比例原则在日本行政法中的作用

Narufumi Kadomatsu
{"title":"比例原则在日本行政法中的作用","authors":"Narufumi Kadomatsu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3401898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The proportionality principle (hereafter, the PP) was imported from Germany into Japanese administrative law during the interwar period. The Japanese Supreme Court has never expressly mentioned the principle itself in the opinion of the court except as an obita dictum. There are, however, several judgments that may be understood as the application of the PP. \n \nThis essay questions whether the principle functions “outside” or “inside” of administrative discretion and whether it performs necessity control or balancing control. It also stands upon the premise that administrative discretion takes place in the process of the application of the law in the narrower sense, distinguished from the interpretation of law and from bare fact-finding, both of which are reserved for the judiciary. \n \nRegarding necessity control, the purpose-means construction as the core of the PP is self-evident. As for balancing control, the feature of the PP is that a particular interest is placed on one side of the scale and compared with various other interests. The Supreme Court is rather reluctant to perform such types of dichotomic balancing, but does so in certain cases. \n \nWhether such balancing is appropriate depends upon a determination of the desirable degree of judicial review, as well as an understanding of the legal structure in the relevant field. While such dichotomic balancing will provide an effective tool for judicial control, it also presents the risk of making diverse interest structures among various stakeholders invisible.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functions of the Proportionality Principle in Japanese Administrative Law\",\"authors\":\"Narufumi Kadomatsu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3401898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The proportionality principle (hereafter, the PP) was imported from Germany into Japanese administrative law during the interwar period. The Japanese Supreme Court has never expressly mentioned the principle itself in the opinion of the court except as an obita dictum. There are, however, several judgments that may be understood as the application of the PP. \\n \\nThis essay questions whether the principle functions “outside” or “inside” of administrative discretion and whether it performs necessity control or balancing control. It also stands upon the premise that administrative discretion takes place in the process of the application of the law in the narrower sense, distinguished from the interpretation of law and from bare fact-finding, both of which are reserved for the judiciary. \\n \\nRegarding necessity control, the purpose-means construction as the core of the PP is self-evident. As for balancing control, the feature of the PP is that a particular interest is placed on one side of the scale and compared with various other interests. The Supreme Court is rather reluctant to perform such types of dichotomic balancing, but does so in certain cases. \\n \\nWhether such balancing is appropriate depends upon a determination of the desirable degree of judicial review, as well as an understanding of the legal structure in the relevant field. While such dichotomic balancing will provide an effective tool for judicial control, it also presents the risk of making diverse interest structures among various stakeholders invisible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3401898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3401898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比例原则(以下简称比例原则)是在两次世界大战之间从德国引入日本行政法的。日本大法院在判决书中,除了作为讣告外,从未明确提及这一原则本身。然而,有几个判决可以被理解为PP的适用。本文质疑该原则是在行政自由裁量权的“外部”还是“内部”起作用,是实施必要性控制还是平衡控制。它还建立在一个前提之上,即行政自由裁量权发生在狭义的适用法律的过程中,有别于法律的解释和纯粹的事实调查,这两种情况都是留给司法机构的。在必要性控制方面,以目的-手段建设为核心的PP是不言而喻的。在平衡控制方面,PP的特点是将某一特定利益置于天平的一边,与其他各种利益进行比较。最高法院相当不愿意执行这种类型的二分平衡,但在某些情况下这样做。这种平衡是否适当,取决于对司法审查的理想程度的确定,以及对有关领域法律结构的了解。虽然这种二分平衡将为司法控制提供有效的工具,但它也带来了使不同利益相关者之间的不同利益结构不可见的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Functions of the Proportionality Principle in Japanese Administrative Law
The proportionality principle (hereafter, the PP) was imported from Germany into Japanese administrative law during the interwar period. The Japanese Supreme Court has never expressly mentioned the principle itself in the opinion of the court except as an obita dictum. There are, however, several judgments that may be understood as the application of the PP. This essay questions whether the principle functions “outside” or “inside” of administrative discretion and whether it performs necessity control or balancing control. It also stands upon the premise that administrative discretion takes place in the process of the application of the law in the narrower sense, distinguished from the interpretation of law and from bare fact-finding, both of which are reserved for the judiciary. Regarding necessity control, the purpose-means construction as the core of the PP is self-evident. As for balancing control, the feature of the PP is that a particular interest is placed on one side of the scale and compared with various other interests. The Supreme Court is rather reluctant to perform such types of dichotomic balancing, but does so in certain cases. Whether such balancing is appropriate depends upon a determination of the desirable degree of judicial review, as well as an understanding of the legal structure in the relevant field. While such dichotomic balancing will provide an effective tool for judicial control, it also presents the risk of making diverse interest structures among various stakeholders invisible.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信