Nuclear Power Plants and Volcano in Japan

Nuclear Power Plants and Volcano in Japan

Japanese administrative agencies are authorized to exercise discretion within the scope of power vested in them by the statutes passed in the parliament, or Diet. Under the Administrative Case Litigation Act (ACLA), which was revised in 2004, Japanese courts can review potential unlawful use of government authority under several principles such as fact-finding, purpose, timing, equal principles, constitutional rights infringement, and unconstitutional motives. The judiciary has reviewed administrative agencies' decision under ACLA in nuclear power plant cases. Under ACLA, Japanese courts can review if the administrative discretion of administrative agencies is arbitrary and capricious, but not their political validity and policy judgment capability. The judiciary may defer to administrative agency decisions in light of their expertise. In any review of administrative discretion, the court may take the position of the administrative agency to review the latter's disposition. In other cases, the court may respect the agency's disposition and review only the procedure. Citizens may take action against administrative agencies by challenging the validity of their decisions under the Administrative Complaint Review Act (ACRA). The ACRA provides an avenue that is simpler than the ACLA and yields a more rapid response, but it is not as fair as the ACLA because agencies themselves conduct an internal review of the validity of their decisions. In the famous Ikata nuclear power plant case of 1992, the Japanese Supreme Court deferred to the administrative agency decision for its expertise, but did not use the term ''discretion(sairyō)''. This may be because nuclear power plants come under the purview of national energy policy, thus affecting Japan as a whole. This paper argues that the judiciary may identify unconstitutional motives, but does not thoroughly review the public records and the reasoning behind administrative decisions. Japanese judiciary may avoid strict judicial review of the administrative agency's decision. It is unclear whether the Japanese judiciary will carefully examine the safety countermeasures against volcano eruption, defer to the agency by citing the agency's expertise. Japanese administrative law scholars must analyze the expertise of the administrative agency in deference to the Japanese judiciary.