Announcements

1. Announcements • Midterm study guide posted on course webpage TODAY. • A. Stone Sweet Guest Lecture, Thursday 4/26 on the midterm • Wednesday, 4/25 Quiz Sections meet in Computer Labs. Locations are as follows: AA, AB, AC, AD, AF Sections meet in Poli Sci Computer Lab, Smith Hall 220; AE Section meets in CSSR lab in Savery Hall 135. In Section exercise

2. (Announcements, cont.) • Extra Credit Opportunity:European Constitutionalism Conference, Fri. 4/27 see following Link for information: faculty.washington.edu/rcichows/EUConstitutionalismConference

3. Constitutional Law and Politics in Japan I. Distinctive Characteristics of Japanese Courts A. Mixed Historical Legacy - Germany, France, US - civil law and common law traditions B. Interaction between legal institutions and Japanese cultural norms: consensus/common interest rather than individual C. Supreme Court is powerful in theory not in reality

4. II. Japanese Supreme Court A. Creation: - Meiji Constitution of 1889 - significantly restructured, in Constitution of 1946 - sits at the top of the judiciary

5. (II. Japanese Supreme Court, cont.) B. History: substantive rules of law, legal structure and legal consciousness 1. 1889- Meiji Restoration - created law and courts, not a separate branch of govt. - 1882 criminal code (French) - 1898 civil code (German)

6. (II. Japanese Supreme Court B. History, cont.) 2. 1946- Post WWII - US assisted with new Constitution (1946) - strengthened the supreme court (const. review), created Bill of Rights (similar to US)

7. (II. Japanese Supreme Court, cont.) C. Structure and Relative Autonomy 1. Constitution 1946 Chapter VI: Judiciary (Art 76-82) (see course webpage) 2. Judges (Art 79) and Court Organization law of 1947, 15 justices, appointed, retired age is 70. 3. Judicial Review: Constitutional review powers (Art 81), but review is constrained

8. (II. Japanese Supreme Court C. Structure and Autonomy, cont.) 4. Access: - primarily appellate jurisdiction (similar to US) - Individuals with grounds to appeal lower court decisions.

9. (II. Japanese Supreme Court C. Structure and Autonomy, cont.) 5. Separation of Powers/Relationship to Judicial system a. separate judicial branch (like US), but constrained b. 5 types of courts: civil, criminal, family affairs, appeals c. Other types: - Civil conciliation and admin. hearings.

10. III. Politics of Rights in Japan • Supreme Court plays a weak role in politics REASONS 1. Cultural Values: concern for the common good/interest

11. (III. Politics of Rights in Japan A. Supreme Court 1. Cultural Values, cont.) How do values affect civil litigation? a. Rights Claims: Westerners publicly assert rights. Japanese rarely assert rights in one-on-one arguments. b. Myth of the Reluctant Litigant: Japanese disputant prefers to settle disputes in other forum besides formal adjudication (courts).

12. (III. Politics of Rights in Japan A. Supreme Court 1. Cultural Values, cont.) c. Criminal System: Prevent and suppress crime, extensive criminal reintegration efforts - short prison sentences, confessions, focus on wrongdoings.

13. (III. Politics of Rights in Japan A. Supreme Court, cont.) 2. Institutional Factors a. Civil Law Tradition b. Government creates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

14. (III. Politics of Rights in Japan, cont.) B. Examples of Rights Litigation 1. Environmental Big 4 Cases - changed public attitudes regarding using litigation for policy reform - led to government reaction to create alternative dispute resolution for environmental claims.

15. (III. Politics of Rights in Japan B. Examples, cont.) 2. Sex Discrimination - cases in the 1960s and 1970s - Government reaction: Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1986 and informal dispute resolution mechanism.

16. IV. Comparative Conclusions on the Political Impact of Courts A. Judicial Review Powers US- constitutional/judicial review, widespread in legal system FRA- abstract review by CC, no judicial review for ordinary judiciary, admin. review by tribunals JAP- constitutional/judicial review, but limited role for courts as they defer to parliament and few constitutional claims arise

17. (IV. Comparative Conclusions on the Political Impact of Courts, cont.) B. Access to Supreme/Constitutional Court US- de-centralized, with wide access at various court levels to indiv., groups, govt. officials, etc. FRA- CC has access only by govt. officials JAP- wider access including individuals, but encourages alternative dispute resolution

18. (IV. Comparative Conclusions on the Political Impact of Courts, cont.) C. Relative Autonomy/Structure US- separate branch of govt., judges have lifetime appointments FRA- CC is fused to legislature, judges have 9 year terms. JAP- separate branch of govt. but limited by civil law tradition

19. (IV. Comparative Conclusions on the Political Impact of Courts, cont.) D. Historical/Cultural Factors: US- privileges individual rights, courts given power to protect rights. FRA- government and parliament job to protect rights, minimal political power to the courts JAP- common good v. individual rights, minimal power to courts, alternative dispute mechanisms lowers litigation rates

20. Diagram of the Court system in the US

21. Diagram of Court system in France

22. Diagram of the Court system of Japan

23. 3 Types of Review by Constitutional Courts A. Abstract Review Const. Court Parliament • Govt writes law • Parliament adopts law • Opposition Party refers law to the CC 5. Govt. and Parliament implement CC ruling 4. CC reviews the law

24. (3 Types of Review by Constitutional Courts, cont.) B. Concrete Review by ordinary court Constitutional Court Ordinary Court 2. Case comes before ordinary court. Judge refers to CC as the case raises a constitutional question. 4. Court applies the CC ruling 3. CC resolves the dispute and sends back to court. Disputants 1. Dispute arises between 2 individuals

25. (3 Types of Review by Constitutional Courts, cont.) C. Concrete Review by individual complaint Constitutional Court Individual 3. CC rules on the case 1. Individual has a claim, and exhausts all judicial remedies (went through lower courts) 2. Makes a claim on grounds of unconstitutionality before the CC