Liberal Japan

The following entry is to address the following problem. I was trying get some English information explaining State Redress Law in Japan. There was nothing useful on the Internet about this.

There will be now.

What is State Redress Law in Japan?

From Political Reorientation of Japan, September 1945 to September 1948; Report Book by Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Government Section; U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949. Pages 219 to 220.

(3) State Redress Law. Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees that “every person may sue for redress . . . from the state or a public entity, in case he has suffered damage through illegal acts of any public official.”

An analysis of Japanese law reveals that few categories of officials were made expressly and specifically liable personally for civil damages when their unlawful dispositions caused a loss to private persons. Article 715 of the old Civil Code makes the employer generally responsible for the acts of his agent. However, court decisions, in construing this article, were inconsistent in that some held the provisions applied only to cases involving suits between private individuals, and others held the article did create a liability on the part of the State and public officials. In order to implement Article 17 of the Constitution and to resolve the existing confusion in court decisions, the State Redress Law was enacted and came into force on October 27, 1947. [Appendix H: 22, State Redress Law; Law No. 124, October 27, 1947.]

Generally, the law establishes liability in accordance with the continental European theory, rather than with the United States rule, by placing primary responsibility upon the state or public entity as such. It is provided that should any public official, in the conduct of his official duties, inflict intentionally or by negligence any damages on another person through illegal act, the State or public entity concerned is under obligation to make compensation therefor. Should the public official, however, perpetrate the act intentionally or by gross negligence, then he is bound to reimburse the State or public entity which has paid damages.

Liability is also placed upon the State or public entity concerned for any damage to persons caused through the existence of any defect in the construction or management of highways, rivers, or other public installations. Here again the State or public entity concerned has the right to obtain reimbursement from any other person who is responsible for causing the damages.

The individual damaged may proceed against the State or public entity charged with the appointment or supervision of the official in question or responsible for the establishment or management of the public installation in question. He may also sue the State or public entity which defrays the salary of such public official or the expenses necessary for the establishment or management of such public installation.

Lastly, the law provides that where an alien is the injured party, he may recover damages provided compensation is reciprocally guaranteed by the country to which he owes allegiance.

Discussion has already arisen as to the constitutionality of this limitation on the right of aliens to relief, in view of the use of the words, “any person” in Article 17 of the Constitution.

If the term “person” is used in a general sense, the aliens may not be denied redress because of lack of reciprocity. No case has arisen, but arguments have been advanced pro and con by Japanese jurists. The question must be left to the decision of the Supreme Court.

If you can add to this please comment!