Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T12:57:15.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Powers and Functions of the Japanese Diet1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Kenneth Colegrove
Kenneth Colegrove
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The place of the Diet in the Japanese constitutional system is a subject of some controversy. Jurists of the old school, typified by the teachings of Hozumi, tend to minimize the representative character of the legislature and to magnify the limitations of its authority, while the new school, led by Minobe, stresses the possibility of parliamentary development.

The basic difference between the two schools is found in their respective attitudes toward the theory of separation of powers. Hozumi holds that the kokutai, or fundamental nature of the Japanese state, is unique. The Emperor is not merely an organ of the state. He is the state. He retains the tochi-ken, the authority of his ancestors, or sovereignty in the modern sense. The tochi-ken is supreme, perfect, and indivisible. The exercise of this authority, however, takes a three-fold form, namely, as gyosei-ken, or the executive power, rippo-ken, or the legislative power, the shiho-ken, or the judicial power.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 1933 , pp. 885 - 898
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The aid of the Honorable Ikuo Oyama, former professor of political science in Waseda University and member of the House of Representatives, in the preparation of this article is gratefully acknowledged. (The article will be concluded in the February issue. Man. Ed.)

References

2 Hozumi, Yatsuka, Kempo Teiyo, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1910), Vol. I, pp. 52–222 Google Scholar; Vol. II, pp. 493–524, 603–629. Dr. Hozumi was professor of constitutional law from 1891 to 1912 and dean of the law faculty of the Imperial University of Tokyo for fourteen years.

3 Uyesugi, Shinkichi, Kempo Jutsugi, or “Commentaries on the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1927), p. 226 Google Scholar. Dr. Uyesugi was, from 1903 until his death in 1925, a member of the faculty of law of the Imperial University of Tokyo. Among the numerous jurists who hold with Hozumi and Uyesugi that the Emperor is not an organ of the state, but rather that he is identical with the state, mention should be made of Sumu Shimizu, judge of the Court of Administrative Litigation. See his Kempo Hen, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1923), pp. 557–570 Google Scholar.

4 Compare Minobe, Tatshukichi, Kempo oyobi Kempo–shi Kenkyu, or “Studies in Constitutional History and Law” (Tokyo, 1908), pp. 3–5 Google Scholar; Saikin Kempo Ron, or “Recent Developments in Constitutional Law” (Tokyo, 1927), pp. 302–314 Google Scholar. Dr. Minobe was graduated from the Imperial University of Tokyo in 1897, studied in German, French, and English universities from 1899 to 1901, and since 1903 has served as professor of administrative law and constitutional law on the faculty of law of the Imperial University of Tokyo, and as dean of this faculty from 1925 to 1927.

5 Kempo Seigi, or “Commentaries on the Constitution” (7th print of 1st ed., Tokyo, 1931), p. 424 Google Scholar. Compare his Kempo Jutsugi, or “Commentaries on the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 351, 396–401 Google Scholar.

6 Genko Horei Shuran, or “Compilation of Laws and Ordinances in Force” (Tokyo, 1927), Vol. I, bk. ii, pp. 1–3 Google Scholar. For an English translation of the Kizokuin-rei and the Giin-ho as promulgated in 1889, see Ito, Hirobumi, Commentaries on the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Trans, by Ito, Miyoji, 1889), pp. 168–194 Google Scholar.

7 Compare Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, p. 446 Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Jutsugi (1932), pp. 322–323 Google Scholar; and his Gendai Kensei Hyoron, or “Studies in Recent Constitutional Government” (Tokyo, 1930), pp. 143–147 Google Scholar.

8 See Articles VIII and XIII of the Kizokuin-rei.

9 Ito, Hirobumi, Teikoku Kempo Koshitsu Tempan Gikai, or “Commentaries on the Constitution of the Japanese Empire” (Tokyo, 1889), pp. 134–135 Google Scholar. The English translation authorized by Ito, Prince is Commentaries on the Constitution of the Empire of Japan by Count Hirobumi Ito (Trans, by Ito, Miyoji, Tokyo, 1889)Google Scholar. There are three editions of this translation. Citations in this article are to the first edition.

10 Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), pp. 797–798 Google Scholar. Compare Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), p. 1172 Google Scholar.

11 Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 509 Google Scholar.

12 Commentaries (1889), p. 62 Google ScholarPubMed. In commenting on Article XXXVII, Prince Ito said: “The law is a rule of conduct emanating from the sovereign power of the state, to which it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Diet.”

13 Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo, or “Principles of the Constitution” (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 474–491 Google Scholar; and his Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 215–218 Google Scholar. Compare his earlier articles, “Sanction of Law,” in Hogaku Kyokai Zashi (March and December, 1905), Vol. XXII, nos. ii and xiiGoogle Scholar; and Kempo oyobi Kempo-shi Kenkyu (Tokyo, 1908), pp. 129–171 Google Scholar. Compare Ichimura, Mitsue, Teikoku Kempo Ron, or “Imperial Constitutional Law” (Tokyo, 1926), pp. 728–740 Google Scholar. Dr. Ichimura, formerly professor of law at the Imperial University of Kyoto, was also mayor of Kyoto.

14 Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 396–401 Google Scholar.

15 Kempo oyobi Kempo-shi Kenkyu (1908), p. 142 Google Scholar.

16 Commentaries (1889), p. 69 Google Scholar.

17 Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, bk. ii, p. 3 Google Scholar.

18 For classification of ordinances, see Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, pp. 706–762 Google Scholar; Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), pp. 518–530 Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1182–1232 Google Scholar; Ichimura, , Teikoku Kempo Ron (1926), pp. 791–815 Google Scholar; Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 507–554 Google Scholar, and his Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 199–242 Google Scholar.

19 Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, bk. ii, pp. 17–29 Google Scholar; and Vol. II, bk. xiv, pp. 453–454.

20 Article VIII.

21 Minobe, , Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 321–332 Google Scholar. Compare Yoshino, Sakuzo, Niju Seifu to Iaku Joso, or “Dual Government and the Supreme Command” (Tokyo, 1922), pp. 18–30 Google Scholar.

22 Tokyo Asahi, June 12, 1928, p. 3 Google ScholarPubMed.

23 Kwampo gogai, March 6 and 21, 1929, pp. 396, 555 Google Scholar.

24 Ito, , Commentaries (1889), p. 16 Google Scholar.

25 Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), p. 528 Google Scholar; Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, p. 734 Google Scholar; Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1197–1198 Google Scholar.

26 Kempo Seigi (1931), p. 208 Google Scholar. Compare Shimizu, , “The Emergency Ordinance,” in Kokka Gakkai Zasshi (Oct. 1928), Vol. 42, no. x, pp. 40–54 Google Scholar.

27 On February 19, 1897, in a written reply to an interpellation, Kabayama (home minister) and Okuma (foreign minister) referred to the episode of 1894, and declared that the Government was not compelled to submit to the Diet any emergency ordinance that had been revoked. Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. IV, p. 397 Google Scholar.

28 See the reply of Dr. Matsumoto, director of the Legislative Bureau, to Dr.Egi, Yoku. Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. XIV, pp. 1352–1353 (Dec. 14, 1923)Google Scholar. Compare Japan Chronicle, Dec. 20, 1923, p. 869 Google Scholar.

29 Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 212–213 Google Scholar. Compare Ichimura, , Teikoku Kempo Ron (1926), p. 809 Google Scholar.

30 Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 224–226 Google Scholar.

31 Hozumi, , Kempo Teiyo (1910), Vol. II, pp. 763–968 Google Scholar; and his “Some Questions Regarding Treaties,” in Hogaku Kyokai Zasshi, Vol. XXII, no. x, pp. 1353–1366 Google Scholar. Compare Uyesugi, , Kempo Jutsugi (1927), pp. 622–634 Google Scholar; Ichimura, , Teikoku Kempo Ron (1926), pp. 866–882 Google Scholar; Yamada, Saburo, “Domestic Effect of Treaties,” in Kokka Gakkai Zasshi (July 1905), Vol. XIX, no. vii, pp. 134–144 Google Scholar.

32 Minobe, , Kempo Seigi (1931), pp. 263–281 Google Scholar; Kempo Satsuyo (1932), pp. 545–554 Google Scholar; and his “Domestic Effect of Treaties,” in Kokka Gakki Zasshi (July, 1905), Vol. XIX, no. viiGoogle Scholar; also Kempo oyobi Kempo-shi Kenkyu (1908), pp. 173–201 Google Scholar. Compare Shimizu, , Kempo Hen (1923), pp. 1254–1270 Google Scholar; Oda, , Principes de Droit Administrate du Japon (1928), pp. 10–11 Google Scholar; Tachi, Sakutaro, “Effect of Treaties,” in Kokka Gakkai Zasshi (Dec., 1917), Vol. XXXI, no. xii, pp. 1803–1825 Google Scholar; Inada, Shunosuke, “Treaty-making Power,” in Kokka Gakki Zasshi (April, 1923), Vol. XXXVII, no. iv, pp. 516–533 Google Scholar.

33 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. II, pp. 1767–1769 (June 1, 1894)Google Scholar.

34 See Colegrove, Kenneth, “The Treaty-Making Power in Japan,” in American Journal of International Law (April, 1931), Vol. XXV, pp. 284–285 Google Scholar.

35 See a speech by Yonekubo, Mitsusuke in Conférence Internationale du Travail, 1928 (Geneva, 1928), Vol. I, p. 177 Google Scholar; and speeches by Nishio, Suyehiro and Suzuki, Bunji in the Kwampo gogai, April 27, 1928, p. 32 Google Scholar, and Feb. 20, 1929, pp. 369–370.

36 Dai Nippon Teikoku Gikai-shi, Vol. XIV, pp. 159–163 (Feb. 19, 1923)Google Scholar. Compare the Japan Chronicle, March 1, 1923, pp. 292–293 Google ScholarPubMed.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.