The Supreme Court of Japan: Commentary on the Recent Work of Scholars in the United States

In this Article, the author discusses the issues involving the Supreme Court of Japan (SCJ). It outlines the scholarly works of American law professors John O. Haley and David S. Law which focuses on the Japanese fiduciary. It stresses the gap between the perceived image and the reality of the Japanese fiduciary

Stealth Activism: Norm Formation by Japanese Courts

The Article focuses on the political and social roles of the Japanese Supreme Court to the society. It argues with the remarks made by law professors John O. Haley and David S. Law about the Japanese fiduciary. It outlines the judicial decisions of court cases in various areas including employment, divorce and protection against discrimination

Alternatives to Liberal Constitutional Democracy

The global appeal of liberal constitutional democracy—defined as a competitive multiparty system combined with governance within constitutional limits—cannot be taken for granted due to the existence of competing forms of government that appear successful along a number of practical dimensions and consequently enjoy high levels of public acceptance. Proponents of liberal constitutional democracy must be prepared to proactively explain and defend its capacity to satisfy first-order political needs. A system of government is unlikely to command popular acceptance unless it can plausibly claim to address the problems of oppression, tribalism, and physical and economic security. Along these dimensions, the advantages of liberal constitutional democracy over the alternatives of social democracy of the type seen in Scandinavia, and bureaucratic authoritarianism of the type seen in parts of Asia, are not self-evident. Within Asia alone, seemingly functional alternatives to liberal constitutional democracy run the gamut from illiberal nondemocracy in China, to liberal one-party rule in Japan, to illiberal constitutional democracy in Singapore, to liberal constitutional nondemocracy in Hong Kong, to hereditary monarchy in Bhutan

Comments on Law and Versteeg's The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution

Governmen

The Costs of Judging Judges by the Numbers

This essay discredits current empirical models that are designed to “judge” or rank appellate judges, and then assesses the harms of propagating such models. First, the essay builds on the discussion of empirical models by arguing that (1) the judicial virtues that the legal empiricists set out to measure have little bearing on what actually makes for a good judge; and (2) even if they did, the empiricists’ chosen variables have not measured those virtues accurately. The essay then concludes that by generating unreliable claims about the relative quality of judges, these studies mislead both decision-makers and the public, degrade discussions of judging, and could, if taken seriously, detrimentally alter the behavior of judges themselves

DON’T WASTE YOUR VOTE (AGAIN!). THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISION ON ELECTION LAWS: AN EPISODE OF STRICT COMPARATIVE SCRUTINY

With a single judgment (sent. 1/2014), the Italian Constitutional Court has almost revolutionized Parliamentary election law, the national political landscape, the types of controversies with which it deals, and the means through which it reviews domestic legislation. In order to do so, the Court drew from globalized concepts and levels of scrutiny such as the so-called “proportionality test,” making explicit references to foreign decisions, while downplaying the Constitutional Framers’ intention. Although this decision has brought Italy closer in line with the trends that characterize contemporary global constitutionalism, its concrete effects on Italian law and the political system are not so promising or clear. This paper investigates the explicit and implicit sources of inspiration for the decision, its hidden implications, and it resonates with globalized trends in constitutional law

The Supreme Court, CAFA, and \u3cem\u3eParens Patriae\u3c/em\u3e Actions: Will it be Principles or Biases?

The Supreme Court will hear a case during its 2013-2014 term that will test the principles of both its conservative and liberal wings. In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Justices from each wing of the Court will be forced to choose between the modes of statutory interpretation they usually have favored in the past and their previously displayed pro-business or anti-business predispositions. The issue is whether the defendant-manufacturers can remove an action brought by a state attorney general suing as parens patriae to federal court. Beginning with their actions against tobacco manufacturers in the mid-1990s, state attorneys general often sued as parens patriae in litigation of nationwide significance. In Hood, the Supreme Court considers whether mass plaintiffs’ attorneys, by partnering with state attorneys general in parens patriae actions, will be able to circumvent the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act that allow defendants to remove class actions and other forms of mass actions to the typically more defendant-friendly confines of federal courts. Resolution will turn on the Court’s interpretation of the statutory term “mass action.” A textualist interpretation, usually favored by Justice Scalia and his conservative colleagues, would not allow such removal—a decidedly anti-business result. At the same time, a purposive approach to interpreting the statutory provision, promoted by Justice Breyer, possibly would allow such removal. For each group of Justices, the conflict is clear: Will they follow their previously articulated principles of statutory interpretation or their ideological biases

“One Size Can Fit All” – On the Mass Production of Legal Transplants

Law reformers like the World Bank sometimes suggest that optimal legal rules and institutions can be recognized and then be recommended for law reform in every country in the world. Comparative lawyers have long been skeptical of such views. They point out that both laws and social problems are context-specific. What works in one context may fail in another. Instead of “one size fits all,” they suggest tailormade solutions. I challenge this view. Drawing on a comparison with IKEA’s global marketing strategy, I suggest that “one size fits all” can sometimes be not only a successful law reform strategy, but also not as objectionable as critics make it to be. First, whereas, “one size fits all” is deficient a functionalist position, it proves to be surprisingly successful as a formalist conception. Second, critics of legal transplants often insists on what can be called “best law” approach, whereas in law reform, what we sometimes need is law that is just” good enough” law. “Third, legal transplants no longer happen in isolation but rather on a global scale, so that context-specific rules are no longer necessarily local. This is not a plea for formal law, for commodification of laws, and for “one size fits all”. But it is a plea to overcome the romanticism and elitism that may lurk behind the seemingly benign suggestion that law reform must always be tailored to the specific societal context