Home Judicial Review In Japan: A New Perspective
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Judicial Review In Japan: A New Perspective

  • Colin P.A. Jones EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 12, 2025
ICL Journal
From the journal ICL Journal

Abstract

This article offers a new perspective on the subject of constitutional judicial review in Japan. This perspective uses a heuristic of the judiciary as a bureaucracy that is engaged in policy-making more broadly than just through dispute resolution and thus needs to maintain a good working relationship with other national government bureaucracies, particularly the Ministry of Justice (‘MOJ’). This heuristic will be developed through a description of the judiciary’s historical and present relationships with the MOJ. It is then applied to the Supreme Court of Japan’s constitutional jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the small number of instances where the court has found a statutory provision unconstitutional. The article closes with some observations about what the heuristic might predict about the direction of judicial review in the future, particularly on subjects such as same sex marriage and spousal surnames.


Corresponding author: Colin P.A. Jones, Professor, Doshisha Law School, Kyoto, Japan, E-mail:
The author is extremely grateful to Professor Lawrence Repeta for reading and commenting on an early draft of this article. All Japanese cases cited in this article are available on-line through the official courts.go.jp website. English translation of most important cases of the Supreme Court of Japan going back to the 1960s are also available on the same website. Accordingly, reporter citations have only been included when necessary to distinguish between cases when the SCJ issues multiple rulings on the same or similar issues on the same day, as happens sometimes. Even in such cases, however, the substance of the rulings is often mostly identical. For similar reasons, when quoting language from the English translation of a Japanese case no pinpoint citation will be given, since such translations are only available in unpaginated form online. In addition, this article uses a citation format that is similar to those used in Japanese sources and which contains two important pieces of information that are missing in commonly used western formats: (i) whether the case results in a ‘judgment’ (hanketsu) or a ‘decision’ (kettei), which are indicative of different procedural backgrounds and (ii) whether SCJ rulings are issued by the Grand Bench (when all fifteen judges sit en banc) or one of the court’s three Petty Benches (of five judges each), a distinction of particular importance in constitutional cases.
Received: 2025-02-10
Accepted: 2025-09-02
Published Online: 2025-11-12

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 23.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/icl-2025-0009/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button