| Project/Area Number |
15252005
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 海外学術 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Fundamental law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Hokkaido University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
SUZUKI Ken Hokkaido University, Graduate School of Law, Professor, 大学院法学研究科, 教授 (80226505)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
KONOMA Masamichi Meiji University, Law School, Professor, 法科大学院, 教授 (80215300)
TAKAMIZAWA Osamu The University of Tokyo, The Institute of Oriental Culture, Professor, 東洋文化研究所, 教授 (70212016)
UDAGAWA Yukinori Nagoya University, Center for Asian Legal Exchange, Associate Professor, 法政国際教育協力研究センター, 助教授 (80298835)
OKA Katsuhiko Nagasaki Prefectual University, Department of Economics, Professor, 経済学部, 教授 (90281774)
CUI Guangri Shobi University, Faculty of Policy Studies, Professor, 総合政策学部, 教授 (50383352)
西 英昭 東京大学, 大学院・法学政治学研究科, 助手 (50323621)
崔 光日 北海道大学, 大学院・法学研究科, 助教授 (60360880)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2003 – 2006
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2006)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥28,210,000 (Direct Cost: ¥21,700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥6,510,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥5,330,000 (Direct Cost: ¥4,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,230,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥8,580,000 (Direct Cost: ¥6,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,980,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥7,410,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,710,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥6,890,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,590,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Legal Profession / Legal Professional Training / Judicial Independence / Law School / Legal Education / Judge / Bar Exam / Attorney at Law / 法曹人口 / 司法修習 / 司法改革 / 裁判所 / 中国法 / 台湾法 / 韓国法 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This study is about the transfiguration of judicial functioning and its impacts on legal training system in three Eastern Asian countries.
1)Korea: Though, Korea was ahead of Japan in planning the law school system, it was not implemented, because it was opposed by persons in the legal professional and legal educational circles. But, after Japan, Korea decided to introduce her style of law school. What is distinctive in the system of Korea's law school is that the numbers of establishing law schools and their staffs are determined by a counting backward from number of persons, who passed the final bar exams, and schools, which establish law schools, would abolish the already existing school of law.
2)Taiwan: The numbers of litigation have also increased and upgrading the quality of judicial system are matters of great urgency. Consequently, reform of judicial training is an issue under debate. Since 2005, there has been rapid emergence of the plan to introduce Japanese style of law school and there are reports that both Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Education have determined to adopt this plan. The Universities simultaneously expressed disapproval of the plan and the process got stuck.
3)China: Although the Unified Bar Exam has been introduced, the quality of legal profession has not been progressive in due course and what is even worse is that there is serious in lack of legal professions in the remote areas. After the introduction of independence of judicial branch, the judges have not respected the principle of judicial independence in due course. There have been some debates about the problems of interference of judicial independence by the Judicial Committee, the internal inquiry system in the courts and the committee of politics and law of the Communist Party.
|
