（Abstract）

The Position Paper of the Consultation of the Japanese Judicial Reform was officially published at 12 June 2001. Two basic conclusions can be drawn from the process that began 5 year ago：First，the Japanese judicial reforms called for andpromoted by financial and political circles，and became the focus of the publicmedia. This “Third Legal Revolution” continued the movement of modern codification of the Meiji Restoration period and the reconstruction of the legal order during the period of occupation by the U. S. Army after World World Ⅱ. Second，thevarious measures taken during this campaign were very bold and thorough，specifically expressed through the Japanese national lawyers’ association’s long standing promotion of the two reform propositions - appointing justices from among lawyers（to unify the people who work for the judiciary）and appointing “justices”from among laymen（to introduce a jury system）- which has received the approvalof the government. Moreover，the so-called “big judiciary” has from now onalso become the model aim for system innovation.

Why were these drastic judicial reforms carried out in Japan at the turn of the century？First，it resulted from the pressures of globalization. Capital flowthat had already broken national boundaries demanded a uniform standard to be adopted into different nation’s legal systems，and the process towards implementingjudicial conflict resolution mechanisms under the World Trade Organization（WTO）forced the domestic judicial systems to make corresponding changes. Second，regarding the requirement by enterprises to strengthen their own competitive capacities. In order to expand the right of self-management of enterprises variousrestraints and directives by the government must be eased，however，the establishment and enforcement of rules must be emphasized so as to avoid chaos resulting from competition. The coupling of these two aspects determines the importance of the judiciary. Furthermore，the unsuccessful results of political and administrative reforms made it necessary to look for a breakthrough within judicial reform，which involve fewer vested interests. Finally，we would say that it was the inevitable outcome of the expansion of the court’s functions. In the increasingcomplexity and dynamics of modern society many specific problems has become impossible find a solution within the law，thus the justices to a certain extent have to make policy-related judgments，and even to the extent of creating standards.Since the authority of the judges have been extended to the extent of creating standards，democratic supervision of the justices must therefore be strengthened，i. e. recognizing and broadening citizens’ participation in judicial activities.

The essence of the Japanese judicial reforms is to ease the government’s restrictions on the society，extending further the autonomy and self-governance of litigants and citizens as a whole，transforming the focus of governance from “a priori supervision” to “a posteriori remedies” - from “small justice” to “bigjustice”. Consequently，it’s necessary to establish various clear and fair rules and procedures，and furthermore the actual function of the judicial system must be strengthened，it is in particular necessary to strengthen the judicial supervisionmechanisms towards the legislature and the administration. Meanwhile，the restrictions on the judicial area itself also needs to be mitigated，e. g. throughreforming the judicial examination system，transparency of the judiciary，keeping the door of the litigation business open to neighboring legal professions outsidethe circle of lawyers，recognizing the participation of non-professional legal experts at trials，etc. to abolish the protective screen of qualification andstatus related privileges，as well as the professional monopoly of judges and lawyers，therefore facilitating the task of providing better legal services for citizens.

Translated by Wang Sixin

Edited by Otto Malmgren