Comparative Study of Administrative Litigation in Japan, the United States and E.U.

本文的研究目的在于从比较法的角度考察行政诉讼在发达国家的运行情况。笔者意识到1962年《行政诉讼法》的基本理论与现行宪法不相适应的问题。也就是说，现行行政诉讼法是以明治宪法的君主立宪理论为基础的。笔者认为，应当改变旧的国家主权论，使之更民主地反映以人民主权和基本人权为基础的现行宪法，这就迫使我们重新思考以“法治国”或“国家统治”为基础的国家主权论。另一方面，我坚持“依法行政”的原则。“这一原则体现了“法治”，即日本宪法的原则。它包括不可委托原则、实体正当法律程序、程序正当法律程序和司法救济等内容。笔者坚持并论证了“公定论”是君主立宪制的残余，无论是作为解释还是作为立法政策，都应予以否定。因此，（1）无效之诉的性质是确认其处分的违法性，而不是打破“强制执行”。（2）公共政策是在法治原则下通过行政法实现的。（3）行政诉讼应当重构为直接对抗处分违法的诉讼。

The purpose of the study is to try to consider how the Administrative Litigation has been worked in advanced countries from the point of view of the comparative law. I have an awareness of the problem that the basic theory of the Administrative Litigation Law of 1962 is inappropriate to the present Constitution. In other words, the present Administrative Litigation Law has based upon the theory proper to constitutional monarchy of Meiji Constitution. I think we should change the old theory into more democratic one that reflects the present Constitution that bases on the people sovereignty and fundamental human rights.This forces us to reconsider the basic theory that consists of "Rechtsstaat" or "Statutory Dominance." On the other hand, I insist "The Principle of Administration by Law." This principle materialize "rule of law" that is the principle of the Constitution of Japan. It includes non-delegation doctrine, substantive due process of law, procedural due process of law and judicial remedies.I insist and demonstrate that "kouteiryoku" theory is the remnant of constitutional monarchy and we should deny it as not only interpretation but legislative policy. Accordingly, (1)the nature of action for nullification ("torikeshi soshou") is to confirm the illegal of its disposition, not to break the "kouteiryoku". (2)The public policy is realized by an administrative law under the principle of rule of law. (3)Administrative litigation should be recomposed as the suit directly to contend the illegality of the disposition concerned.