著者

竹内 宏規 Hironori Takeuchi

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

Journal of policy studies = 総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.53, pp.107-119, 2017-03

著者

ヘファナン ケビン

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.41, pp.157-163, 2012-07

著者

宮崎 康支 デキキス ジョー Yasushi Miyazaki Joseph DeChicchis

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.42, pp.31-40, 2013-02-20

著者

渡辺 律子

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.41-52, 1996-09

---

This paper aims to explore the feasibility of establishing British health and social care systems for elderly people in Japan. Four main British health and social care systems, drawn from Dr. Evan's paper, were analyzed based on six criteria : 1) system's role, 2) location of responsibility in each system, 3) key concepts of each system, 4) needs of each system in Japan 5) necessary conditions for applying each system if applied in Japan, 6) obstacles to applying each system in Japan. Owing to the author's background, social/psychological influences on each system were enphasized and examples of American health/social care systems were used.

著者

岩下 幹夫

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, pp.131-145, 2005-01-31

---

Nobusihige Hozumi (1856-1926) was largely influenced by Schopenhauer's principles of legal theories in his understanding of law. In his theories of legal evolution Hozumi found a basis for marriage, which was the social origin, in Schopenhauer's philosophy. Hozumi also stipulated that transcendental basic laws, which would become legal theories of evolution, would become compassion. Furthermore, Hozumi, just as Schopenhauer did, followed Schopenhauer in his elucidation of legal theories which progressed from revenge to punishment to justice and to compassion (Mitleid), that is loving compassion. Hozumi believed that Schopenhauer's philosophy was the foundation for his legal theories of evolution. And his aim was to maximize the practicality and realization of justice and human love. Along the line of accepting Schopenhauer's philosophy the aim of this paper is to crystallize the foundation of Schopenhauer's thought behind legal theories of evolution. It is also noted that attempts are made to look into a possibility of acceptance and the outcome of Schopenhauer's philosophy in contemporary Japan's legal theories (in legal science and legal philosophy).

著者

柴山 太 Futoshi Shibayama

雑誌

総合政策研究 = Journal of policy studies (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.59, pp.15-72, 2019-09-20

著者

額田 康子 山中 速人 Yasuko Nukata Hayato Yamanaka

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.47, pp.17-35, 2014-09-20

著者

宮崎 康支 Yasushi Miyazaki

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.52, pp.53-67, 2016-09-20

著者

堀 郁 Iku Hori

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.45, pp.11-20, 2014-02-20

著者

ヘファナン ケビン Kevin Heffernan

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.41, pp.157-163, 2012-10-30

著者

山田 晴通 Harumichi Yamada

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

Journal of policy studies = 総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.49, pp.121-125, 2015-03

著者

堀 郁 Iku Hori

雑誌

総合政策研究 = Journal of policy studies (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.57, pp.57-67, 2018-09-30

著者

奥田 智喜 Tomoyoshi Okuda

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.40, pp.159-160, 2012-04-30

著者

柴山 太 Futoshi Shibayama

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

Journal of policy studies = 総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.57, pp.1-46, 2018-09

著者

牲川 波都季 Hazuki Segawa

雑誌

総合政策研究 = Journal of policy studies (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.62, pp.71-87, 2021-03-20

著者

ストーンズ トーマス Thomas Stones

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

Journal of policy studies = 総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.58, pp.41-46, 2019-03

著者

南 雅彦 Masahiko Minami

出版者

関西学院大学総合政策学部研究会

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.44, pp.53-83, 2013-07

著者

大村 華子 Hanako Ohmura

雑誌

総合政策研究 = Journal of policy studies (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.57, pp.47-56, 2018-09-30

著者

関根 孝道

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, pp.11-52, 2004-05-25

---

The IUCN Second World Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan, adopted a Recommendation for the conservation of Okinawa dugongs in October 2000. This is because their critical habitat areas in Henoko offshore Okinawa are to be landfilled for the construction of U. S. seabase facilities in return for the U. S. military airport at Futenma. Since Okinawa dugongs are not only designated as one of Japan's natural monuments but also seriously endangered with the remaining number estimated at the most less than 50, the proposed seabase facilities are determinatively detrimental to the continued existence of Okinawa dugongs. Given the ineffectiveness of Japan's nature conservation laws, the last resort for their protection is to initiate a lawsuit under the U. S. environmental law in their court. This article examines the possibility of extraterritorial application of U. S. environmental laws for the protection of Okinawa dugongs with the conclusion that the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA") is most applicable due to the section 402's declaration of its extraterritorial application. In addition, since Okinawa dugongs are listed as an endangered species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), an ESA lawsuit under its citizen suits provision is prospective and significant as a test case challenging ESA's overseas application.

著者

関根 孝道

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.28, pp.205-242, 2008-03

---

The day of January 23, 2008, turned out to be a memorable day for Okinawa dugongs. On this day, the Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, U.S. District Court Judge Northern District of California, ruled in favor of Okinawa dugongs in the case that was brought by 3 Okinawa individual residents and 6 Japan/U.S. environmental organizations against the U.S. Department of Defense (hereinafter "DOD") for the purpose of preserving Okinawa dugongs as a Japanese national monument and their habitats in Henoko areas. The court opinion begins with a comprehensive summary of the factual background, a description of the procedural history of the case, and an explanation of the statutes under which plaintiffs bring the case, that is, the National Historic Preservation Act (hereinafter "NHPA") and the Administrative Procedures Act (hereinafter "APA"). The judge then turns to the legal arguments. The legal issues here are divided into three sections: DOD's jurisdictional arguments; applicability of the NHPA; and the merits of the plaintiffs' NHPA claim. First, as for the DOD's jurisdictional arguments, they consist of five distinctive assertions; (1) final agency action, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) act of state, (5) necessary and indispensable party. The judge addresses each of the five arguments that DOD presents for barring the court's review and strikes down all of them with detailed persuasive reasons. Secondly, regarding the applicability of the NHPA to the case, the NHPA imposes on DOD the obligation to "take into account" under sec.402 of the statute. This DOD's obligation is triggered when and where there is a federal undertaking outside the U.S., which may directly and adversely affect a property on the applicable country's equivalent of the National Register. These are issues of first impression for the courts in the context of extraterritorial provision of sec.402. Having decided in support of plaintiffs' arguments with regard to these legal issues, the court concluded that the NHPA is applicable to this case. Finally, the judge examines whether DOD has complied with its obligation under the NHPA to "take into account" the impacts on the dugongs. According to the court, the "take into account" process, at a minimum, must include (1) identification of protected property, (2) generation, collection, consideration, and weighing of information pertaining to how the undertaking will affect the historic property, (3) a determination as to whether there will be adverse effects or not adverse effects, and (4) if necessary, development and evaluation of alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid or mitigate the adverse effects. As a conclusion, the judge holds: "In sum, the current record reflects a failure by the DOD to comply with NHPA section 402. This failure constitutes agency action that is unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld as provided by the APA. Defendants have failed to produce, gather, and consider information necessary for taking into account the effects of the Futenma Replacement Facilities on the Okinawa dugong and for determining whether mitigation or avoidance measures are necessary and possible." Therefore, the court's "CONCLUSION", on the last page of its judgment is as follows: 1. Defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of the NHPA section 402, 16 U.S.C. sec.470a-2, and this failure to comply is agency action that is unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld, 5 U.S.C. sec. 706 (1). 2. Defendants are ordered to comply with NHPA section 402 and this case is held in abeyance until the information necessary for evaluating the effects of the FRF on the dugong is generated, and until defendants take the information into account for the purpose of avoiding or mitigate adverse effects to the dugong. 3. Defendants are ordered, within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, to submit to the court documentation describing what additional information is necessary to evaluate the impacts of the FRF on the dugong; from what sources, including relevant individuals, organizations, and government agencies, the information will be derived; what is currently known or anticipated regarding the nature and scope of Japan's environmental assessment and whether that assessment will be sufficient for meeting defendants' obligations under the NHPA; and identifying the DOD officials with authorization and responsibility for reviewing and considering the information for purposes of mitigation. 4. If plaintiffs desire to respond to this submission, they shall file their response within forty-five (45) days of the defendants' filing. At the end of this summary, it is worth noting the following warning which the court dared to make clear: "Satisfaction of defendants' obligation under section 402, therefore cannot be postponed until the eve of construction when defendants have made irreversible commitments making additional review futile or consideration of alternatives impossible." This is exactly why the NHPA requires the take into account process "prior to approval of an undertaking," at the time early in the planning stages of a federal undertaking when there is still a meaningful opportunity to consider adverse impact and mitigation measures.