Theories of justice premise that we can articulate and formulate the universal, comprehensive, and public justice. ‘Justice’ as such has affinity with ‘law’ or ‘adjudication.’ In the modern society, nevertheless, autonomous law, structurally differentiated from the other functional systems, has fundamental gaps from justice, though still making, or believing, its integrity and identity based on justice. In some situations, ‘justice’ is even invoked to criticize and reject law. Sociology of law, that is originally a reflection on excessive doctrinarism and dogmatism in jurisprudence, may utilize its sensibility when discussing and dogmatizing justice.

抄録全体を表示

What was distinctive about this mini-symposium was that two reports among four were made from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint (Kai Hiraishi and Atsushi Naito). Thus the commentator first summarized orthodox juristic and psychological views on law and justice, and then gave an account of the background and the significance of the evolutionary psychology viewpoint. The comments in view of this are as follows.　i）Along the course of evolution of homo sapience, who administered punishment for betrayal, how were the free-rider problems dealt with, and how was the punishment for betrayal systematized?　ii）How should evolutionary psychology interpret the times when primitive trials arose in magical or religious rituals? How is it related to procedural justice that is the essence of trials?　iii） What is the relation between the system of punishment for betrayal and a sense of injustice that was derived from the social brain homo sapience developed? Was there the estrangement between these two?

抄録全体を表示

The origin of justice and its evolutionary functions are theoretically reconstructed. The origin of social norms/law and their evolutionary functions are also theoretically reconstructed. The relationship between justice and social norms/law is critically analyzed. The selection pressure in human evolution of 2 million years of the Pleistocene gave our ancestors the evolutionary advantage of acquiring the notion of justice and social norms/law and of behaving, feeling, and evaluating accordingly. The kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and intergroup selection all worked for human to behave, feel, and evaluate like human in order to enhance his/her evolutionary fitness. Since the evolutionary process is stochastic and recursive, and since the population genetics is a statistical dynamics, the distributions of various conceptions of justice, social norms, and law on the human population do not and cannot converge even in equilibrium. In the case of law, the results of social choice theory and public choice theory suggest that legislative process introduces additional complexity to law. The evolutionary perspective sheds new lights on the relationship among law, social norms, and justice.

抄録全体を表示

Psychological justice research has mainly focused on the citizen, not judicial officers, and found that they evaluate and react to judicial events from the viewpoint of not only self-interests but also justice and fairness. Based on the empirical methodology, psychologists have addressed three basic issues of justice: By what cognitive processes do people shape a justice perception, what kinds of behavioral or psychological responses does the perception of justice or injustice motivate, and why are people concerned with justice, that is, what is the source of justice concerns? Whereas the citizen is regulated by the law and enjoys its service, they also support or criticize the law based on their social norms. Since justice is a part of the social norm, it can be argued that justice endorses and underlies the law. On the other hand, the social norm is formed through people’s social experiences, including culture and the developmental environment, which are determined by the law events, suggesting a cyclic relationship of justice and the law in which both influence each other. From this point of view, comments to presentations by three symposiasts were made.

抄録全体を表示

生活することに特別なニーズや課題を抱えたひとたちがいる。なんらかの障害、老いに伴うまま ならない事態、病気による諸困難、多数の人とは異なる特性をもつ人たち等は生きづらさに直面し やすい脆弱性をもつ。このなかからさらに問題行動、逸脱行動、触法行動へと至ることもある。筆 者は、司法の理念である正義の実現(ジャスティス)はこうした要支援ニーズをもつひとたちに対し て回復ややり直し(ケア)を接ぎ木するべきであると考え、そのための臨床を DV と虐待の加害者に 試みている。その考えをさしあたり「治療的司法」と呼ぶことにして、社会はそのための機会と資源 を開発、提供すべきであるということを検討したい。さらに法は家庭に入らずということで親密な 関係性における暴力は長く放置されてきた。保護命令や接近禁止命令の一環として多様な行動変容 の機会を提供すべきであることもこの視野に入れておきたい。被害者のケアと加害者の更生の統合、 自己流の問題解決行動としての嗜癖的な行動を解決する司法が求められている。

抄録全体を表示

東欧のヴィシェグラード4カ国では，2019年12月の段階でポピュリスト的な政党が与党の座にあるが，その経済政策にはポーランドの

のばらまき型，ハンガリーのフィデスの擬似ネオリベラル型，およびチェコのアノの折衷型という相違がある．この政策の相違は，主として各国の政党間の経済政策をめぐる対立の形の違い，並びに各政党の支持を求めるターゲットの違いから説明することが可能である．

抄録全体を表示

Underlying the problem of “the conflict between law and justice” there is a presupposition that they should be consistent with each other, and that the foundational value for legal system is “justice.” This presupposition has been rooted in the culture of European legal tradition, and is currently inherited in the contemporary liberalism. The reason why the view that law and justice should be consistent and integrated is alive and appears attractive even today seems that it is strongly related with the idea that the legal system is, and should be, autonomous from other subsystems of society, such as politics and economy. The “justice” is supposed to be the ultimate value for the legal system, which is absolute and independent from any other values in society. To worship “justice” as the ultimate value seems to guarantee, for believers, the autonomy of legal system. Of course, this autonomy of legal system is simply a fiction. The three presentations in the symposium commonly showed a critical stance to this fictitious idea of autonomy of law. This is certainly understandable, because the standing point of sociology of law as an empirical science is entirely oppositional to the traditional self-identification of legal system as autonomous one. Nevertheless, it seems that taking a critical stance to the fictitious idea of autonomy of law does not necessarily mean that sociology of law should take an external view-point toward legal system. Indeed sociology is an empirical science. But it is still an enterprise within a society. Knowing that a society is composed of various fictitious ideas, sociology, including sociology of law, should still take an internal view to the society.

抄録全体を表示

In this article, I discussed the possibility of empirically approaching from a psychological perspective to the legal concept of “justice.” The discussion was mainly based on the review of recent developments in the area of social psychology as well as on the four papers presented in this mini-symposium. First, findings from social psychological studies that emphasize the distinction between distributive and procedural justice were discussed. Furthermore, recent research in diverse forms of justice such as retributive and restorative justice was reviewed. Next, I summarized the current state of the “morality boom” that can be found in recent psychological research. In particular, the gist of major theories such as Moral Foundation Theory, the intuitionist model of morality, and the Relational Model Theory was presented. I then critically evaluated the potential contribution as well as the limitations of the evolutionary perspective. Finally, on the basis of the contrast between normative and empirical theories (represented by the theories of law and psychology, respectively), I pointed out the possibility of mutual collaboration between these two fields. The significance of a meta-theoretical perspective was emphasized.

抄録全体を表示

Franz Kafkas Romanfragment Der Proceß gilt seit der Nachkriegszeit als ein paradigmatischer Text für eine Situation, in der ein Unschuldiger angeklagt und bestraft wird. Vor allem im ausgehenden 20. Jahrhundert, als die kultur- und sozialhistorische Kafka-Forschung aufblühte, sahen darin immer mehr Interpreten eine Kritik an der bestehenden Rechtsordnung seiner Zeit. Während z.B. Wulf Segebrecht (1997), der Kafkas Roman im Kontext der literarischen Tradition der „poetischen Gerechtigkeit“ betrachtete, noch die Mehrdeutigkeit und Uninterpretierbarkeit des Romans betonte, reduzierte ihn Theodore Ziolkowski (1997), wenn auch vorsichtig, entschiedener auf die historische Realität und glaubte, in den grotesken Verhältnissen, die der Protagonist Josef K. erlebt, ein verzerrtes Bild des „subjektivistischen“ Rechtssystems des fin de siècle in Österreich-Ungarn zu finden.

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示