The questions regarding the judicial power that are most often raised include the scope of the judicial power and the role of the judiciary. The development of administrative litigation in Japan provides a good way to reflect on these issues. Administrative litigation in Japan has always placed emphasis on resolving concrete “legal disputes” and stuck to a strict interpretation of the concept such as “administrative disposition” and standing. It has also centered upon “ex post” review of administrative activities. This attitude seems to be changing since the 2004 amendment of the Administrative Case Litigation Act (ACLA). The judiciary is gradually widening the subject matter of administrative litigation, using so-called “confirmation litigation.” With respect to standing, it is moving towards a more flexible interpretation using the newly inserted Article 9, Paragraph 2, which was, ironically, drafted as a codification of existing case law. “Mandating litigation,” a new type of litigation introduced by the 2004 amendment, is coming into use. The judiciary has not only accepted the express mandate given by the legislator through the 2004 amendment, but also its general message for more effective relief and protection of rights and interests of citizens.

Judicial Governance; Administrative Case Litigation Act; Legal Dispute; Administrative Disposition; Standing; Mandating Litigation