オンライン参加方法
参加登録ページURL
https://chuo-u.webex.com/chuo-u/j.php?RGID=raf03db00fb95b50a24c93bc3edaec2bf
上記URLの短縮URLはこちらです。　https://bit.ly/3Ne2Qgq

シンポジウム
『緊急事態と憲法：日米比較とグローバルな視点』
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO EMERGENCIES: JAPAN, THE U.S., AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

趣旨説明
Jonathan Hafetz

EMERGENCY POWERS, DEMOCRACY, AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

CONTRASTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE USE OF FORCE: JAPANESE AND US RESPONSES TO ARMED ATTACK AND TERRORISM
黒崎将広/Masahiro Kurosaki
防衛大学校人文社会科学群国際関係学科准教授

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN JAPANESE EMERGENCY RESPONSES
大河内美紀/Minori Okochi
名古屋大学大学院法学研究科 総合法政専攻 基幹法・政治学 教授

A COMPARISON OF JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES’ RESPONSES TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY POWERS
Jonathan Hafetz, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School
Fulbright Scholar, Rikkyo University, Japan

THE DECISION OF THE TOKYO DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 16, 2022, AND THE ISSUES WITH JUSTICE IN CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IN TIMES OF CRISIS
金塚彩乃/Ayano Kanezuka
弁護士（第二東京弁護士会・パリ）

LEGAL REACTIONS TO COVID-19 IN WESTERN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Arianna Vedaschi, Full Professor of Comparative Public Law
Bocconi University, Milan

10:00〜10:10
シンポジウムの趣旨
Jonathan Hafetz
国家が危機にどのように対応するかは、法学者にとっても実務家にとっても豊かな研究分野である。このシンポジウムでは、日本とアメリカがそれぞれの憲法の下で、緊急事態やその他の急迫した状況にどのように対処しているかを比較する。日本とアメリカは、他の国々と同様、武力紛争やテロ、感染症や公衆衛生、環境災害など、幅広い分野で安全保障上の脅威や危機に直面することが避けられない。この会議では、このような課題に対する両国の対応が、両国の憲法の重要な側面や両国の比較の重要なポイントをどのように浮き彫りにしているのかを検討する。また、このような緊急事態における政府権力の行使を審査する際に、裁判所が果たす役割についても検討する。さらに、国際法が、それぞれの国の憲法の下での緊急事態への対応の枠組みや実施にどのような影響を与えることができるかを検討する。
また、このシンポジウムは、緊急権についてより一般的に考える機会にもなる。日本とアメリカは、憲法に緊急事態条項がない比較的少数の国の一つである。しかし、緊急事態条項がないにもかかわらず、日本とアメリカは、さまざまな状況下で特別な立法措置によって緊急事態に対処してきた。この2国の対応を比較することは、憲法に例外的権限の行使を明示的に解禁する規定がない先進民主主義国が、新たに発生する危機にどのように対処するかを明らかにするのに役立つ。また、憲法に緊急事態条項を盛り込むことの必要性や価値など、このような権限をめぐる広範な議論についても、この比較は示唆を与えるであろう。ここでは、他の先進民主主義国がCOVID-19の大流行によってもたらされた課題にどのように立ち向かったか、この文脈における国際法の役割について、より広く考察することによって、さらなる教訓が引き出されることになる。
この会議では、2つのセッションが行われる。午前中のセッションでは、緊急事態への対応と立憲主義というテーマについて簡単に概観し、この大きな議論の中で日本とアメリカを位置づける。そして、テロや環境災害など、例外的な権限行使を迫られる緊急事態に対する日米の対応を大まかに比較する。午後のセッションでは、COVID-19のパンデミックに対する日米のそれぞれの対応と、COVID-19の制限の合法性・合憲性を争う裁判に焦点を当てる。パンデミックは、その国の憲法の下で緊急事態がどのように定義され対処されるか、政府の制限に対する訴えにおける裁判所の役割、公共の福祉と個人の自由に関する競合する懸念に国がいかに対処するか、考える貴重な機会を提供する。このセッションでは、現在のパンデミックに対する西欧諸国の対応について議論することで、国際人権法が公衆衛生危機に対する国家の対応にどのような影響を与えうるかといった国際的な視点も提供する予定である。さらに、両セッションでは、民主主義国家が緊急事態に対応する際に提起されるより大きな問題についても検討する。
How states respond to crises provides a rich area of study for both legal scholars and practitioners. This conference will compare how Japan and the United States respond to emergencies and other exigent circumstances under their respective constitutions. Like other countries, Japan and the United States inevitably confront security threats and other crises across a wide range of areas, including armed conflict and terrorism; infectious diseases and public health; and environmental disaster. The conference will explore how the responses of these two countries to such challenges highlight important aspects of each country’s constitutions and important points of comparison between them. It will also examine the role courts play in reviewing the exercise of government power amid such exigent circumstances. The conference will further explore how international law can affect the framing and implementation of responses to emergencies under the countries’ respective constitutions.
The conference will also provide an opportunity to consider emergency powers more generally. Japan and the United States remain among the relatively few countries that lack emergency powers clauses in their respective constitutions. Yet even without such clauses, Japan and the United States have responded to emergencies through special legislative measures in various situations. Comparing the responses of these two countries can help shed light on how advanced democracies confront emerging crises without provisions in their constitutions that expressly unlock the use of exceptional powers. Relatedly, this comparison may offer insights into the broader debate over such powers, including the necessity and value of including emergency powers clauses in constitutions. Here, additional lessons will be drawn by looking more broadly at how other advanced democracies have confronted the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of international law in this context.
The conference will feature two sessions. The morning session will provide a brief overview on the subject of emergency responses and constitutionalism and situate Japan and the United States within this larger discourse. It will then compare broadly the responses of Japan and the United States to exigent circumstances, such as terrorism and environmental disaster, that create pressure to exercise exceptional powers. The afternoon session will focus on Japan and the United States’ respective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as legal challenges to COVID-19 restrictions. The pandemic provides a valuable opportunity to consider how emergencies are defined and addressed under a country’s constitution, the role of courts in resolving challenges to government restrictions, and the way in which countries navigate competing concerns about public welfare and individual freedom. This session will also provide an international perspective, including how international human rights law can affect a state’s response to a public health crisis by discussing the responses of states in western Europe to the current pandemic. Both sessions will, moreover, consider the larger issues raised when democracies respond to exigent circumstances.

10:10〜10:40
EMERGENCY POWERS, DEMOCRACY, AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Aziz Huq
On January 6, 2021, the U.S. Congress was attacked by a mob trying to thwart the counting of votes in the Electoral College. That attack crystallizes a broader attack on the neutral administration of democracy in the United States. It was a product, and a symptom of a democratic emergency. Yet there is not only no corresponding understanding of ‘emergency powers’ under American law that is responsive to that threat to democracy.
To explore this situation, this presentation explores the way in which emergency powers have been articulated and applied through case law. I focus on the identification of threats to democracy by the Court (from terrorism and, earlier, from Communism), and consider how and why these threats have come to be recognized, while others have been ignored. I further explore the ways in which constitutional law makes the present democratic emergency worse.

10:40〜11:10
CONTRASTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE USE OF FORCE: JAPANESE AND US RESPONSES TO ARMED ATTACK AND TERRORISM
黒崎将広 / Masahiro Kurosaki
In my presentation, I offer a brief analysis of the differences in constitutional constraints on the use of armed force between Japan and the United States, focusing on how they manifest themselves in responses to emergency situations of armed attack and terrorism. In doing so, the following contrasts will be highlighted as prominent examples showing how different approaches are to be taken by the two countries:
The first contrast concerns the difference in the constitutional process of exercising the international legal right to self-defense against armed attack. Japan’s exercise of the right to self-defense is limited to the situation of the occurrence of armed attack on Japan or another state that has a close relationship with Japan. The decision must be made by the government through a Cabinet decision with the approval of the Diet. In contrast, the US exercise of (anticipatory) self-defense is triggered by an imminent threat of armed attack and, depending on circumstances, the decision may be made by an on-the-spot military commander by way of the exercise of the right of unit self-defense in accordance with sui generis customary international law and the US presidential war power. This contrast could cause a critical difference between the two countries in operational readiness for the situation of armed attack.
The second contrast becomes clear when Japan and the United States each respond to acts of terrorism by non-state armed groups. As the use of force in self-defense under international law, the US has engaged in “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces,” and, as such, has treated their members as “unprivileged belligerents” who, upon capture, are subject to the punishment of offenses against the “common law of war” triable by military commissions as distinct from civilian courts. On the other hand, however, the Japanese legal approach to such terrorist acts would entirely fall within the peacetime criminal-law framework under the premise that, in the Japanese government’s view, those acts would not reach the threshold of armed attack to trigger the right to self-defense. As a result, the Japanese police forces would then perform counterterrorism operations with the law-enforcement support from the Self-Defense Forces, and those who commit the acts in question would be liable to be treated as common criminals subject to the punishment under the Japanese law.
Finally, the presentation concludes by posing the question of how the above differences in legal posture might affect the protection of privacy and human rights in the context of information gathering or intelligence for national security and law enforcement purposes, which is of growing importance in the age of digital transformation.
　
11:10〜11:40
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN JAPANESE EMERGENCY RESPONSES
大河内美紀/Minori Okochi
This study examines the actual situation and control of the power and authority the government exercises in the event of a crisis, which has been exercised in Japan under laws and regulations. Therefore, the emergency power under consideration is not the so-called national emergency power, but a less restrictive secondary emergency power.
First, this work will organize the existing constitutional studies in Japan and clarify that they focus on the national emergency power. It will then explain that secondary emergency powers, or the power to temporarily change the structure and rules of governance within the scope of the Constitution in peacetime, are currently being used in situations such as the response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, and clarify the need to examine secondary emergency powers.
Second, as a specific case study, this work takes the nuclear accident caused by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and examines to what extent and how government structures and human rights guaranties were restricted or altered by the response to the disaster. In particular, this study will focus on the actual functions played by non-legal restraints as self-restraints that do not involve coercive force. Prior studies have pointed out that a characteristic of Japan in response to the coronavirus pandemic was the use of non-coercive methods. This study will examine whether this characteristic of Japan applies to other cases as well.
Finally, this study will examine how mechanisms to control escalation or excesses in crisis response function in the above cases. In particular, this study will focus on the judiciary, which is generally expected to play an ex-post remedy role, to clarify the functionality in the time of crisis and the role it played in reality. Furthermore, it will also pay attention to the merits and demerits of the non-coercive responses discussed above.
　本研究は、日本で実際に法令に基づき行使された、「緊急事態」の発生時に政府が行使する権力・権限の実態と統制のあり方を検討することを目的とする。したがって、検討対象となる緊急権は、いわゆる国家緊急権ではなく、よりソフトな二次的緊急権である。
　報告では、まず、従来の日本における憲法研究の流れを整理し、それが国家緊急権に焦点を当てたものであることを明らかにする。その上で、二次的緊急権、すなわち平時において憲法の範囲内で統治の仕組みや効果を一時的・臨時的に変更する権限が、現在コロナ禍への対応などの場面で用いられていることに触れ、二次的緊急権を検討する必要性を明らかにする。
　第二に、具体的な事例として、2011年の東日本大震災による原発事故等を取り上げる。そして、そうした災害に対応するために、通常の統治機構や権利保障にどの範囲で、どの程度の制限・変更が加えられたのかを検討する。なかでも、強制力を伴わない自粛のような非法的規制が現実に果たした機能に着目する。コロナ禍における日本の対応は、非強制的手法によるものが大きなウェイトを占めていることがすでに指摘されている。この報告では、こうした特徴が他の領域においても妥当することを検証する。
　最後に、危機対応のエスカレーションまたは過剰を抑制するメカニズムが、上記の事例においてどのように機能したかを検証する。特に、一般に事後救済の役割を期待されている司法に注目し、危機の時期におけるその機能性とそれが現実に果たした役割を明らかにする。その際、上で論じた非強制的対応の功罪にも注意を払う。

11:40〜12:00 質疑応答　

12:00〜12:20 総会前半　
12:30〜13:50 昼休み
13:50〜14:00 総会後半　

14:00〜14:30
A COMPARISON OF JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES’ RESPONSES TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY POWERS
Jonathan Hafetz
I plan to compare the United States's response to the COVID-19 pandemic with Japan's. Although the United States and Japan lack express provisions in their respective constitutions for the exercise of emergency powers, both countries have treated the pandemic as an emergency under law. Their responses, however, have different significantly. The United States has relied increasingly on coercive measures, such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements, partly due to an absence of voluntary cooperation and soaring infection and death rates. These requirements have generated a significant amount of litigation at both the federal and state levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, these requirements were imposed and enforced unevenly, with sharp differences based political affiliation and geography. Japan, in contrast, has relied predominantly on voluntarily compliance, behavioral cues, and social pressure. Japan has also experienced far more widespread compliance with and far more limited litigation over COVID-19 measures.
This comparison will seek to shed light on several questions related to the theme of this conference. For example, has the absence of a constitutional provision for the exercise of emergency powers affected Japan and the United States’ responses to COVID-19, and if so, how? How do these responses inform comparisons between Japan and the United States, and, in particular, how they respond to an emergency like COVID-19 in light of their respective constitutions? More broadly, what does this comparison suggest about whether and how the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of an emergency power clause in a country’s constitution affects how it responses to a crisis?

14:30〜15:00
THE DECISION OF THE TOKYO DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 16, 2022, AND THE ISSUES WITH JUSTICE IN CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IN TIMES OF CRISIS
金塚彩乃/Ayano Kanezuka
My presentation will consist of the decision of the Tokyo District Court rendered on May 16, 2022. The court ruled that the order of the Tokyo Metropolitan Office to Global Dining, which runs more than 30 restaurants in Japan, to close their restaurants in Tokyo after 8 pm between March 18th and 21st during the State of Emergency of 2021 which terminated on March 21st, was illegal. However, the judge did not order the Tokyo Metropolitan Office to indemnify the damage that our client suffered because of this illegal order, considering that at the moment of the order, the Governor of Tokyo, Ms. Koike, was not only advised by specialists, who considered that the order would be necessary to avoid the spread of corona virus, but could also not appreciate beforehand the illegality of the order as it was the very first order to close restaurants in Japan.
This decision is the first and the only court decision to have recognized the illegality of an administrative order issued under a State of Emergency. Even if this decision is not yet final and binding, it shall have a great impact on the administrative practice which shall take into account the interpretation of the law and norms as established by the court. As one of the lawyers who represented the company Global Dining, I would like to present the outline of the case, the content of the decision, and the consequences that this decision may have in the future.
From a comparative point of view, I would like to compare the Japanese law with the French administrative law. In France, indeed, unlike Japan, there have already been more than 1000 administrative court decisions about the measures taken by the government or the local governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this comparison, I would like to explore issues of the Japanese justice system in the control of administrative authority in times of crisis.

本発表は、５月１６日に出された東京地方裁判所の判決を紹介するものである。本判決は、２０２１年３月の緊急事態宣言の中、東京都が都内で約３０店舗のレストランを運営している株式会社グローバルダイニングに対し、３月１８日から２１日の４日間、２０時以降の営業を行わないよう求めた命令が、違法であると判断したものである。東京地裁は、命令自体の違法性は認めたものの、東京都知事は、２０２１年３月１８日の時点ではこの命令が違法であるとは判断し得なかったとして、都知事に過失はなかったとして、東京都の損害賠償義務は認めなかった。
　本判決は、コロナ禍の緊急事態宣言下での行政による命令の違法性を判断する、今のところ唯一の判決である。本判決は、未だ確定していないものの、緊急事態下における行政にはどのような慎重な判断が求められるかを判断したという意味において重要な判決であり、行政実務に与える影響も大きいものと思われる。そこで、本発表においては、事案の概要、判決の内容と今後想定される影響に関し報告したい。
　なお、ヨーロッパ法との比較という観点からは、報告者が専門としているフランス法との比較から、日本での裁判所の判断が少ないことの理由とその問題提起を行いたい。

15:00〜15:30
LEGAL REACTIONS TO COVID-19 IN WESTERN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Arianna Vedaschi
This research addresses, from a comparative perspective, the legal reactions of some selected Western European democracies to Covid-19. More specifically, it assesses whether some common trends and issues arising from the use of emergency powers can be identified.
This work starts, first, by surveying (whether and) how the constitutions of democratic countries in Western Europe regulate emergency, in an attempt to “categorize” constitutional emergency powers.
Second, the analysis considers whether or not these “emergency models”, pre-established by constitutions, have been applied in the fight against this unprecedented pandemic. In doing so, the analysis reveals that resort to constitutional emergency clauses was exceptional during the Covid-19 crisis, since a wide majority of countries preferred alternative strategies. These patterns of response have been closely examined, identifying at least three different trends.
The conclusions of this work point to a sort of “escape” from pre-existing emergency mechanisms and discuss the possible reasons underpinning this situation. Furthermore, some changes that might be introduced, once Covid-19 is eradicated, to improve emergency frameworks and make them suitable to face ‘global’ emergencies.

15:30〜16:00 質疑応答