Sato Junichi

What does comparative constitutional law mean? A very large number of scholars write and talk about comparative constitutional law. However, how is it best to compare constitutions? A constitution embodies a constitutional code (the constitution in its formal sense) and substantive protection of human rights and separation of powers within the system of government as found in Article 16 of France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, for example. To compare constitutional codes, for whatever results you would like to achieve and compare constitutions in any substantive way, is in reality very difficult to write or talk about. This article tries to demonstrate that comparative constitutional law is possible. To demonstrate this, we will start with the conception of the "incommensurability" of a constitution.

Title:Rethinking Comparative Constitutional Law. What does comparative constitutional law mean? A very large number of scholars write and talk about comparative constitutional law. However, how is it best to compare constitutions? A constitution embodies a constitutional code (the constitution in its formal sense) and substantive protection of human rights and separation of powers within the system of a government as found in Article 16 of France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, for example. To compare constitutional codes, for whatever results you would like to achieve and compare constitutions in any substantive way, is in reality very difficult to write or talk about. This article tries to demonstrate that comparative constitutional law is possible. To demonstrate this, we will start with the conception of the "incommensurability" of a constitution.

オーストラリアにおける差別表現規制について，国際人権法学会から依頼された報告に基づき執筆した。報告においては時間の関係もあり判例はあまり詳細に紹介できなかったが，本論文では紙幅の許す限り詳細に紹介したうえで，特徴と問題点について論じた。国際人権条約実施という観点からは優れた点もあるが，オーストラリアは成文憲法を有するにも関わらず憲法に人権規定がほとんどなく，表現の自由保障との関係で重大な問題があることを具体的に論じた。

This is an introductory study concerning the implications of the human rights 'entrenchment' in a written constitution. In Japan, almost all constitutional scholars argue that the provisions of a bill of rights in a written constitution is necessary for the protection of human rights. However, a court's power to declare the statute's constitutionality sometimes does not work even if the legislative branch of government infringes on human rights. In contrast, the Commonwealth of the Australia Constitution Act [the Constitution] has no bill of rights. But various indices, e.g., Andrew Fagan, "The Atlas of HUMAN RIGHTS", sometimes indicate that human rights protection in Japan and Australia is equal. In the first section of this article I discuss some reasons. The second section discusses the meanings of "entrenchment" in constitutional context. To discuss this theme, this article compares the human rights protection in Australia and in Japan. This article does not argue whether or not the Commonwealth of Australia or States of Australia should have a bill of rights. In Australia, the Federal Government has no bill of rights in its written constitution, and did not enact

In almost all modern states, anti-terror legislation was concerned with domestic public order except for police action by the armed forces. However, after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States and United Kingdom created a permanent anti-terrorist legislation. The UK has had a long history of temporary anti-terror legislation, e.g., the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939, and the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 (Northern Ireland). However the UK recently created permanent legislation. Especially from 2000 to 2008, the UK has created considerable amount of legislation, e.g., the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (c.2), the Terrorism Act 2006 (c.11), and the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. International security experts have pointed out repeatedly in anti-terror legislation that military power is not appropriate. In light of this problem, we must consider that UK has used the derogation clause, Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, usually called the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). I discuss Article 15 case laws of the ECHR, and of the UK domestic courts. From this

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair took a false step for participation in the Iraq War, and lost the public support. However, he advanced the Consitutional Reform which hung by manifest of New Labor, i.e., Human Rights Act 1998, Reform of House of Lords, Reform oof Judicial System (Consitutional Reform Act 2005), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and ohters. Present Prime Minister Gordon Brown seems to have executed the Constitutional Settlement, i.e., Written Constitution as he declared in The Govenance of Britain (CM7170) and Constitutional Settlement. What is the background of this situation? The United Kingdom was circumspect in putting into practice the policy of European Union. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are similar in this respect. However,since European Union tried to enact The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), so many commentators in the UK tend to discuss about Constitutionalism. This paper discusses the linkage between Constitutionalism in the UK policy and that of the TCE.

日本の最高裁判例について，第一に，最高裁判所判事の任期はそれほど長くないため，判決に一貫性を見出すのは困難である。第二に，しかし，ある程度学説の影響を受けて，詳細な判決理由を提示するようにはなっている。これらのことが，従来から，違憲判断が少なかった理由であるといわれてきた。しかし内閣法制局が，従来，法案を厳重にチェックしたうえで国会に提出していたことが，違憲判断が少なかった理由として重要であると解される。これらを，特に最高裁判所の2007年までの違憲判決を中心に分析した。なお，シンポジウムの一部としての論考であり，判例の紹介を若干詳細に行っているが，英文での日本の最高裁違憲判決紹介はそれほど多くなく，英文で日本国憲法を論ずる多くの著書論文で引用されている。

We have not yet analyzed the right to receive an education of Japanese as a second language(JSL) from the perspectives of constitutional law and the International Human Rights Law.In this article, I will analyze the right to receive and education of JSL. In this article, I will discuss the following: 1. Do the Constitution of Japan and the International Covenant guarantee the right to receive an education of JSL ? 2. What does "multicultural symbiosis" mean in the right to receive an education of JSL ? 3. What is the mutual relationship between the "multicultural symbiosis" and "Constitutionalism" ?

This paper considers the "Amendments to this Constitution"(Article 96-I of the Constitution of Japan) and "amendments"(revisions)to the Fundamental Law of Education from the perspective of patriotism and nationalism. This paper discusses the following:1.The "Revision to the Fundamental Law of Education" of the Liberal Democratic Party is an outcome of distorted patriotism;2.As a matter of course, "Revision to the Fundamental Law of Education" shares basic recognition with the "Draft for a New Constitution" proposed by the Liberal Democratic Party;3.The"Revision to the Fundamental Law of Education" and "The Imperial Rescript on Education" both shares the same nationalistic ideology.

This article considers "the Rights to Control Self-Information" and "Privacy", from teh perspective of the Gaskin Judgment(European Court of Human Rights). The Gaskin Judgment stated that"...persons in the situation of the applicant have a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to know and to understand their childhood and early development...a system like the British one,...Such a system is only in conformity with the principle of proportionality if it provides that an independent authority finally decides whether access has to be granted in cases where a contributor fails to answer or withholds consent"."The principle of proportionality" is useful for the interpretation of the "Constitution of Japan" and "Acts for Protection of Personal Data".

“national security”概念について取り上げている代表的な判決である、Rehman 判決を素材に、ヨーロッパ人権裁判所の示す「裁量」（discretion）概念と、伝統的な、行政庁の持つ「自由裁量」概念の意識的あるいは無意識的な混用が、特にイギリスにおける「外国人」の人権を制約する結果となる、内務大臣の裁量を広く認める傾向を助長しているのではないか、と主張した。

A, X, Y, & Others[2002] EWCA Civ 1502(25 Oct 2002)を中心に、国家の安全保障を理由とする人権侵害、具体的には国籍を理由とした差別の問題を権利章典との関係でいかに判断すべきかを法的に正当化しようとするプロセスを考察した。本稿は、ヨーロッパ人権条約を国内法化したイギリスが法的な面で多くの対応を迫られていることを憲法学の視点から批判的に検討したものである。

いわゆる「定住外国人」について、憲法政策的には、外国人類型化の必要性と「旧外地臣民」の生存権的必要性からの一定の居住外国人への参政権付与が要請される。 法的側面からは、第一に国政選挙において、一定の居住外国人への参政権付与が許容される。第二に「住民自治」の要請と「地方代表」の機能に鑑み、国家主権による制約は、地方自治の性質上、また法制度上存在しないと解される。以上の体系的な試論を示した。