The Reconstruction of the Constitutional Theory on the Tests for Judicial Review: The Role of Burden and Standard of Proof in Constitutional Review

2022 Fiscal Year Final Research Report

• Project/Area Number: 20K01272
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Multi-year Fund
• Section: 一般
• Review Section: Basic Section 05020:Public law-related
• Research Institution: Kyoto University
• Principal Investigator: Doi Masakazu 京都大学, 法学研究科, 教授 (70243003)
• Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha): 岸野 薫 香川大学, 法学部, 准教授 (70432408) ; 伊藤 健 弘前大学, 人文社会科学部, 助教 (40849220)
• Project Period (FY): 2020-04-01 – 2023-03-31
• Keywords: 違憲審査基準 / 論証責任 / 論証度

Outline of Final Research Achievements

The starting point for the theories of burden of proof in constitutional review is legislative fact and the presumption of constitutionality, the theoretical pillar of which is James B. Thayer's rule of clear mistake. This famous standard is a rule for standard of proof in argumentation based on the presumption of constitutionality and is equivalent to "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal litigation.
The burden and standard of proof in constitutional review is a question of the degree of deference with which courts review findings of legislative fact and determinations of constitutionality by the Congress and, therefore, is primarily determined in terms of interagency relations such as democratic legitimacy and expertise. In Japan, the burden and standard of proof in constitutional review is found especially in the cases on economic freedom.

Free Research Field

憲法

Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements

日本における従来の違憲審査基準論は、法律が合憲となる要件を表す実体的判断基準に議論が集中してきたが、最近、論証責任や論証度に焦点を当てた研究がなされてきており、本研究は、違憲審査基準における論証責任及び論証度の意義、実体的判断基準と手続的基準の関係を理論的に解明し、論証責任の分配及び論証度の設定の基準について検討を加える体系的で本格的な理論研究と位置付けることができる。特に、本研究には、論証責任・論証度という手続的基準を媒介項として立法事実論と違憲審査基準論を接合し、これらを相互に関連付けて捉えることにより、違憲審査における訴訟当事者の役割を明らかにするという、学術的意義もあるといえよう。