy, based on the spirit of the Three New Laws of 1878, making it difficult to encourage prefectural official involvement. 3) Genro-in did not intend to establish local autonomy in elementary education management, but due to differing interpretations of the law, they avoided detailing prefectural officials' authority in the matter. In practice, prefectural officials' authority was limited because the population understood that the 1879 Educational Code recognized locally autonomous management of elementary schools.

抄録全体を表示

In this article, I try to investigate how the judicial system was formed in the conflict regarding differing constitutional conceptions between the Meiji government and Jiyu-Minken Movement from the late 1870's to the 1880's. I examine the judicial reforms in 1876·77 and the debate about this in the Genro-In (Senate) in order to investigate the formation of judicial system.
The Meiji government tried to gain the people's confidence in the authority of the courts and carry out smoothly the policies of Tiso-Kaisei (the Land Tax Reform) and that of enhancing the wealth and military strength of Japan by the separation of justice and administrative business through the establishment of District Court in September 1876. However this separation was incomplete because the Inner Cabinet (Naikaku) administered arbitrarily the affairs of state on the whole that is, it intensified the right of the Minister of Justice to intervene in trials in 1876·77 placing the courts under the Inner Cabinet's control. This could have brought about the loss of the people's confidence in the judgements given by such courts and have made the people's disapproval of the policies change into the disapproval of the existing structure.
This problem was pointed out by the debate of Genro-In in 1877. It insisted on solidifying the position of the judiciary through the shared control between the three branches of government. This insistance involved two constitutional conceptions in opposition. One of these was the conception which would allow for direct government by the Emperor (Tenno). The other was the constitutional formation which would solidify the judiciary by ensuring that it was the means which would secure the rule of law.
Considering the above-mentioned facts, we can get a clue to the problem how the judicial system under the Constitution of the Empire of Japan was chosen from the various choices in the 1880's.

抄録全体を表示

The present article attempts to clarify the birth of monarchical constitutionalism on the occasion of a debate over a popularly elected parliament in 1874, by focusing on Motoda Nagazane (or Eifu) 元田永孚, who was Emperor Meiji's tutor in Confucianism. The introduction of a constitutional polity in the absence of a government not only displayed the strong character of a modernization measure and was thought to realize a political society supported by the masses and open public opinion, but also a parliament, constitution and separation of the legislative and administrative branches of government were expected to solve real problems that existed in local administration and politics at the time. The article begins with an examination of the actions taken by the Governor of Fukushima Prefecture Yasuba Yasukazu 安場保和 in order to clarify the era's parliamentary movement against the background of local administration and to argue that the fair and just nature (ko 公) of a constitutional polity was thought to be identical to traditional Confucian political ideals. Secondly, the introduction of a constitutional polity at that point in time was not the result of power politics fought along vertical, class lines, but was rather a specific political expression of what the Restoration bureaucracy thought desirable. On the other hand, the introduction of such a polity under well-meaning auspices from above also meant that the bureaucracy did not always seek broad pluralistic opinions on the subject, but rather tended to make policy decisions in a more theoretical manner. The 1874 debate over a popularly elected parliament brought the issue of mass popular political participation to the forefront in terms of "joint rule by king and citizen." It was here that Motoda Eifu suggested that in a monarchical state it was necessary to make a distinction between "public opinion" and "the just argument," arguing that it was the monarch who should employ the latter. Any parliamentary system in which the monarch enjoys ultimate prerogative, moreover, demands that the monarch have the ability to exercise that prerogative properly, which necessitated the development of a system of imperial advisors and educators. At that time there was also the idea that the position of senior political advisor (genro 元老) should be created outside of the cabinet to perform such a function. Motoda, on the other hand, reformed such an idea based on the necessity of a monarch performing his duties with the final say within a constitutional polity. This is why it can be said that both monarchical constitutionalism and the establishment of the emperor's prerogative within it was born out of the 1874 debate over a popularly elected parliament.

抄録全体を表示

従来、明治行政訴訟制度の研究については、個々の時代において行政訴訟制度がどのような役割であったのかについて論じた研究が幾つか存在した。本論においては、これらの従前の研究史を考慮の上、法令を重視しつつ、この明治行政訴訟制度の成立過程とこれに関係する周辺事項を中心に論考するものである。そして、明治行政訴訟制度の所管権限が、明治政府によって、司法裁判所からどのような変遷過程を経て分離され、最終的には行政裁判所の設置と共にその管轄に組み込まれていったのかを、行政権の権限集中化の観点から考察したものである。明治行政訴訟制度は、そもそも、江藤の司法改革の一環として発足したものであった。そのため、司法権(明治初期段階では司法省と司法裁判所が未分離の状態)が当初目指した行政訴訟制度の発足の趣旨は、人民救済の観点が強いものであった。ここに、わが国で初めての行政訴訟事件となった、所謂、小野組転籍事件が発生し、京都裁判所の所管から司法省臨時裁判所へ法廷が移され、明治六年の政変もあって、国家的事件に発展して行く。しかし、京都府の責任者であった槇村らの拘留が特命により解かれることで終局を迎えた。本事件の影響は大きく翌年の明治七年には司法省第二四号が布達され、行政裁判の事項は司法裁判所がこれを所管することが公に認められたものの、行政訴訟事件が司法裁判所に提訴された場合には、司法省を通じて太政官の正院に具上申稟することが義務付けられたのである。その後、全国的に行政訴訟事件が急増したことに伴い、明治一一年に明治政府は、行政処分願訴規則案を元老院に上程することとなった。しかし、この規則案の立法趣旨が行政訴訟を否定したものであり、行政官庁に人民が歎願するという形式のみを許すという前近代的なものであったため、元老院の反対によって廃案に至った。その後、明治政府は、新たな法律・勅令・太政官布告・司法省布達等の立法を順次制定することによって、司法裁判所の管轄である行政訴訟の裁判権に深く関与して行くのであった。やがて、明治政府は、その補助機関である法制局等を設置することにより、専門的に行政訴訟事件に対処して行く体制を整備した。その後、帝国憲法及び市制町村制が制定されることにより、明治政府は、明治二三年に行政裁判法を制定し、行政裁判所の設置を達成したのであった。ここに、明治政府は、司法権の行政権に対する牽制を排除することに成功したのである。また、行政裁判法の姉妹法である訴願法が同年に制定されたが、これら行政訴訟関係法令は、訴訟事項に列記主義を導入していたため、人民にとって、極めて権利救済の機会を抑止されたものとなった。本論では、この明治政府による小野組転籍事件以来の首尾一貫した行政権の権限裁量の確保を主眼とする明治国家体制が如何に行政権優位の体制であったのかを関係法令を通じて明らかにしようとするものである。

抄録全体を表示