The Reform of Japanese Private International Law. Die Reform des japanischen Internationalen Privatrechts - 10.1628/003372512798955031 - Mohr Siebeck
Law

Yoshiaki Sakurada, Eva Schwittek

The Reform of Japanese Private International Law. Die Reform des japanischen Internationalen Privatrechts

article PDF
Accessible Content
Japan has reformed its Act on the Application of Laws. On 1 January 2007, the Hô no tekiyô ni kansuru tsûsoku-hô came into effect, a revised and renamed version of the Hôrei that dates from 1898. This article traces the legislative process and analyses the changes in the law, referring to the way they have been implemented in the court rulings rendered so far.In sessions dating from May 2003 to July 2005, the Subcommittee for the Modernisation of the Act on the Application of Laws (part of the Legislative Commission of the Ministry of Justice) worked out fundamental innovations that were approved by the Legislative Commission of the Ministry of Justice on 6 September 2005. Based on this report, the Ministry of Justice, in cooperation with the Legislative Department of the Cabinet, drafted a bill that passed the Upper House on 19 April 2006 and the House of Representatives on 15 June 2006.The reform is comprehensive. The only parts of the law that were exempt from amendment were international family and inheritance law, those already having been reformed in 1989. The present renewal focuses on the provisions concerning international contract law (Arts. 7–12) and the international law of torts (Arts. 17–22). Both sets of rules were further differentiated in their basic principles and complemented by special rules.As for international contract law, the basic connecting factor is still the parties' choice of law (Art. 7). A fundamental change in determining the law applicable to contracts was implemented by introducing a new subsidiary objective connecting factor in Art. 8. It provides that in the absence of a choice of law by the parties, the law of the place with which the contract was most closely connected should apply, and it specifies criteria for determining the closest connection. The newly created rules on consumer and labour contracts in Arts. 11 and 12 contain major innovations aiming at the protection of the weaker party. However, they impose upon the weaker party the burden of stipulating the effect of the protective provision in question, an aspect which was much criticised as it limits such protective effects.The lex loci delicti, as the basic connecting factor for the law of torts, formerly stipulated in Art. 11(1) Hôrei, is maintained in Art. 17. Multilocal torts are governed by the law of the place where the results of the infringing act are produced (Art. 17 sentence 1). However, if it was not foreseeable under normal circumstances that the results would be produced at that place, the law of the place where the infringing act occurred shall apply (Art. 17 sentence 2). Special rules on product liability and on infringements of personality rights were added to the law in Arts. 18 and 19. The lex loci delicti as connecting factor can be deviated from in cases where a manifestly more closely connected place exists (Art. 20) or where the governing law is changed by the parties (Art. 21). The principle of double actionability, stating that Japanese law should be applied cumulatively to the applicable law regarding the grounds of and the compensation for damages incurred by a tort, was upheld in Art. 22 against severe criticism.Apart from the points of critique addressed above, the new law provides for a differentiated set of rules that keep pace with the latest international developments.
Authors/Editors

Yoshiaki Sakurada No current data available.

Eva Schwittek Geboren 1980; Studium der Rechtswissenschaften in Trier und Konstanz mit fachspezifischer Fremdsprachenausbildung Japanisch; Mitarbeiterin am MPI für ausländisches und internationales Privatecht in Hamburg und an der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt; Forschungsaufenthalte in Japan; Referendariat am Hanseatischen Oberlandesgericht; 2010 2. Staatsexamen; seit 2012 Rechtsanwältin in Frankfurt/Main.