Japanese Way of Judicial Appointment and Its Impact on Judicial Review

日本司法任命制度及其對司法審查之影響

日本司法權在違憲審查權的行使上,被認為是消極且自制的。從1947年開始,日本最高法院僅在八個案件中,宣告了法律違憲。在諸多關於日本法院自制的解釋當中,本文關注在司法任命這個議題之上。二十一世紀初期的司法改革值得特別受到注意,尤其是在2003年設立的「下級法院法官任命咨詢委員會(下級裁判所裁判官指名諮問委員会)」。本文採取法律與社會的研究途徑,企圖回答「二十一世紀初期的司法改革是否對於憲法違憲審查造成了影響」這個問題。本文分成了四個部分:第二節介紹戰後日本憲法的制定與採用;第三節為二十世紀下半葉司法任命程序的回顧;第四節為二十一世紀初期司法改革與「下級法院法官任命咨詢委員會」的設立;最後則是近來司法改革對於司法積極性的影響效力。本文的結論為,二十一世紀初期的司法改革似乎並未對違憲審查制度形成影響。其背後有三個原因:戰後日本的權力分立欠缺監督與制衡、法院內部長期以來恣意的司法人員管理,與「沒有名字且沒有顏面的司法權」意識型態的存在。一些改變的跡象已經浮現,例如,自民黨到民主黨的政權轉移;然而,司法任命制度的變革本身似乎並未對日本司法審查造成影響。

Japanese judiciary has been described as passive or self-restrained in judicial review. The Supreme Court of Japan has declared statutes to be unconstitutional in only eight cases since 1947. Among explanations of Japanese court's self-restraint, this paper focuses judicial appointment. Attention is paid to the judicial reform in the early 21st century, particularly the setting up of the Lower Court Judges Nominating Consultation Commission, which was established in 2003. This paper tries to answer the question: Does the judicial reform in the early 21st century have an impact on constitutional review?'' by taking a socio-legal approach. Consideration is made on four sections: (II) adoption of the Constitution after World War II; (III) procedure of judicial appointment in the second half of the 20th century; (IV) judicial reform and birth of the Lower Court Judges Nominating Consultation Commission in the early 21st century, and (V) effectiveness of recent judicial reform on judicial activism. In conclusion, the answer to the question is that the judicial reform in the early 21st century does not seem to have an impact on judicial review. There are mainly three backgrounds: separation of powers in postwar Japan with little checks and balances, the persistence of arbitrary judicial personnel management within the court, and an ideology of nameless faceless judiciary." A few signs of change have been emerging, among others, a change of power from the LDP to the Democratic Party; however, judicial appointment in itself does not seem to have an impact on judicial review in Japan.