| Project/Area Number |
18K12633
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Review Section |
Basic Section 05020:Public law-related
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Niigata University (2020)
Shimonoseki City University (2018-2019) |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2018-04-01 – 2021-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2020)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,470,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥570,000)
Fiscal Year 2020: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2019: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 違憲の主観化 / 判断過程統制 / 立法者の努力 / 立法裁量 / 判決類型 / 判決手法 / 主張可能性の統制 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
This study tried to examine the "procedural" review of the legislative discretion, and to consider the division of roles with substantive review. According this study, the "judging-process review" of the legislative discretion, which belongs to this "procedural" review, can be divided into the review on the "(good-faith) efforts" of the legislator and the review on the handling of factors to be considered during enacting the law. The former has a problem because it relativizes the substantive contents of each provision of the Constitution unless the norm allows it. The latter has a problem because going deep inside of the "legislative process" can lead to the problem the former has, and therefore it should be used as an aid in the interpretation of provisions. And this study also points out that theoretical arrangement of the requirements and effects about judgment typologies such as declaration of unconstitutionality or appeal judgement can encourage more active substantive judgement.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
本研究の上記指摘は，これまで充分に理論的検討がされないまま，しかしその活用が期待されていた立法裁量の「判断過程統制」について，それを用いることができる場面やその限界を指摘している点で，学術的な意義を有している。特に，法律の合憲性審査で立法者の「努力」を評価する「違憲の主観化」については，近時の最高裁判決でしばしば用いられているにもかかわらず理論的検討が充分ではなかったこともあり，本研究の「違憲の主観化」の検討から，このような最高裁判決の批判的検討のための視座を得ることができたように思われる。また判決類型論も，日本の従来の議論の意義と限界を確認でき，今後の比較法的検討のための土台を作り得た。
|
