著者

倉田 賀世

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.2, 2016

著者

本田 弘子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, pp.89-101, 1978-05-20 (Released:2017-11-01)

著者

宮畑 加奈子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.2, 2016

著者

岡田 順太

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.1, pp.211, 2014 (Released:2017-11-01)

著者

小野 幸二

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.12, pp.41-50, 1976

著者

松浦 淳介

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.1, pp.53-72, 2016-02-25 (Released:2017-11-01)

---

This paper analyzes the legislative process of the bill on the protection of specially designated secrets which passed the Japanese Diet in December 2013, for the purpose of clarifying how the divided Diet changes the legislative process of confrontational bills. The author expects, applying the game theory, that the government tends to give up submitting confrontational bills to the Diet in the divided Diet. Further, I focus on the process until the bill on the protection of specially designated secrets is submitted to the Diet, and show that it was not submitted to the Diet, though the bill was prepared for beforehand in the divided Diet.

著者

三明 翔

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.2, pp.147-176, 2015-08-15 (Released:2017-11-01)

---

In today's age of globalization, it is not uncommon for evidence of a crime to be located overseas. Japanese investigators or prosecutors who encounter this circumstance must ask foreign governments to collect the evidence and send it to Japan. Yet not uncommonly, foreign authorities obtain evidence by means or procedures that would be unlawful under Japanese law. Under what standard or framework should the admissibility of that kind of evidence be decided in Japanese courts? The exclusion of evidence on the grounds of trivial procedural differences would thwart international collaboration in criminal investigations, to be sure. But should such evidence always be admitted? Are there exceptional cases where such evidence must be excluded? This note will first review the decisions in the Japanese courts and conclude that no concrete standard or framework has yet been formed to decide the admissibility of this kind of evidence. Second, this note will examine how courts in the United States address this issue. This examination will turn up two exceptional cases where evidence collected by foreign authorities must be excluded: one where the "joint venture" doctrine applies and the other where the conduct of foreign authorities "shocks the conscience." Finally, this note will examine the rationale of excluding evidence in those exceptional cases and argue that there is leeway for bringing those exceptions into Japanese jurisprudence.

著者

神元 隆賢

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, no.2, 2018

著者

谷口 尚子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.1, pp.237, 2019 (Released:2019-04-08)

著者

林 賢參

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.1, pp.161, 2019 (Released:2019-04-08)

著者

槇 裕輔

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, no.2, pp.145-155, 2007

---

Im Mittelpunkt des osterreichischen Bundesverfassungsrechts steht das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, zu den das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, "Gesetz vom 1. Oktober 1920, womit die Republik Osterreich als Bundesstaats einrichtet wird" (BGB1 1920/1), in den Jahren 1925 und 1929 durch zwei umfassungreiche Bundesverfassungsnovellen geandert wurde und dessen Titel das "Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz in der Fassung von 1929" ist. Eine grosse und formelle Eigenart des osterreichschen Bundesverfassungsrechts ist, daB das hat viele Rechtsquellen, die die Bundes-verfassung(B-VG) als eine Rechtsquelle des Bunderverfassungsrecht, das Bundesverfassungsgesetz(BVG), einzelne Bstimmungen eines Gesetzes als Verfassungsbestimmungen, Staatsvertrage in Verfasssunsgrang und einzelne Verfassungsbsetimmungen in Staatsvertragen sind. Zur das Verfassungsgesetz gehort das Staatsgrundgesetz vom 21. Dezember 1867, uber die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsburger fur die im Reichsrate vertretenen Konigreiche und Lander welches in Kraft gesetzt worden ist. Und dieses Staatsgrundgesetz gilt heute noch als ein Bundesverfassungsgesetz. In dieser Abhandlung wurde ich uber die Rechtsquellen als die Eingenart der osterreichischen Bundesverfassung und eine Seite der Bundesverfassungsgeschichte betrachten.

著者

吉川 智

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.1, pp.227-237, 2011-11-15 (Released:2017-11-01)

---

When we discuss the Japanese Constitution, many people primarily take Article 9. Moreover, when discuss Article 9, Japanese people are concerned with the existence of the SDF and its significance. The Constitution holds fast to the basic principle of pacifism, but it is very clear that the SDF is the Forces even if the Japanese Government explains that it is a nonmilitary organization. There is a definite contradiction between the Government explanations and the circumstances in the SDF various activities. Japanese people passed through Hanshin-Awaji earthquake (1995) and East Japan earthquake (2011). In the two earthquakes and PKO activities, the SDF accomplished a great remarkable achievement. In this article, I will consider the Japanese national security with special reference to the particular trend of interpretation about Article 9 and the SDF.

著者

今井 直重

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, pp.1-3, 1975

著者

吉田 一枝

出版者

関西法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

no.4, 1956

著者

中川 淳

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.30, pp.177-178, 1994

著者

今井 直重

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.12, pp.20-30, 1976

著者

今井 直重

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.13, pp.1-12, 1977

著者

今井 直重

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, pp.A1-A7, 1975

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.30, pp.178-182, 1994

著者

今井 直重

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.1-9, 1983

---

This treatise comments the limit of the revision of the constitution of a state. First of all, we must distinguish the difference between the establishment of the constitution and its revision or amendment. The constitution-making power is an absolutely unlimited power and can establish any constitution that the state wants. But different from the constitution-making power, the constitution-revising competence is necessarily restricted by the principles and inherent spirit of the positive constitution of the state. Why the reason? Because we must, first of all, know the different charactor between the constitution-making power and constitution-revis-ing competence. That is, as a famous French constitutionalist, Si-eyes, 18ct., said, constitution-making power is an unconditional, unlimited, creative power (pouvoir constituant) and cannot be limited or conditioned by any other powers. But being distinguished from this, constitution-revising competence is merely a right in the region establishied by the constitution. So, to make the point clear, I will explain the purport as follows.- (1)Constitution-making power (pouvoir constituant) is creative, original and inherent power and cannot be limited by any other powers and so it is unlimited. (2)Constitution-revising competence (pouvoir constitue) is only a right of positive law and it is only a competence and cannot be