Positive and Integrated Research on "Temporary Orders (Kari-no-kyusai)" as an Effective Remedy for a Violation of a Right and/or Interest20205876

日本宪法第32条中使用的“最高法院”和第82条中使用的“最高法院”解释为具有相同的含义。然而，前者应被解释为具有比后者更广泛的含义。如果一名中立和独立于其他权力的法官要在公正的程序下主持审判，那么这应被视为一项司法职能。应当理解的是，在公正程序的核心范围内，需要通知和听证以及平等，如果中止行政处分被认为是一项司法职能，那么总理的否决权就侵犯了这一司法职能，而且侵犯了诉诸法院的权利。一种解释认为，这一制度符合宪法。这一立场指出，需要该系统来应对总理可能面临的“紧急情况”。然而，很难想象在紧急状态下会出现需要中止行政处置的情况。这一立场不能成为总理否决权是否符合宪法的依据。如果首相的否决权被废除，就可以通过要求公开信息的行政诉讼程序（称为“Kari-no-gimuzuke（行政诉讼法第37条第5款第1项）”）来检查“有关国家安全的信息（信息公开法第5条第3款）”。许多人可能认为这一程序是不可接受的。其他人可能认为，这一程序可能只存在于上述案件中。然而，即使在这种情况下，该制度的违宪性仍然存在。因此，在上述情况下，一种可能的方法是允许对使用“Kari-no gimuzuke”确定的行政处分的中止立即上诉。

The term "saiban" used in Article 32 of the Japanese Constitution and "saiban" used in Article 82 are interpreted by the Supreme Court as having the same meaning. However, the former should be interpreted as having a broader meaning than the latter. If a judge that is neutral and independent of other powers is to preside over trials under fair procedures, then this should be considered a judicial function. It is to be understood that within the core of fair procedure entails, notice and hearing, and equality.If a stay of an executive disposition is considered a judicial function, then the Prime Minister's veto power violates this judicial function, and furthermore, violates the right of access to the courts. One interpretation suggests that this system in accordance with the constitution. This position states that the system is needed to correspond to possible "emergency situations" that the Prime Minister may face. However, it is difficult to imagine a case that would require a stay of an executive disposition in a state of emergency. This position cannot be a basis for the constitutionality of the Prime Minister's veto power. If the Prime Minister's veto power is abolished, it is possible to inspect "Information Concerning National Security (Information Disclosure Law, Article 5, No 3)" through an administrative litigation procedure referred to as "Kari-no-gimuzuke (Administrative Litigation Law Article 37, para. 5, No. 1)" which requires the disclosure of information. Many may think that this procedure may not be acceptable. Others may think that this procedure may exist only in the instance of the above-mentioned case. However, even in this case, unconstitutionality of the system still exists. One possible way in the above case, then, is to allow an immediate appeal (sokuji kokoku) of a stay of an executive disposition using the "Kari-no gimuzuke" determination.