The General Theory of Jurisdiction, Judicial Review and Rule of Constitutional Law

2018 Fiscal Year Final Research Report

• Project/Area Number: 25380029
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Multi-year Fund
• Section: 一般
• Research Field: Public law
• Research Institution: Yokohama National University
• Principal Investigator: KIMIZUKA Masaomi 横浜国立大学, 大学院国際社会科学研究院, 教授 (80266379)
• Project Period (FY): 2013-04-01 – 2019-03-31
• Keywords: 司法審査 / 二重の基準論 / 司法権 / 憲法判断 / 事件争訟性 / 適用違憲 / 合憲性判断テスト / 先例拘束力

Outline of Final Research Achievements

All courts in the Constitution of Japan must judge, in the rule of ‘‘Case or Controversy’’. Therefore, as a general rule, justices and judges should declare it only when the claims and obligations relations of the person concerned fluctuate if I judge that the court is unconstitutional when unconstitutional. It is standard that the court judges a constitution as far as it is necessary for every case. However, in cases that freedom of expression and franchise and racial equality were violated, the court should do a constitution judgment positively. It is because it cannot be settled during the democracy-like political process.

Free Research Field

公法学

Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements

日本の最高裁判所の違憲判断は極めて少ないと批判され、これに対抗して、例えば、安保防衛問題に対する裁判所の積極的憲法判断すら求めるような無秩序な司法積極主義の主張もある。だが、法的判断が理論的でなければならず、違憲とされるべき事件・当事者の下でのみ確実に違憲判断が下ることを導くべきである。最高裁も徐々に違憲判断に踏み込むことが増えつつあるが、民主的な多数決を盾に少数者の人権が蔑ろにされがちな今日こそ、精神的自由や参政権の侵害事例では積極的かつ説得的に憲法判断へ踏み込むべきである。本研究成果は、法曹実務に適切な憲法理論を提供し、立憲民主主義憲法下の司法権の違憲審査制の役割を支える意義がある。