Digitalia
Advanced Search
The Civil Code Controversy in Meiji Japan

The Civil Code Controversy in Meiji Japan

  • Author: Piegzik, Michal A.
  • Publisher: Leiden University Press
  • ISBN: 9789087284503
  • eISBN Pdf: 9789400604902
  • Place of publication:  Holland , Netherlands
  • Year of digital publication: 2024
  • Month: April
  • Pages: 270
  • Language: English
'The Civil Code Controversy in Meiji Japan' outlines the dramatic history of the failed liberalization of Japanese private law during the Meiji era.
  • Cover
  • Contents
    • INTRODUCTION
    • CHAPTER ONE. THE HISTORY OF THE JAPANESE LEGAL SYSTEM
      • 1.1. Edo-Era isolation (1639–1854)
      • 1.2. Bakumatsu period and the Meiji Restoration (1854–1868)
      • 1.3. The Japanese legal system until the Meiji-era codification
      • 1.4. The Importance of law codification for the birth of contemporary nations
      • 1.5. Internal and external motives for codifying Japanese civil law
        • 1.5.1. Internal motives
        • 1.5.2. External motives
    • CHAPTER TWO. JAPANESE ENDEAVOURS TO CODIFY CIVIL LAW, 1868–1889
      • 2.1. The first unsuccessful attempts to draft the Civil Code (1868–1879)
        • 2.1.1. Drafting the Civil Code under Shimpei Etō’s leadership (1869–1873)
        • 2.1.2. Drafting the Civil Code under T. Ōki’s leadership (1873–1879)
      • 2.2. Drafting the Civil Code under the leadership of G. Boissonade and a team of Japanese jurists (1879–1889)
      • CHAPTER THREE
    • CHAPTER THREE. SCHOOLS OF LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP IN JAPAN – THE MAIN ACTORS IN THE CIVIL CODE CONTROVERSY
      • 3.1. French School of legal scholarship
        • 3.1.1. Law School at the Ministry of Justice
        • 3.1.2. Tokyo Law School
        • 3.1.3. Tokyo French School
        • 3.1.4. Meiji Law School
        • 3.1.5. Kansai Law School
        • 3.1.6. Kyoto Law School
      • 3.2. English School of legal scholarship
        • 3.2.1. Old University of Tokyo/Imperial University
        • 3.2.2. Senshū School
        • 3.2.3. Tokyo Vocational School
        • 3.2.4. School of English Law
      • 3.3. German School of legal scholarship
        • 3.3.1. German Academic Association School
      • 3.4. The birth of the Japanese School of legal scholarship
      • 3.5. Summary of legal scholarship schools in Japan from the Civil Code Controversy perspective
    • CHAPTER FOUR. THE FIRST STAGE OF THE CIVIL CODE CONTROVERSY – THE DISPUTE UNTIL THE PUBLICATION OF THE CODES
      • 4.1. The beginning of the Civil Code Controversy
        • 4.1.1. The Association of Jurists’ opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.2. R. Masujima’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.3. Zenjirō Tsuboya’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.4. Keijrō Okano’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.5. Yoshito Okuda’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.6. Chū (Makoto) Egi’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.7. Takuzō Hanai’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.1.8. Nihon no Hōritsu editorial team’s opinion on the succession system (postponement faction)
        • 4.1.9. Hōri Seika editorial team’s opinion (postponement faction)
        • 4.1.10. Nihon no Hōritsu editorial team’s opinion concerning the publication of Codes (postponement faction)
        • 4.1.11. Hōri Seika editorial team’s opinion of Evidence Law drafters (postponement faction)
      • 4.2. The decisive faction’s first opinions and the postponement faction’s polemic
        • 4.2.1. S. Isobe’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 4.2.2. Teijirō Torii’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 4.2.3. Misao Inoue’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 4.2.4. Nihon no Hōritsu editorial team’s commentary on Saburō Ozaki’s opinion about the illegitimate child system (postponement faction)
      • 4.3. Publication of the Civil Code, the Commercial Code and the Code of Civil Procedure
      • 4.4. Summary of the first stage of the Civil Code Controversy
    • CHAPTER FIVE. THE SECOND STAGE OF THE CIVIL CODE CONTROVERSY – THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
      • 5.1. The reaction of the postponement faction to the publication of the Civil Code and the decisive faction comments
        • 5.1.1. Hōri Seika editorial team’s opinion on the new Codes (English School, postponement faction)
        • 5.1.2. Tatsuo Kishimoto’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 5.1.3. Hikoroku Morozumi’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 5.1.4. Nihon no Hōritsu editorial team’s opinion on morality and law (postponement faction)
        • 5.1.5. Sentarō Hirayama’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 5.1.6. Kiyohiko Nakamura’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 5.1.7. Hideo Itō’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
      • 5.2. The controversy during the Imperial Diet’s first meeting
      • 5.3. Summary of the second stage of the Civil Code Controversy
      • CHAPTER SIX
    • CHAPTER SIX. THE THIRD STAGE OF THE CIVIL CODE CONTROVERSY: ESCALATION AND CONCLUSION
      • 6.1. New publications of the postponement faction – Opinions published in 1891
        • 6.1.1. The Jurisprudence News editorial team’s declaration concerning the goals and purposes of founding the journal (postponement faction)
        • 6.1.2. Yatsuka Hozumi’s opinion concerning the nature of the Civil Code (German School, postponement faction)
        • 6.1.3. Zenjirō Tsuboya’s opinion (English School, postponement party)
        • 6.1.4. Y. Hozumi’s opinion on the European pre-Christian family system (German School, postponement faction)
        • 6.1.5. Y. Hozumi’s opinion on the harmful effects of the entry into force of the Civil Code (German School, postponement faction)
      • 6.2. Decisive faction responses – opinions published in 1891
        • 6.2.1. The Association of Constitutionalists Journal editorial team’s article regarding the motives of journalistic activity (decisive faction)
        • 6.2.2. Kōsaku Handa’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 6.2.3. Kentarō Ōi’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 6.2.4. The opinion of Michito Shirome (French School, decisive faction)
        • 6.2.5. Kōzō Miyagi’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
      • 6.3. Issues during the Imperial Diet’s second meeting and the House of Representatives election in 1891
      • 6.4. Postponement faction’s opinions in 1892
        • 6.4.1. Y. Okuda’s opinion on the inaccuracies in Personal Law (English School, postponement faction)
        • 6.4.2. K. Takahashi’s opinion (English School, postponement faction)
        • 6.4.3. T. Hanai’s opinion concerning the relation between the Codes and the revision of unequal treaties (English School, postponement faction)
        • 6.4.4. The Jurisprudence News editorial team’s opinion related to the arguments for postponing the date of entry into force of the Codes (postponement faction)
      • 6.5. Decisive faction’s opinions in 1892
        • 6.5.1. The Meihō Journal editorial team’s opinion on the goals of establishing the Meihō Association (decisive faction)
        • 6.5.2. G. Boissonade’s opinion (decisive faction)
        • 6.5.3. Kenjirō Ume’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 6.5.4. S. Isobe’s opinion (French School, decisive faction)
        • 6.5.5. The Journal of Law editorial team’s opinion on the position of the Ministry of Justice and the Imperial Diet’s third meeting (decisive faction)
        • 6.5.6. The Association of Constitutionalists’ opinion concerning the arguments for the entry into force of the Codes (decisive faction)
        • 6.5.7. The Japanese-French Law School Alumni Association’s opinion (decisive faction)
        • 6.5.8. The Journal of Law editorial team’s opinion on the last determination (decisive faction)
      • 6.6. Conclusion of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code Controversy during the Imperial Diet’s third meeting
        • 6.6.1. Debate in the House of Peers
        • 6.6.2. Debate in the House of Representatives
      • 6.7. The Cabinet’s reaction to the end of the Controversy
      • CHAPTER SEVEN
    • CHAPTER SEVEN. SUMMARY OF THE CIVIL CODE CONTROVERSY
      • 7.1. Objections and responses of both factions during the Civil Code Controversy
      • 7.2. Reasons for the postponement faction’s victory
        • 7.2.1. Impact of legal opinions
        • 7.2.2. Influence of the Civil Code’s guiding principles
        • 7.2.3. Contradiction between Civil Code and Meiji Constitution principles
        • 7.2.4. Practical flaws of the Civil Code
        • 7.2.5. Weakened political position of the cabinet and the Ministry of Justice
      • 7.3. Drafting of the revised Civil Code and completion of the codification
    • CHAPTER EIGHT. CONCLUSIONS
    • ILLUSTRATIONS
    • BIBLIOGRAPHY
      • 1. Archive documents
        • 1.1. National Archives (Kokuritsu Kōbunshokan)
        • 1.2. National Diet Library (Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan)
      • 2. Legal acts, legal act drafts and treaties
      • 3. Cabinet announcements and press
      • 4. Records of speeches in the House of Representatives and the House of Peers
      • 5. Legal opinions
      • 6. Monographs and articles
    • INDEX

Subjects

Back
Login to your account

Viewers online

  • Text
  • ReadSpeaker Audio

Download options

  • Adobe DRM Adobe DRM
  • Loan duration: 21 days
  • Format: PDF

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

By subscribing, you accept our Privacy Policy

©2021 - 2024 Digitalia - All rights reserved