| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,800,000)
Fiscal Year 1996: ¥300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 1995: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 1994: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In Japan, treaties have the force of law and override statutes enacted by the Diet. Because treaties have such a privileged status, Japan is wary of acceding to a human rights treaty. Although Japan has not ratified many human rights treaties, it has ratified some of the most important ones within the last twenty years. Upon ratification of the treaties, Japan revised its laws extensively to bring them into conformity with the treaties. The human rights situation in Japan has improved so significantly that interest in international human rights law has grown rapidly in Japan. This study aims to analyze the impact international law has had on Japanese law, and to demonstrate that the impact has indeed considerable. Because the impact has been felt most strongly in the area of human rights, the scope of study will be confined, in the most part, to human rights questions. In analyzing the impact of international law, the study examines the relationship between international law and national law through the Japanese experience. This study makes a substantial contribution to discourse on this fundamental question.
Since Japanese law has significantly improved through revision of laws upon ratification of human rights treaties, many people have turned to the courts to achieve further revision of laws. However, Japanese courts are remarkably reluctant to deal with arguments based on international human rights law, largely because they are unfamiliar with this relatively new branch of law. Even though direct invocation of international human rights law is without success before the courts, the laws are often amended eventually in the political process. International human rights adjudication has tended to be more effective as a political means to give legitimacy to movements to change domestic laws rather than as a legal weapon to win actual cases in the courts.
|
