UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN

This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the state, the service of process, and the compatibility with Japanese public policy. Although Japanese courts have rarely refused the recognition of foreign judgments for lack of reciprocity for a long time, some Chinese judgments recently have not been recognized for this reason. The author clarifies first with historical review what was the purpose of the Japanese legislator, when the original law of 1890 required the reciprocity by international treaties, and when later the reform law of 1926 required the simple reciprocity that is similarly provided in the current law. The author surveys then the Japanese case law concerning the reciprocity requirement after the reform of 1926. The author focuses further on the reciprocity between Japan and China and compares the Japanese practice with the German one that led to a different result. Last, it is concluded that the reciprocity requirement is contrary to the protection of human rights under Japanese constitution.     

Addressing Gaps in the Maturity of Judgment Literature: Age Differences and Delinquency

Over the past decade, a majority of states have legislated to expand their capacity to try adolescents as adults [Griffin (2003). Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice]. In response, researchers have investigated factors that may affect adolescent culpability [Steinberg and Scott (Am Psychol 58(12):1009–1018, 2003)]. Research on immature judgment posits that psychosocial influences on adolescent decision processes results in reduced criminal responsibility [Cauffman and Steinberg (Behav Sci Law 18(6):741–760, 2000); Scott, Reppucci, and Woolard (Law Hum Behav 19(3):221–244, 1995); Steinberg and Cauffman (Law Hum Behav 20(3):249–272, 1996)]. The current study utilizes hypothetical vignettes and standardized measures of maturity of judgment (responsibility, temperance, and perspective) to examine gaps in previous maturity of judgment findings (Cauffman and Steinberg 2000). This work suggests that adolescents (ages 14–17) display less responsibility and perspective relative to college students (ages 18–21), young-adults (ages 22–27), and adults (ages 28–40). Further, this research finds no maturity of judgment differences between delinquent and non-delinquent youth, but does find significant maturity of judgment differences between high and low delinquency male youth. Finally, results show that maturity of judgment predicts self-reported delinquency beyond the contributions of age, gender, race, education level, SES, and antisocial decision making. Implications for the juvenile justice system are discussed. This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the M.A degree in Psychology from the University of New Hampshire.     

Are accurate witnesses more likely to make absolute judgments?

The present study tested the Two-Judgment Theory of Eyewitness Identification Accuracy. Specifically, the extent to which participants were able to engage in an absolute judgment strategy was manipulated by varying the time available to view a lineup. Providing a limited exposure to a lineup should “interrupt” decision making, whereby witnesses can only engage a relative strategy, thus leading to higher false positive responding given a target-absent lineup. Seventy-four adults viewed a 1-minute video that exposed them to an unknown target and subsequently viewed the lineup for a limited (2 s) or an unlimited amount of time. Although false positive rates were similar across conditions, accurate witnesses were more confident than inaccurate witnesses. Confidence was negatively correlated with response latency such that witnesses who took more time to make a decision were less confident in their decisions compared to witnesses who made more rapid decisions. Response latency did not differ for accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Limitations and suggestions for future research on the Two-Judgment Theory are discussed.     

律师谋略论

本文针对律师如何为当事人权衡利弊选择方案并在文书写作中力争最大可能影响法官裁判提出了建设性意见     

具有深远意义的两次重要判断

改革开放以来,我们党作过两次具有深远意义的重要判断,第一次是十一届六中全会关于我国社会主义处于初级阶段的科学判断,第二次是"三个代表"重要思想对我们党所处历史方位的科学判断。两次科学判断具有深刻的启示作用。     

对我国现行民事检察监督制度的理性思考

实践中我国民事检察监督因立法的简陋而难以操作;学术上对现行民事检察监督制度的研究,或者受制于"注释法学"的研究方式,或者基于部门本位主义而结论有所偏颇。构建我国的民事检察监督制度应该遵循四大原则:一是广泛借鉴国外立法的先进经验;二是充分结合具体国情和本土法治资源;三是遵循法律制度设置的内在要求,实现法律公正的目标,保证诉讼效益,维护诉讼程序的安定性;四要着眼于我国民事诉讼法律制度的整体发展,不局限于部门利益。     

"媒体审判"、"舆论审判"检讨

任何人都不能做自己的"法官".任何法官都只能对纷争本身做出裁判,而司法是否公正,理应接受民众的评判--"媒体审判"、"舆论审判".法官判案是以法庭审理查明的"事实"为依据,以法律为准绳,而不是以媒体报道的"事实"为依据,以"舆论"为准绳."媒体审判"、"舆论审判"误导司法之说无从谈起.控制"媒体审判"、"舆论审判"的想法是危险的,实践是徒劳的.     

民事裁判文书的理性探析

裁判文书是司法公正的载体 ,理由是裁判文书的灵魂。而如何增强裁判文书的说理性 ,是我国目前裁判文书改革的重点。本文从三个方面 :理性展现的对象、理性展理的必要性、理性展现的路径 ,论证我国民事裁判文书加大说理力度的重要意义及改革思路。     

船舶拍卖实务问题研究

船舶拍卖是海事审判中独具特色的法律制度。虽然《海诉法》对此作出了系列规定 ,但在船舶拍卖实务中仍然存在诸多问题。文章根据船舶拍卖的性质对拍卖公告期限、债权登记、确权诉讼、拍卖价款的受偿等问题从实务方面进行了探讨     

论“华人网络第一案”黄静案的正当性——以法官自由裁量权为角度的说明

法官自由裁量权几乎在每个案件中存在。为了获得当事人的认同,减少案件质疑,自由裁量权的正当性尤其重要。分析"华人网络第一案"黄静案可以看出,正当程序和判决的合理化说明是其两个基本条件,而且这两个条件处于一种辩证关系。