The Article discusses various reports published within the issue including one by Shigenori Matsui on the abandonment of the task of the Supreme Court of Japan (SCJ) in performing judicial review, one by Stephen Givens on the court rulings of several cases involving corporate laws and another one by Hiroshi Itoh on the factors affecting the decision making of the SCJ.
The Article describes the role of research judges in the Supreme Court of Japan. It outlines the functions of research judges under Article 57 of the Judiciary Act of 1947 which engage in research necessary for trial and adjudication of a court case. It highlights the supplementary provisions to Article 57 which include the appointment of instructors at the Legal Research and Training Institute (LRTI).
In this Article, the author comments on the issues addressed by law professors J. Mark Ramseyer and Lawrence Repeta about the appointment of judges in the Japanese Supreme Court. He stresses the difficulty in measuring the productivity of judges as a basis for judicial appointment. He outlines the significant role of the Advisory Committee for Appointing Justices of the Supreme Court in providing a list of judicial candidates.
An Article on the responsibility of the Japanese Supreme Court in the selection and appointment of lower court judges is presented. It highlights the articles from law professors which addresses the appointment of judges including Lawrence Repeta and J. Mark Ramseyer. It stresses the need to increase the transparency in the lower court appointment process.
The Article examines the decision on the allocation of seats to private attorneys and scholars in the Japanese Supreme Court. It outlines the reallocation of reserved seats during the term of Chief Justice Ishida Kazuto from 1969 to 1973. It stresses the institutionalization of an appointment pattern designed to limit the individual rights declared in the Japanese Constitution.
The Article presents a study which explores the impact of educational backgrounds on the appointment of judges in the Japanese Supreme Court. According to the author, the productivity of judges is the primary factor for the appointment in the Supreme Court. It stresses the lack of evidence to justify the favoritism toward graduates from Kyoto University and the University of Tokyo.
In this Article, the author comments on the views of Professor Hiroshi Itoh about the approach of the Japanese Supreme Court towards constitutional precedents. He stresses the importance of precedents in the constitutional adjudication which creates constraints in the judicial decision-making. He outlines the role of precedents in the “Tsu City Ground-breaking Ceremony Case.”
The Article examines the use of precedents in the judicial decision making of the Japanese Supreme Court. It outlines the paradigms of the behavioral approach of judicial decision-making analysis which include the attribute, strategic and role paradigm. It is inferred that the use of judicial precedents act as a means of justifying and rationalizing the court ruling.
The Article discusses the “Bulldog Sauce” case of the Japanese Supreme Court which addresses corporate laws. It outlines the judicial efforts of the Japanese Supreme Court to utilize defensive techniques against corporate raiders. It highlights the Article 109 and 247 of the Company Law which have been considered by the Japanese Supreme Court in the decision making.
The Article explores the development of a conservative constitutional jurisprudence by the Japanese Supreme Court. It describes the process and the power of judicial review in the country. It stresses the reluctance of Japanese judges to consider the Constitution of Japan as a source of positive law to be enforced by the judiciary.
The Article focuses on the author’s comments to the article of Professor Shigenori Matsui which stresses the conservatism of the Japanese Supreme Court. It outlines the reluctance of the Japanese Supreme Court to judicialize politics through constitutional adjudication. It highlights the standards of judicial review which have been adopted from the German conceptual jurisprudence.
The Article focuses on the author’s comments to the article of Professor Shigenori Matsui about the conservative jurisprudence of the Japanese Supreme Court. It outlines the conduct of the Japanese Supreme Court as well as the legitimacy of its constitutional decisions. It describes an approach in the application of proportionality principle in the judicial review of fundamental constitutional rights.
In this Article, the author discusses the issues involving the Supreme Court of Japan (SCJ). It outlines the scholarly works of American law professors John O. Haley and David S. Law which focuses on the Japanese fiduciary. It stresses the gap between the perceived image and the reality of the Japanese fiduciary.
The Article focuses on the political and social roles of the Japanese Supreme Court to the society. It argues with the remarks made by law professors John O. Haley and David S. Law about the Japanese fiduciary. It outlines the judicial decisions of court cases in various areas including employment, divorce and protection against discrimination.
The Article focuses on the author’s views about the judicial decision making of the Japanese Supreme Court. It presents a comparative study of the constitutional adjudication in Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe. It outlines the provisions which differ the Japanese Constitution from the others including the freedom of occupation guarantee and the protection of individual rights.
The Article examines the political and institutional explanations for the failure of judicial review in Japan. It outlines the law reforms on the judicial process which affects the Supreme Court of Japan (SCJ). It concludes that the decision of the SCJ to discharge its responsibility for performing judicial review will be unlikely.
The Article focuses on the author’s views concerning the decision of the Japanese Supreme Court towards the election of members in the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. It highlights the Japanese Election Law which regulates the election of members in the Upper and Lower Houses. It stresses the disparities in voting power in large cities which violate the equality guarantee of the Japanese Constitution.