The International Institute for Asian Studies organised a symposium on
"Comparative Studies on the Judicial Review System in East and Southeast Asia"
which took place at Leiden University on August 31st and September 1st. Most of
the first day was spent on judicial review in Japan, as compared with the UK and
China, and I hope a brief summary of the proceedings will be of interest to
other list members.

Professor M. Kobayakawa of Tokyo University presented a paper on "Judicial
Review in Japan", in which he described the Japanese system of judicial review
as of fundamental importance for the principle of rule of law in Japan. He
identified six major current problems relating to administrative litigation,
including locus standi (standing to sue), provisional remedies, and scope of
review as to acts within the discretion of the authority; in discussion it
became clear that all six were more or less identifiable problems in other
jurisdictions.

Professor T. Fuke of Nagoya University's paper was entitled "Judicial Review of
Administrative Action in the UK and Japan - a Comparative Perspective". He
concluded that it was unlikely that Japanese judicial review remedies would be
significantly expanded, but emphasised that such remedies should be seen in a
wider context, encompassing non-judicial remedies as well.

Finally, Dr Y. Zhang of the International Institute for Asian Studies presented
a paper on "Judicial Review of Administrative Action in China and Japan" in
which he compared the Chinese introduction and development of administrative law
on a European model with that which took place in Japan a century ago (Gyosei
Saiban Ho, 1890).

To take just a few points from the discussion that followed:

1. Several speakers emphasised the risks of statistical comparison of judicial
review in different jurisdictions; there is a great divergence in what is a
justiciable act, in requirements for standing, in public access to lawyers/the
relevant courts, etc.

2. The issue as to cultural aversion to litigation in Japan and/or China reared
its head.

3. In subsequent discussion of the German & Dutch systems, the distinctions
drawn between the "individual"/"general", "subjective"/"objective",
"concrete"/"abstract" act for the purpose of determining justiciability were
further explored. While these distinctions derive from the theory of the
separation of powers, their effect (as received into Japanese law) may be to
restrict the ambit of judicial review in Japan to "private-law-type" cases,
excluding categories of "public-policy" actions more likely to be brought by
pressure groups or others.

Sian Stickings
Research Fellow in Japanese Law
University College London
s.stickings[atx]ucl.ac.uk