Disbanded - Kaisan

Japanese: 解散 - かいさん

Dissolution of Parliament

The act of simultaneously dissolving all members of a parliament before the end of their term. The power to dissolve a parliament is exercised by the executive branch, but it is usually only granted to the lower house, which is made up of popularly elected members, in order to ask the will of the voters through a general election held following dissolution.

Dissolution is a system that was created during the development of the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom, but before the establishment of the modern parliamentary system, it was used as a punitive measure against parliaments that went against his will as part of the royal prerogative. Since the 19th century, with the establishment of the parliamentary cabinet system, dissolution has come to be carried out by the cabinet when it is believed that the will of parliament does not properly reflect the will of the voters. There are no constitutional restrictions on the reasons for dissolution, but it is carried out in cases such as the passage of a motion of no confidence in the cabinet, a conflict between the cabinet and parliament over an important policy, or the need to ask the voters for the implementation of a new important policy. As dissolution is a system aimed at checking and balancing parliament and the cabinet, it is not permitted in an American-style presidential system that adopts a strict separation of powers and respects the independence of both branches.

In Japan, under the Meiji Constitution, the Emperor was granted a broad right to dissolve the Diet, but the current Constitution is based on popular sovereignty and adopts a parliamentary cabinet system, which allows dissolution only of the House of Representatives, but the power of dissolution is in effect vested in the Cabinet. There are different theories on the constitutional basis for dissolution. One is that Article 69 of the Constitution allows dissolution only when the House of Representatives passes a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet or rejects a motion of confidence. The second theory is that the Cabinet has a broad right to dissolve the Diet, not just in the case of Article 69 of the Constitution, but the constitutional basis for this is further divided into three theories: (1) Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which provides for the dissolution of the House of Representatives as an act of state by the Emperor; (2) Article 65 of the Constitution includes the executive power; and (3) because Japan has adopted a British-style parliamentary cabinet system, the Cabinet can exercise the right to dissolve the Diet even without an explicit provision. The most influential theory is that Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution provides for the constitutional basis for dissolution, and this is the customary basis. However, the Emperor's acts in matters of state require the advice and approval of the Cabinet, and the actual authority lies with the Cabinet. Dissolution by a resolution of the House of Councillors is not permitted.

There are no constitutional restrictions on the grounds for dissolution. Possible reasons for dissolution include, but are not limited to, the passing of a no-confidence motion, the rejection of a confidence motion, a dispute between the Diet and the Cabinet over an important policy, or the emergence of an important national issue that was not an issue in the previous general election and the need to ask the public for their opinion.

As a result of the dissolution, all members of the House of Representatives lose their status, but a general election for the House of Representatives must be held within 40 days of the dissolution, and the Diet must be convened within 30 days of the election. During this Diet session, the Cabinet will resign en masse, and the Diet will appoint a new Prime Minister.

There is also a system for dissolving the assemblies of local governments. There are three procedures. The first is when a general referendum is held at the request of the residents (more than one-third of the voters) and there is a majority vote in favor. The second is when the assembly passes a vote of no confidence in the mayor, or a vote that is deemed to be a vote of no confidence, and the assembly is dissolved by the mayor. The third is when a resolution to dissolve is passed with the consent of more than four-fifths of the assembly members in attendance and with more than three-quarters of the assembly members present.

[Yamano Kazumi]

Dissolution of a corporation

Legal facts that may cause the extinction of the legal personality of a joint-stock company. The Companies Act lists the following as reasons for dissolution: (1) expiration of the term of existence as specified in the articles of incorporation (Article 471, item 1); (2) occurrence of a reason for dissolution as specified in the articles of incorporation (Article 471, item 2); (3) resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (Article 471, item 3); (4) company merger (in the case of an absorption-type merger, the company other than the surviving company, and in the case of a consolidation-type merger, all the parties involved; Article 471, item 4); (5) decision to commence bankruptcy proceedings (Article 471, item 5); and (6) court decision ordering the dissolution of the company (Article 471, item 6). (1), (2), and (3) must be registered within two weeks (Article 926). In addition, (7) if the Minister of Justice issues a notice in the Official Gazette to the effect that a company which has been registered for 12 years (dormant company) must notify the registry office with jurisdiction over the location of its head office within two months that it has not yet ceased business, the company will be deemed dissolved at the end of the two-month period (Article 472. However, if a registration is made regarding the dormant company within that period, the company will not be deemed dissolved). There are two types of court decisions ordering dissolution: dissolution orders and dissolution judgments. The former is an order to dissolve a company issued by the court upon the application of the Minister of Justice or shareholders, creditors, or other interested parties when it is deemed that the existence of the company cannot be permitted in order to ensure the public interest (Article 824, paragraph 1, Article 904). The latter is a judgment made by the court at the request of a minority shareholder when a company faces extremely difficult circumstances in the execution of its business, causing irreparable damage to the company, or when the management and disposition of company assets is extremely improper, endangering the existence of the company (Article 833).

[Shuzo Toda and Norihiko Fukuhara]

"Tax and accounting for company dissolution and liquidation by case" edited by Takano Accounting Office (2007, Tax Research Institute Publishing Bureau)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

議会の解散

議会の構成員たる全議員の資格を、任期満了前に、同時に失わせる行為をいう。解散権は行政府によって行使されるが、解散に引き続いて実施される総選挙によって有権者の意思を問うことを目的とするため、公選議員からなる下院について認められるのが通例である。

　解散は、イギリスにおける議会制の発展の過程で生まれた制度であるが、近代的議会制の成立以前は、国王特権の一部として、その意思に反する議会に対して懲罰的に行使された。19世紀以降、議院内閣制が成立し、解散は、議会意思が有権者の意思を正しく反映していないと考えられる場合、内閣によって行われるようになった。解散事由について憲法的制限はないが、内閣不信任案の可決、内閣と議会との重要政策についての対立、新しい重要政策の実施について有権者の意思を問う必要がある場合などに行われる。解散は、議会と内閣の抑制・均衡を目的とする制度であるため、厳格な権力分立制を採用し、両府の独立制を尊重するアメリカ型大統領制では認められない。

　日本では、明治憲法下で天皇による広範な解散権が認められていたが、現憲法では国民主権を基として議院内閣制を採用し、衆議院についてのみ解散を認めるが、解散権は実質的に内閣にある。解散の憲法上の根拠については学説が分かれる。その一つは、憲法第69条により、衆議院が内閣不信任案を可決、または信任案を否決した場合にのみ認められるとする。その二は、憲法第69条の場合に限らず、内閣に広く解散権を認めるが、その憲法上の根拠は、さらに、(1)天皇の国事行為として衆議院の解散を定める憲法第7条3項による、(2)憲法第65条の行政権に含まれる、(3)イギリス型議院内閣制を採用しているため明文の規定がなくとも内閣は解散権を行使しうる、の3説に分かれる。憲法第7条3項に解散の憲法上の根拠を求めるのがもっとも有力な学説であり、慣例もこれによっている。ただし天皇の国事行為は内閣の助言と承認を必要とするもので、実質的権限は内閣にある。院の決議による解散は認められない。

　解散事由については憲法上の制限はなく、不信任案の可決、信任案の否決のほか、国会と内閣との重要政策についての対立、前回総選挙で争点とならなかった重要な国政上の問題が発生して民意を問う必要がある場合などが考えられるが、かならずしも以上の場合に限られない。

　解散の効果として、衆議院議員は全員その身分を失うが、解散の日から40日以内に衆議院の総選挙を行い、その選挙の日から30日以内に国会を召集しなければならない。この国会において内閣は総辞職し、国会は新しく内閣総理大臣を指名する。

　地方公共団体の議会についても解散の制度がある。その手続には3種類がある。その一は、住民の請求（有権者の3分の1以上）によって一般投票が行われ過半数の同意があった場合、その二は、議会が長に対して不信任決議を行った場合、または不信任とみなされる議決を行った場合の長による解散、その三は、議員の4分の3以上の出席のもとに5分の4以上の同意により解散の議決をした場合である。

［山野一美］

株式会社の解散

株式会社の法人格の消滅をきたすべき原因である法律事実。その解散事由として、会社法は、(1)定款が定めた存続期間の満了（471条1号）、(2)定款の定めた解散の事由の発生（471条2号）、(3)株主総会の決議（471条3号）、(4)会社の合併（吸収合併においては存続会社以外の会社、新設合併においては当事会社すべて。471条4号）、(5)破産手続開始の決定（471条5号）、(6)会社の解散を命ずる裁判（471条6号）をあげている。(1)(2)(3)は、2週間以内に登記が必要である（926条）。また、(7)最後の登記後12年を経過した会社（休眠会社）が、2か月以内に本店所在地を管轄する登記所にいまだ営業を廃止していない旨の届出をなすべき旨を法務大臣が官報に公告した場合に、この2か月の満了のときに、解散をしたものとみなされる（472条。ただし、当該期間内に当該休眠会社に関する登記がなされたときは、解散したものとはみなされない）。前述の解散を命ずる裁判には、解散命令と解散判決の二つの場合がある。前者は、公益を確保するために会社の存立を許すことができないと認めるときに、法務大臣または株主・債権者その他の利害関係人の申立てにより、裁判所が行う会社を解散させる命令である（824条1項、904条）。後者は、会社が業務の執行において著しく困難な状況に至り、会社に回復することができない損害を生じさせるとき、または会社財産の管理処分が著しく失当で、会社存立を危うくするときに、少数株主の請求により、裁判所がなす判決である（833条）。

［戸田修三・福原紀彦］

『高野総合会計事務所編『ケース別会社解散・清算の税務と会計』（2007・税務研究会出版局）』

[参照項目] | 解散請求 | 会社法 | 下院 | 株式会社 | 議員 | 議院内閣制 | 議会 | 内閣 | 不信任決議

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Sea and mountain

>>: Keyserling, Hermann Alexander