Act of government - Touchikoi (English spelling) Regierungsakt; acte de gouvernement

Japanese: 統治行為 - とうちこうい（英語表記）Regierungsakt; acte de gouvernement

Even if legal judgment is possible, acts that are not covered by judicial review because they are highly political and directly relate to the basis of national governance. They are generally called acts of government, named after the French term "acte de gouvernement," but are also called political questions, named after the American term "political question." There are several theories on the existence of acts of government: the self-restraint theory, which holds that such highly political acts should ultimately be settled politically and that it is wise for the courts not to make a ruling on them; the inherent constraint theory, which holds that the courts cannot make a judgment on them due to the nature of judicial power and the separation of powers; and a compromise theory that straddles both. Regardless of which theory is used, there is no consensus on what specific acts should be considered acts of government. In addition, there is also a fairly strong negative theory that, based mainly on Article 81 of the Constitution, which gives the courts comprehensive power to review constitutionality (→ judicial review), there are no acts that cannot be subject to judicial review as an interpretation of the Japanese Constitution. In the Sunagawa case, precedent ruled that the Japan-US Security Treaty was "highly political and related to the foundation of our country's existence as a sovereign nation," and therefore outside the scope of judicial review, "unless it is clearly unconstitutional and invalid at first glance" (Supreme Court decision, December 16, 1959, Criminal Cases, Vol. 13, No. 13, 3225). In the Tomabechi case, the court ruled that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was "an act related to the fundamental principles of national governance, which is highly political," and thus also outside the scope of judicial review (Supreme Court decision, June 8, 1985, Minshu, Vol. 14, No. 7, 1206).

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise Encyclopedia About Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Information

Japanese:

法的判断が可能であっても，直接国家統治の基本にかかわる高度の政治性を有することを理由に，司法審査権が及ばないとされる行為。フランス法の acte de gouvernementにちなんで一般に統治行為と呼ばれるが，アメリカ法の political questionから名を取って政治問題と呼ばれることもある。統治行為の存在根拠としては，かかる高度の政治的行為は最終的には政治的に決着をつけられるべきで裁判所が裁断しないほうが賢明であるとする自制説，司法権の本質や権力分立から裁判所はもとより判断できないとする内在的制約説，両者にまたがるとする折衷説が主張されている。いずれの説によるにせよ，具体的にいかなる行為を統治行為と考えるべきかについては，必ずしも定説がない。なお，裁判所に包括的な違憲審査権 (→司法審査 ) を付与する憲法 81条をおもな根拠に，日本国憲法の解釈論として司法審査の対象となりえない行為はないとする否定説もかなり有力である。判例は砂川事件では，日米安全保障条約は「主権国としてのわが国の存立の基礎に極めて重大な関係をもつ高度の政治性を有する」もので「一見極めて明白に違憲無効であると認められない限り」司法審査権の範囲外にあるとし (最判 1959.12.16.刑集 13巻 13号 3225) ，苫米地事件では，衆議院の解散を「極めて政治性の高い国家統治の基本に関する行為」であったとし，同じく司法審査権の範囲外とした (最判 60.6.8.民集 14巻7号 1206) 。

出典　ブリタニカ国際大百科事典小項目事典ブリタニカ国際大百科事典小項目事典について　情報

<<: Emperor Tongzhi

>>: Equivalent