: Ξ,90,, 18 ( Edmund Burke),, 9 % 90 % ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;, 90,,, 1, 2,,,,,, :?? 2001 6 12 Ξ, ( ) 1 1994 11 15,, : Submission by the Government of the United States to the Judicial Reform Council, June 6, 2000, at http :/ / usembassy1state1gov/ tokyo/ wwwhjmain1html 2 :1198 (,2001 4 10 ) 69 74 73 7 (2001 ) 20 22,(Justizstaat) (Verwaltungsstaat),,,, 23
2002???,,,, 60, 3,, 1985, 4,, 1987, 1991,,,500 1000 5 1500,,, 1996 6, 11 1997 1998, 21, 6 1998 6 21, 7,1999 7,,, 12 8,2000 11,7,90,,,90, 1982 3, 3 ( 1965 ) (1967 5, 4 ( 1994 ) 186 187 5 (1995 11 13 ) 68 3 (1996 ) 6 See at http :/ / www1doyukai1or1jp/ database/ teigen/ 9701221htm, http :/ / www1keidaren1or1jp/ 21ppi/ japanese/ policy/ 19981222/ teigen1pdf, 7 49 8 (1998 ) 194 197 See also at http :/ / www1jimin1or1jp/ jimin/ saishin/ seisaku 131html 8 See at http :/ / www1kantei1go1jp/ jp/ shihouseido/ 1, 24 ),,: (1),(2), (3) 72 1 (2000 ) 44, http :/ / www1nichibenren1or1jp/ 9811011htm1,: http :/ / www1doyukai1or1jp/ database/ teigen/ 9911261htm, http :/ / wwwla1mesh1ne1jp/ keiei/ opinion/ opinion71html, http :/ / www1miti1go1jp/ kohosys/ press/ 0000632/ 0/ kisyohosei21pdf, http :/ / www1jimin1or1jp/ jimin/ saishin2000/ seisaku 0141html, http :/ / www121ppi1org/ japanese/ policy/ 200005/ b1pdf
,,, 9,,, 10,,,,,,?, 90,,,,,,,, :,,, 11,,,;,,,,,, :,,, 12 9 Cf1John O1 HaleyThe Myth of the Reluctant LitigantThe Journal of Japanese Studies Vol14,No12 (1978),J1Mark Ramseyer1 Japan s Myth of Non LitigiousnessThe National Law Journal, July 4,1983, ( ) 1985 6 11 ( ) 625 (1987 ) 10 : ( 1991 ), : (NTT 1993 ) 177 222 11 (1997 1 ) 4 12 1999 10 5,, 1198 ( 2001 4 10 ) 137 25
2002,,,,,,,(Rechtsstaat),(career system),,, (), ( 13 ) : (1), ; (2),,,,,,,, 14,,,,, 15,,,,,,,;,,, ;, 60,,, 16, 17, 1976, 18,:,70, 13 : ( 1994 ) 128 130 14 1994 2, 15 : 1990 11 1 5 (1991 ) 16, ()5 ( 1972 ) 17, 70 4 5 (1974 ), 18 : 8 ( 1983 ), 26 (1999 ) (1979 ), 43 (1991 ),
,, ;,,,, ;,,,, 1985,,,, 19 :,, : (), (), ( ),,,,,,,,1967 1996 vs1 1996 vs1 vs1, (one unified legal profession) ( ) 1928 1938, 1964,, 1967, 20,,,, 19(the forum of public opinion) (polycentric) (principle), (1988 ) (1998 ) ( 1988 ) 57 63 ( 1998 ),, ( 2000 ) 4 37 41 20()2 ( 1970 ) 1 4 ( ) 2 6 ( ) 27
2002 1996,,,,,, 21,,,,,, vs1,, ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,1996, 22 ( ), ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (),,10,,,,,,, 21 :, 53 (2000 ) 9 11 22 49 28 52 54
? : 23 : 24,1996,,,,,,, 25, (), (legal mind), 1998,,,(law school), 26,,,, () (jurors) (Schoffen,lay assessors),, (1999 11 19 ),,,,,,,, 27 () (ADR), ADR, 23, () ( 1999 ) 24 (1998 5 19 ), (1998 6 16 ), () (1998 6 22 ) 25, ( ) (1998 ),, () (23 ), 72 1 (2000 ) 26 () () 1127 1128 (1998 ) 1 ( 1999 ) () (1999 9 20 ) (1999 10 2 ), 72 8 (2000 ) 182 2739 1 (1999 ),() ( 2000 ), 73 7 (2001 ) 29
2002,,= vs1 =, ADR,,,, 28,ADR?, ;ADR, ADR (),ADR 1997 1998,2000,,,,, (), (),, :,,, ;,, ;, 30,,,2000 11 20,, 29 28ADR, 7 (2000 ), ADR ( 2000 ),ADR 51 1 (2000 ) 291137 (1998 ), 301996, 21 47 1 30 61 (1998 ),53 8 (2000 ),2, 6, 10 ()21 ( 2000 )
31,, 32,,, 21 (2001 6 12 ) (3 ) (3 ) (6 ) (2 ) (3 ),, ( ),, (),,: (1), (2),, 21,? :, 34,,,,,,,,(accountability), 36 (), 37 38 35 33 31 2001 4 (1198 ),2001 6,, (2001 ),()? (2001 ) 32 (2001 3 13 ) 33 (2001 6 12 ) 3 4 (see also at http :/ / www1kantei1go1jp/ jp/ sihouseido/ index1html) 34,5 35,6 36,7 8 37 1,1999 34. 6, 17 18 38, 19 21 31
2002 39 (, 40 ADR, 41 ADR 42 ), 1999 20. 5 10,,,,,, ( ),, 43 ( ), 44,,,,,, 45, 46,, 47,,, ( ), 48 () 2004 1500,2010 3000 ( 2001 1000 3 ), 2018 5 (2001 2 2,), 2020,3,2000 3 %70 % 80 % 2001,2010 49,,, : 42,,,,, 39 90 30 40,22 23 41,35 42,37 43,42 45 44,46 48 45,51 46,48 47,52 48,39 40 49,57 58 32
, ( 2001 5 8 ),,,,, 50,, ( ),, 51, : g, ;, ; g, ; g, ; g, ( ) 52,,,,,, 53 2004 4,3, 2,, 54 () ( ) :,,,, 55 : (1),, (2),,,,, :,,, 50,93 94 51,92 100 52,97 53,78 88 54,61 77 55,102 108 33
2002,,, 56,,,,,, 2001 7 26, 7 1, (),,,,,,, 57,,,,,,, 58,,,, 59,,,,,,,, 60, 56,98 99 109 110 57, 2001 8 2 58 :(19) 2 59 (21) 60 72 12 (2000 ), 34 53 (2000 ), 73 6 (2001 )
,,,,,,,,, 61, 62,,, 63,,,, 64,: ( ) ( ), ADR,, () (),,,,,() ( ), 20,,, WTO,,,,,,,, 61 ( ) 6 62 ( 1995 ) 288 63 72 1 (2000 ) 50 51 64,, 27 (1982 ) 192 35
2002,, 65 (path dependence),,,,,,,,,,,,1995 11 6,?,,,,,, 66 ; (, ),, : 2001 6 12 5, : (1),, (2), () ( ),?,(WTO),,,,,, 65() ( 2000 ) 66 67,, 66() ( ) 69 70 36,
,,,,,,,,,,, [ Abstract] The observation and elaboration of judicail reform now being under way in Japan may be made from two different aspects. One aspect is abstract based itself on the expectation of changes of the society. The other saspect is specific based itself on the demand of change of patterns of administration of state anddevolutionand relaxation of restrictions. This article mainly discusses the following issues :Why judicial reform becomes an impor2 tant political subject in Japan? What different opinions and stands in respect of aims and contents of judicial reform have been upheld by people from political and financial circles and people from legal community, and by people within legal community? What are major modifications and characters in the tentative ideas contained in the Letter of Suggestions that was drafted at the Meeting of Examination of Judicial System and submitted on June 12,2001? Can fundamental aims of judicial reform be realized? To answer all the above2mentioned questions,this article first reviews the social context,process of development of and basic propositions brought forward in the judicial reform in Japan,then examines a number of most important factors. On the basis of this effort,the author analyses the compli2 cated relationship between the social institution and judicial reform,and brings forward his personal predictions and observations in view of the obstacles that have already cropped up and are possibly to come up. 37