| Project/Area Number |
18K18553
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Research (Exploratory)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Review Section |
Medium-sized Section 5:Law and related fields
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kobe University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2018-06-29 – 2022-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2021)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥4,940,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,140,000)
Fiscal Year 2020: ¥1,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000、Indirect Cost: ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 2019: ¥1,690,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥390,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥1,950,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥450,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 法解釈 / 行政法 / 行政訴訟 / 訴えの利益 / ガバナンス / 民主制 / 公正 / 効率性 / リーガリズム / プラグマティズム / 最高裁判例 / 法解釈論争 / 域外適用 / 最高裁 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
Administrative law academics have long neglected the importance of statutory interpretation. This research tries to change this prevailing attitude by critically, and almost exhaustively, observing interpretation methods used in the Supreme Court decisions between the 1970s and 2020s, and using the observations to analyze judicial dynamics in Japan. Administrative statute interpretation should be categorized into four groups: texts, purposes (in terms of legal doctrines, policy schemes, administrative needs), legislative history, or higher rank law (constitutions). This research has found some distinguishing characteristics of the Supreme Court of Japan, such as what are the conditions for it to take a law-creating interpretation based on administrative demands and the fact that the Supreme Court is not so much concerned with traditional legal doctrines, but rather customarily adopts a very transparent interpretation based on the combination of textualism and policy scheme purposivism.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
日本の最高裁が行政法の解釈にあたり採用する方法を4つの種類に大分類し，主要判決がそれぞれをどう組み合せて使っているのかを整理した。その結果，たとえば，司法創造的な法解釈を生み出す「行政需要解釈」と呼ぶべき方法があり，最高裁がこれを使う条件は何かを明らかにした。
こうした分析を通して，裁判所の行政に対するスタンスの取り方は，行政裁量の審査ではなく，行政法規の解釈方法にこそ顕著に現れること，解釈方法に着目することで解釈の正当性を広い視点で議論したり，裁判所の思考変化を探知したりできることを示した。
|
