Advertisement

Codification, Decodification, and Recodification of the Japanese Civil Code

  • Hiroyasu IshikawaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 32)

Abstract

The Japanese Civil Code was a product of the mixed reception of various foreign civil codes in the late nineteenth century, and thus deserves to be seen as the “fruit of comparative law.” In Japan, while the Commercial Code is subject to decodification to a large degree, as company law and insurance law have been shifted from the Commercial Code to special laws, the Civil Code has escaped such direct decodification until now, retaining its original components. However, due to the emergence of numerous special laws, the Civil Code has been hollowed-out and decodified in an indirect manner. In particular, the rules of consumer law exist completely outside the Civil Code, so that the concept of consumer or business operator has been never incorporated within the Civil Code. However, to integrate the special rules for consumers and so forth into the Civil Code would not fit the vertically-segmented structure of the law-making and law-enforcing process in the ministries, which is a characteristic of Japanese bureaucracy. Such multilateral constraints on the basis of Japanese legal history and the political configuration form a certain image of the forthcoming recodification of the Civil Code.

Keywords

Japanese law Civil law Judicial passivism Law-making process Bureaucracy 

Bibliography

  1. Arai M, Homma A (2005) Guardianship for adults in Japan: legal reforms and advances in practice. Australas J Ageing 24(Supplement S1):S19–S24.Google Scholar
  2. Boissonade G (1890–1891) Projet de code civil pour l’Empire du Japon, Tomes 1–4, Nouvelle éd. Kokubunsha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  3. Haley JO (1991) Authority without power: law and the Japanese paradox. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Haley JO (1998) The spirit of Japanese law. The University of Georgia Press, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Itoh H (2010) The Supreme Court and benign elite democracy in Japan. Ashgate, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Kanda H (1997) Finance bureaucracy and the regulation of financial markets in Japan. In: Baum H (ed) Japan: economic success and legal system. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 305–19Google Scholar
  7. Kawashima T (1963) Dispute resolution in contemporary Japan. In: von Mehren AT (ed) Law in Japan: the legal order in a changing society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–72Google Scholar
  8. Kitagawa Z (2007) Japanese civil law and German law: from the viewpoint of comparative law. In: Kitagawa Z, Riesenhuber K (eds) The identity of German and Japanese civil law in comparative perspectives: Die Identitat des Deutschen und des Japanischen Zivilrechts in Vergleichender Betrachtung. De Gruyter Recht, Berlin, pp 11–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matsui S (2011) Why is the Japanese Supreme Court so conservative? Wash Law Rev 88:1375–1423Google Scholar
  10. Minear RH (1970) Japanese tradition and western law: emperor, state, and law in the thought of Hozumi Yatsuka. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Noda Y (1976) Introduction to Japanese law. Translated and edited by H. Angelo AH. University of Tokyo Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  12. Oda H (2009) Japanese law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Okino M (2012) Recent developments in consumer protection in Japan. UT Soft Law Rev 4:10–18Google Scholar
  14. Samuels RJ (2004) Politics, security policy, and Japan’s cabinet legislation bureau: who elected these guys, anyway? Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI) Working Paper 99Google Scholar
  15. Takizawa M (2009) Consumer protection in Japanese contract law. Hitotsubashi J Law Politics 37:31–39Google Scholar
  16. Uchida T, Taylor VL (2007) Japan’s ‘era of contract’. In: Foote DH (ed) Law in Japan: a turning point. University of Washington Press, Seatle, pp 454–482Google Scholar
  17. Von Savigny FC (1814) Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft. Mohr und Zimmer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations