What is Seen from the “Back Side” of Nuclear Lawsuits
Professor, Law School,
Meiji University
Courts follow the judgment framework established before the Fukushima nuclear disaster as it is
In contrast, the Otsu District Court, which made the decision to suspend the operation of the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant, pointed out problems in the method for calculating the basic earthquake ground motion and the vulnerability of the method for securing power sources in case of an earthquake, mentioning that the investigation of the causes for the Fukushima nuclear disaster is “still in progress” and stating that it “feels great worry” about the attitude of the Government’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, which established the new restrictive standards in such a situation. Moreover, the Otsu District Court has been examining the danger of the equipment for cooling the spent-fuel storage pools, thinking that the equipment is included in the scope of the basic design. This is how appropriate judgments should be made after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Judges are under control
Although this is not generally known, the Supreme Court’s General Secretariat sponsored “conferences” in the past to consult about legal problems in specific types of cases. Consultation themes were determined by the bureaus in charge of cases, such as the Civil Affairs Bureau and the Administrative Affairs Bureau. Attending judges were appointed by the chief judge of each high court, district court, or family court. Conferences proceeded as follows: the attending judges stated opinions about each problem; the chairperson questioned some judges; and representative officers from the Civil Affairs Bureau, the Administrative Affairs Bureau, etc. reported the results of discussions within their bureaus and stated views. According to such an overview, the conference may seem like a kind of study meeting for judges. However, the “Secretariat General’s Views” included in the official materials that the Secretariat General complied from the conference results enormously influenced judges all over Japan. For example, in the conference held in October 1988, the Secretariat General stated a view to the effect that “it is sufficient to examine whether nuclear lawsuits are rational or not, respecting administrative agencies’ technical discretion.” It can be said that the judgment framework for the recent dismissal or revocation of temporary injunctions against nuclear power plants generally follow this Secretariat General’s view. Because judges are required to make judgments from a third-party viewpoint, following only the spirit of law and justice and their own conscience, it is necessary to consider which direction of trial follows the spirit more closely.
What we can do to change courts
Essentially, however, it is the people that can accurately monitor and criticize judges’ judgments. The people should not have an attitude of making temporary criticism but one of continuous and proper criticism, always having concern with courts’ judgments without being indifferent to them. For example, if an increasing number of trial watchers not only hear interesting trials but also form groups with the advice of legal experts, such as law schools or department graduates and lawyers, systematically hear trials, and report the results on the Internet, this will become greatly significant as trial monitoring. If such groups open a common website, courts will become unable to ignore it.
The cultural level of the people is high in a society where the judiciary functions soundly. I think that our cultural level will increase if we, the general public, carry out activities to make the Japanese judiciary so ideal and sound as to reform society.
* The information contained herein is current as of May 2016.
* The contents of articles on M's Opinion are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
Profile
Hiroshi Segi
Professor, Law School, Meiji University
Research fields:
Code of Civil Procedure; Civil Provisional Remedies Act; practice of civil procedure; civil lawsuit system and other judicial systems; sociology of law
Research themes:
Interpreting the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Provisional Remedies Act; making legal studies and practice of civil lawsuits scientific and objective; creating a bridge between the theory and practice of civil lawsuits; conducting comprehensive research on bases of civil trials, judicial systems, sociology of law, etc.; reporting at the Japan Association of the Law of Civil Procedure and The Japan Society for Socio-Legal Studies on Family Issues
Main books and papers:
◆“Outline of the Practice and System of Civil Procedure” (Nippon Hyoron Sha, 2015)
◆“How to Study Liberal Arts” (Discover 21, 2015)
◆“Trials in Japan” (Kodansha Gendai Shinsho, 2015)
◆“Civil Provisional Remedies Act (new edition)” (Nippon Hyoron Sha, 2014)
◆“Despairing Courts” (Kodansha Gendai Shinsho, 2014)
◆“Nature and Aspects of Civil Procedure” (Nippon Hyoron Sha, 2013)
◆“Casebook: Civil Procedure Activities, Fact Finding and Judgment” (Hanrei Times, 2010)
◆“Bridge between the Practice and Theory of Civil Trials” (Hanrei Times, 2007)