| Legal Hitory Review vol.48 (1998) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Summaries of Articles | ||
The Legislative Process of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government's Law
by Kuninobu OKA
Regarding the legislative process of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government's Law, nothing more than the general explanation “being legislated through the discussion of Hyōjōshū(評定衆)”is known.
The purpose of this article is to clarify the concrete process of legislation of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government's Law. Firstly, this article takes notice of the Re-abolishment of Human Traffic executed from 1239 to 1240 (延応元年〜二年).
Consequently, this article presumed Tsuikaho (追加法) item 112 (contained in volume I of Chūsei Hōsei Siryoshū(中世法制史料集)) was the Mandokoro(政所)'s draft and item 111 was Hyojōkotogaki (評定事書).
Accordingly, the Mandokoro(政所) was ordered to make draft of Re-abolishment of Human Traffic by the Bakufu.
Then this draft showed it was discussed and settled by Hyōjō (評定).
And then this article clarified that this series of law contained in Chūsei Hōsei Siryoshūenacted as an attachment of Tokusei Rei (徳政令) in 1297 (永仁五年) was the draft of Monchujo (問住所).
And those laws shown to make draft were ordered by the Kamakura-Bakufu Government.
Lastly,referring to Ēninsannenki (永仁三年記), this article examined the whole process from the beginning when an organ of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government was ordered to make draft by Tokusō (得宗) until the law was legislated.
On the Publication of “Horei Zensho”
by Akio OKADA
On the 2nd of July 1883, “Kanpou” (the Official Gazette) was began publishing. Within the same year, for the convenience of government officers, Dajoukan Bunschokyoku (The Great Council of State Printing Bureau) decided to publish the monthly slip of Tassi (circulars) and Kokuji (notices).
Based on the monthly slip, in 1884, Dajoukan Bunshokyoku was planning to publish “Tassi Kokuji Zenschuu”(The Collection of Circulars and Notices) and “Hukoku Hutatsu Zenshuu” (The Collection of Proclamations and Departmental Proclamations). This was a burdensome and far-reaching project. Because “Tassi Kokuji Zenshuu” would consist of the monthly slip of Tassi and Kokuji, the 3-month edition with the cumulated index and the annual edition with the cumulated index. Similarly, “Hukoku Hutatsu Zenshuu” was planning to be composed of the 3-month edition with the cumulated index and annual edition with the cumulated index. According to this project, Dajoukan Bunshokyoku had to edit and print 5 different editions simultaneously as chronological editions. At the same time, Dajoukan Bunshokyoku was planning to bring out a retrospective edition which would cover from 1867 (just before the foundation of Meiji Govt.) to 1884 (the chronological edition would cover from 1885).
Compared with the editing and printing efficiency of Dajoukan Bunshokyoku at that time, it was almost impossible to publish 6 different editions at the same time besides daily “Kanpou”. So, the publication project had to be altered. Dajoukan Bunshokyoku researched the systems for the collection of laws and regulations in European countries. So, it decided to reform the publication system of “Tassi Kokuji Zenshuu” and “Hukoku Hutatsu Zenshuu” before publishing any edition. This reformed new collection of laws and regulations was named “Hourei Zensho” (The Complete Collection of Laws and Regulations). This collection was also divided into two categories: The chronological edition which consisted of monthly slips from 1885, and the retrospective edition from 1867 (referred above) to 1884.
Although “Hourei Zensho”was also divided into a chronological edition and a retrospective edition, two big differences existed between the publication project of “Tassi Kokuji Zenshuu” and that of “Hukoku Hutatsu Zenshuu”. First of all, “Hourei Zensho” contained every form of laws and regulations; Hukoku and Hutatsu as well as Tassi and Kokuji. Secondly, the chronological edition of “Hourei Zensho” did not have the 3-month edition nor the annual edition. It only had monthly slips. Readers by themselves were supposed to compile 12 monthly slips and the index to the year into an annual bound volume. Much labor and trouble could be saved by publishing only the monthly slips and the retrospective edition.
In the process of editing the retrospective edition of “Hourei Zensho”, Dajoukan Bunshokyoku (later, called Naikaku Kanpoukyoku - The Cabinet Official Gazette Bureau) was conscious of the enactment of Meiji Kenpou (The Constitution of Imperial Japan). Because it thought that “Hourei Zensho” could be utilized as a means to check laws and regulations whether they were in force or not at the time of the enforcement of the Constitution. So, it settled the deadline for the publication of retrospective edition on the same day as the publication of the Constitution. But the project faced the burdensome work of finding laws and regulations issued from 1867. To make matters worse, in 1873, Dajoukan (The Great Council of State) building burnt down and many archives had disappeared. The project fell far behind the deadline, and was forced to put off the deadline until the day of the enforcement of the Constitution about a year and 9 months after the publication. This meant that the archival research for retrospective edition also had to be done urgently up to the day of the enforcement. So, the archival research which was made during 1889-1890 omitted almost 50 % of the laws and regulations issued during 1876-1887. The project was almost finished on March 1891, approximately 8 months before the day of the enforcement. Recently, the retrospective edition of “Hourei Zensho” gets a bad evaluation for omitting such a numerous number of laws and regulations. The main cause of the inaccuracy is suspected to have been the hasty process of its research and editing, suffering from the urgent deadline.
0n the Process of Change from Kankai Conciliation to Tokusoku Mahnverharen in the Meiji Era
by Makiko HAYASHI
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, therdore, to analysis the importance of Kankai within the Japanese legal system, and the process of evolution from Kankai to Tokusoku Mahnverfahren, 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 Mahnverfahren 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 was led from the Kankai's reform and the German Civil Procedure. It was forced to yield in the end to the more efficient and cost-effective system of Tokusoku.
Probleme über den deutschen Absolutismus in der Frühen Neuzeit.
Antworten auf die Rezensionen meines Buchs „Die Struktur des deutschen Absolutismus in der Frühen Neuzeit, 1994“.von Hideo SHINPO
In meinem Buch versuchte ich, die spezifisch frühmodernen Eigenschaften der absolutistischen Territorialgewalt mit der Beobachtung ihrer Begriffsbestimmungen,des Verhaltnisses der oberen und der niederen Hoheitsrechten,des Territoriums sowie der Untertänigkeit, der Rechtstitel, der Polizei und der Heeresverfassung zu untersuchen. In diesem Zusammenhang konnte ich die dualistischen Verhältnisse zwischen dem Landesherrn und den Landständen oder den anderen reichsunmittelbaren Herren aufhellen. Der Territorialstaat in der Frühen Neuzeit ist der „Polizeistaat und Militarstaat“ unter der Obrigkeit des die Förderung des „Gemeinwohls“ erstrebenden Landesherrn, aber er stand unter der Voraussetzung jener dualistischen Verhältnisse und der verschiedenen Untertanen. Der klassisch moderne Staat entstand im 19. Jahrhundert, als die Ausbildung der Souveränität, der den Staat bestimmenden Gesellschaft, der rationellen Bürokratie, der allgemeinen Wehrpflicht und des repräsentativen Parlamentarismus an die Stelle jener spezifisch frühmodernen Eigenschaften der absolutistischen Territorialgewalt traten.
Es war mir sehr dankbar und ehrenvoll, daß über das solchen Inhalt besitzende Buch ich viele wohlwollende Buchbesprechungen bekommen konnte und Symposien veranstaltet wurden. Ich möchte hier auf die dabei erhaltenen Kritiken in den folgenden Standpunkten antworten.
1) Periodisierung über die Frühe Neuzeit
2) Das verhaltnis zwischen dem Absolutismus und der Territorialgewalt Überhaupt
3) Der Kontrast zwischen der ersten und der zweiten Hälfte meines Buches: die begriffsgeschichtliche Forschung
4) „Territorium clausum“ et „Territorium non clausum“
5) Die zweischichtige Zusammensetzung der absolutistischen Territorialgewalt aus zwei Teilen: den herrschaftsbegründenden unteren Hoheitsrechten, Rechtstiteln, und den dadurch begründeten exklusiven oberen Hoheitsrechten, Kern solcher Territorialgewalt
6) Das Verhältnis zwischen der Polizei des 16. Jahrhunderts und der nach 17. Jahrhundert
7) Der Binomialantagonismus des Landesfürsten und der Landständen
8) Das Verhältnis zur Reichsverfassung
9) Die Wirksamkeit der vergleichenden Forschung
Indem ich die im Buch zitierten Quellen noch einmal prüfte und die neuen analysierte, konnte ich die Gerechtigkeit meiner Theorie im Grunde beweisen.