A STUDY ON "CONCILIATION IN LAW SUITS"FROMA A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

在过去十年中，司法机构积极推行诉讼中的调解程序。这既有有利的反应，也有不利的反应。可取的答复是，它减少了司法费用，并使实际法院判决无法达成的补救措施成为可能。另一方面，在涉及公共权力的大型法律诉讼中，如艾滋病案和Hinamata病案，“要求依法作出判决的压力问题”相当强烈。更重要的是。有关司法权的限制和法官增加司法自由裁量权的问题，如果采用调解程序，则被认为是不利的，因为它可能会侵犯当事人的程序保障。从司法人员作为“公平决策者”的角度来看，在上述大型公法诉讼中，有以下三种情况可以适用调解程序。它们是：1)紧急补救的需要；21法院必须给出详细的法律“意见”；3)程序正当程序的保障。最近对《民事诉讼法》的修订确立了辩护的恢复性程序(第十一章第265节)。修正案的目的是消除对辩护和司法调解程序的疑虑，并澄清所涉及的程序。诉讼各方最需要考虑的一点是，有关法官“以公平的方式收集所需的资料，并适当地披露这些资料。为了完成这一程序，重要的一点是根据宪法第32条控制法官的自由裁量权，该条保障了“诉诸法院的权利”。不幸的是，在这一特定领域的研究仍然是孤立的。今后需要对关于控制司法自由裁量权的第三十二条进行更多的研究。

For over the past decade, the judiciary has actively pursued the procedure of conciliation within law suits. This has had both favorable and unfavorable responses. The lavorable responses have been that it has reduced judicial expenses and that it has made possible remedies not capable of being reached by an actual court judgment. On the other hand, in large-scale law suits involvinq public power related concerns such as the Aids Case and Hinamata Disease Cases problems concerning pressure to pursue a judgment by law" are quite strong. Furthermore. issues concerning the limits in the role of judicial power and the increase at judicial discretion by the judge are said to be unfavorable if conciliatoin procedure is used since it may result in infringements in the partys procedural guarantees.From the perspective of the judiciary as being "the fair decision-maker, " the following three c'onditions justify using conciliation procedures in the above-mentioned large-scale public law suits. They are : 1) The need for an urgent remedy ; 21 The court must give an detailed legal "opinion" ; 3) A guarantee of procedural due process.The recent amendment to the code of Civil Procedure established reparatory proceedings for advocacy (xi 265). The aim of the amendment was to eliminate doubts about advocacy and judicial conciliation proceedings and to make clear the procedures involved.The most important point to consider for the parties in the law suit is that the judge"involved collects the necessary information in a fair manner and that the information is properly disclosed. In order to accomplish this procedure, an important point will be to control the judges discretion based on Artilce 32 of the Constitution which guarantees "the right of access to courts." Unfortunately, research in this particular field is still insulficient. More research on Article 32 concerning the control of judicial discretion will need to be done in the future.