Skip to main content

Japan: Quests for Equilibrium and Certainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 37))

  • 736 Accesses

Abstract

Japanese law in the area of choice of court agreements has been striving to find an optimal equilibrium between the interests of the parties to such agreements as well as to ensure certainty and predictability in its application. In a quest for an optimal equilibrium, a recent amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure has introduced special rules for consumer contracts and individual employment relations, which are applicable to all choice of court agreements pleaded before the Japanese courts. Those rules have obviated much of the need to rely on the amorphous concept of public policy, resulting in greater certainty. In a further development, a new provision is shortly to be inserted in the Civil Code which seeks to ensure an optimal equilibrium between parties to a standard form contract (whether or not it is a consumer contract). It may be invoked to challenge asymmetrical choice of court agreements when they are governed by Japanese law. The test is whether the terms are so unfavourable to one side as to contravene the principle of good faith. Since the notion of good faith is nebulous, the new provision may introduce an element of uncertainty into this area of law. It goes to show that a tension can arise between a quest for equilibrium and a quest for certainty. Another cause for uncertainty which exists in the current law and ought to be tackled is the absence of clear rules for determining whether a choice of court agreement is optional or exclusive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is no official English translation of Japanese law. All the translation of Japanese legislation in this article is the work of the present author.

  2. 2.

    For details, see Takahashi (2015a), pp. 104–110.

  3. 3.

    For details, see e.g. Takahashi (2011), p. 146.

  4. 4.

    Supreme Court, Judgment, November 28, 1975, 29 Minshu (10) 1554 [1975]. An English translation of the judgment is available in the Japanese Annual of International Law, No. 20 (1976) p. 106.

  5. 5.

    In the corresponding period, there was only one known case (Tokyo District Court, Judgment, September 13, 1999, Kaijiho Kenkyukaishi [Maritime Law Research Journal] Vol. 154 (2000) p. 89) in which public policy was found to be violated.

  6. 6.

    Tokyo High Court, Judgment, June 28, 2012, LEX/DB 25504140; Tokyo District Court, Judgment, November 14, 2012, LEX/DB 25483568; Osaka High Court, Judgment, February 20, 2014, H.J. (2225) 77 [2014]; and the Tokyo High Court, Judgment, November 17, 2014, H.T. (1409) 200 [2015].

  7. 7.

    Among the cases mentioned in the preceding footnote, the cases of the Tokyo High Court and the Osaka High Court involved consumer contracts. The Tokyo District Court case concerned individual employment relations.

  8. 8.

    This provision has application to choice-of-court agreements concluded on or after April 1, 2012.

  9. 9.

    Tokyo High Court, Judgment, November 28, 2000 (United Airlines case) H.J. (1743) 137 [2001].

  10. 10.

    http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi2_050906-1-1.html (in Japanese).

  11. 11.

    e.g. The Kyoto District Court in its judgment on 29 January 2015 (2015WLJPCA01296002) refused to dismiss proceedings under Article 3-9 where there was a non-exclusive choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Japanese courts.

  12. 12.

    Ministry of Justice (2009) p. 30 (in Japanese).

  13. 13.

    e.g. Supreme Court, Judgment on the Chisadane case, supra note 4; Tokyo District Court, Judgment, April 11, 2008, H.T. (1276) 332; Tokyo District Court, Judgment, September 24, 2008, 2008WLJPCA09248005; Tokyo District Court, Judgment, March 26, 2014, 2014WLJPCA03269011.

  14. 14.

    The original text of the choice-of-court agreement was in English. But the judgment, written in Japanese, only contains some English words from the agreement. The translation is a reconstruction by the present author using those English words.

  15. 15.

    Tokyo District Court, Judgment, September 24, 2008, supra note 13. Other decisions adopting the same characterisation include the Tokyo District Court, Judgment, February 28, 1994, H.T. (876) 268.

  16. 16.

    Tokyo District Court, Judgment, March 26, 2014, supra note 13.

  17. 17.

    Tokyo District Court, Judgment, March 27, 2015, H.T. (1421) 238.

  18. 18.

    E.g. Osaka High Court, February 21, 1990 H.T. (732) 270; Kobe District Court Amagasaki Branch, Judgment, October 14, 2011, H.J. (2133) 96. The latter even overrode the word “exclusive” used in the choice-of-court agreement.

  19. 19.

    See the text accompanying supra note 14.

  20. 20.

    Article 1(2) of the Civil Code provides:

    The exercise of rights and the performance of obligations shall be done in good faith.

  21. 21.

    For a suggestion of law reform on choice-of-court agreements in general, see Takahashi (2015b), p. 395.

  22. 22.

    The present author believes that where a choice-of-court agreement is contained in a contract, it should, like other terms in the same contract, be submitted to the choice-of-law analysis for that contract, with the result that it becomes subject to the law governing the contract except in what will be a rare situation where the parties have chosen a different law specifically for the choice-of-court agreement. Other authors prefer severing a choice-of-court agreement from the remainder of the contract and applying a separate choice-of-law analysis to it from the remainder of the contract.

References

  • Ministry of Justice (2009) Kokusai Saiban Kankatsu Hôsei ni kansuru Chûkan Shian no Hosoku Setsumei [Explanatory Notes on Interim Proposal concerning Legislation on International Jurisdiction] p 30 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi K (2011) Japan’s newly enacted rules on international jurisdiction: with a reflection on some issues of interpretation. Jpn Yearb Priv Int Law 13:146–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi K (2015a) The jurisdiction of Japanese courts in a comparative context. J Priv Int Law 11:103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi K (2015b) Law applicable to choice of court agreements. Jpn Yearb Int Law 58:384–396

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Takahashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Takahashi, K. (2020). Japan: Quests for Equilibrium and Certainty. In: Keyes, M. (eds) Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics