著者
萩原 金美
出版者
日本法哲学会
雑誌
法哲学年報 (ISSN:03872890)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2006, pp.32-43,267, 2007-10-30 (Released:2010-12-16)
参考文献数
8

The Justice System Reform has introduced the “American Style” law school (graduate school) system while keeping with the existing faculties of law at undergraduate level. Its impact on legal education at the latter is apparently enormous but, strange to say, to this date this problem has never been seriously debated. It would appear to be an excessive dualistic structure in legal education; a hybrid or compromise of the American legal education system with that of the continental law countries. Then, in what way should legal education at undergraduate level be transformed? The answer or solution is not easy because the matter is closely related to manifold problems which go beyond education. I propose the main feature of faculties of law should transform into general arts education focused on law. In addition, sufficient practical vocational education for para-legals should be made available for students not aspiring to enter law school (probably they constitute the majority). I also mention something about the relationship of legal education in law schools and legal philosophy. While practice oriented education is emphasized in law schools, it is also vitally important for students to gain an insight into the fundamental problems of law and lawyers. In this regard, legal philosophy plays an important role. One of the present problems which require urgent philosophical thought is, in my view, ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). ADR is gaining popularity in many countries, including Japan. However, I have doubts as to whether ADR is really consistent with the rule of law. Is justice under ADR the same as that under judicial procedure? If it is not, how is it different and how is the difference justified? It is expected that legal philosophy will provide the correct answer to these questions, especially in this country where “quasi rule of law” dominates.