Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comments on Legal Certainty from the Perspective of European, Austrian and Japanese Private Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Legal Certainty in a Contemporary Context

  • 896 Accesses

Abstract

On occasion, lawmakers justify their moves with the argument of enhanced legal certainty. But what does ‘legal certainty’ mean? This chapter explains the certainty concept by taking a look at some more recent European (Union), Austrian and Japanese private law issues. In doing so, it argues that the certainty concept shows various facets that address different legal issues, comprising ideas of inter alia legal clarity, legal stability and legal peace.

Although improved legal certainty should generally be welcome, the chapter indicates that an overemphasis of this concept might create some tension with other arguably important considerations – most notably with legal flexibility. The examples given in this analysis illustrate how policy makers try to react to this. Although the strategies taken in the discussed jurisdictions might differ, they all aim to reconcile the interests of natural and legal persons affected by lawmaking.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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.

    See, e.g., Bydlinski F (1988), p. 173, where the author refers to legal certainty as a ‘fundamental principle’ (Fundamentalprinzip).

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Canaris (1969), p. 17, where Canaris refers to legal certainty as a ‘highest value’ (oberster Wert).

  3. 3.

    The DCFR, published in 2009, is the result of extensive research on European private law rules primarily (but not only) focusing on contract law. For details on the DCFR see, e.g., Wrbka (2015a, pp. 195–208, 2014b), pp. 159–160; von Bar et al. (2009); von Bar and Clive (2009).

  4. 4.

    See Recital 22 of the DCFR Principles. Rule I. – I:102 DCFR (Interpretation and development) lists – in its third paragraph – legal certainty as one of the parameters that need to be taken into consideration in the ‘interpretation and development’ of private law rules (falling under the DCFR) – see Rule I. – I:102(2)(c) DCFR.

  5. 5.

    The other three are: freedom, justice and efficiency.

  6. 6.

    von Bar et al. (2009), p. 10.

  7. 7.

    For details, see Bydlinski F (1988, p. 293, 2011), p. 325.

  8. 8.

    For details, see Canaris (1969), p. 17.

  9. 9.

    Hage (2014a), p. 4.

  10. 10.

    At a different occasion Hage comments on legal certainty from the viewpoint of legal philosophy. He (once again) links the discussion to the concept of legal positivism – in the context of normative legal positivism – and refers to Thomas Hobbes. Hage explains that Hobbes can be considered as a prime advocate of ‘an effective state authority’ to achieve legal peace and clarity with the help of a set of precise and comprehensive rules. For details see Hage (2014b), p. 331 with reference to Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’.

  11. 11.

    Banakar (1998), pp. 353 et seq.

  12. 12.

    For further details, see Petzold (1998), p. 283; Neyer (1998), pp. 403 and 416; Banakar (1998), p. 385.

  13. 13.

    Akkermans (2014), p. 93.

  14. 14.

    Fernhout and van Rhee (2014), p. 295. The legal certainty concept is, of course, also discussed in other areas than within private law. One such example is, e.g., found in the field of criminal law. Johannes Keiler, Michele Panzavolta and David Roes discuss legal certainty in that context and by doing this stress the legal predictability aspect of legal certainty and explain that criminal law must meet a very high standard of unambiguousness to meet this demand. This is the consequence of the informative side of criminal law, i.e., of the idea that everybody should be able to predict the possible (il)legality of actions and the respective legal consequences thereof – see Keiler et al. (2014), p. 134. Aalt Willem Heringa adds that criminal law (as viewed from the state power or execution side) is characterised by the wish to accomplish legal peace. He further explains that the ultimate source for legal certainty should be seen in constitutions , because they allocate legal and legislative competences and powers among different stakeholders to accommodate different expressions of legal certainty – see Heringa (2014), p. 157. Another example of a non-private law area, where one can find discussions of legal certainty is administrative law. Chris Backes and Mariolina Eliantonio emphasise the practicability of the application of law and legal accessibility side of legal certainty in that area. They list legal certainty as one of eight key principles of administrative law in Europe, with some other more prominent principles being the right to be heard, the equality principle and the principle of impartiality – for details see Backes and Eliantonio (2014), p. 197.

  15. 15.

    In a similar way, e.g., Volkmar Gessner, who – when discussing the certainty principle in the context of globalisation – states as follows: ‘The term ‘legal certainty’ needs some explanations before we examine what psychological and economic approaches contribute to our understanding of the dilemma of legal (un)certainty in the context of global legal interaction’ – see Gessner (1998), p. 428.

  16. 16.

    For a definition of this term from the perspective of justice, see Wrbka (2015a), pp. 6 et seq.

  17. 17.

    See, e.g., Canaris (1969), p. 83, where Canaris explains that ‘in addition to the value of legal certainty it is the concept of fairness that could contradict a flexible system’ (translation mine).

  18. 18.

    Bydlinski F (1990), p. 87 (translation mine).

  19. 19.

    In a similar vein Peter Bydlinski, who argues that ‘legal norms are only rarely totally unambiguous’ (translation mine) – see Bydlinski P (2014), § 6 Recital 1.

  20. 20.

    For a discussion of the interplay between the flexibility and certainty of law in the context of the Austrian warranty regime see Wrbka (2015b).

  21. 21.

    For some comments on EU law from the perspective of legal certainty, see Petzold (1998); Neyer (1998); Banakar (1998).

  22. 22.

    For examples of this assumption, see, e.g., Wrbka (2015a), pp. 217–221 with further references.

  23. 23.

    Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts, 14 January 2009, OJ 2009 No. L33/10. The 2009 Timeshare Directive replaced the minimum harmonised 1994 Timeshare Directive (Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of a right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis, 26 October 1994, OJ 1994 No. L280/83).

  24. 24.

    For details on the CESL Regulation Proposal, see, e.g., Wrbka (2012a, b, 2014b, 2015a), pp. 190 et seq. (all with further references).

  25. 25.

    The list is not exhaustive. Most pieces of (at least partial) fully harmonised EU law can be used to explain the Commission’s wish to align domestic law for the sake of ‘legal certainty’ – see, e.g., Recital 5 of the Proposal for a (new) Directive on Package Travel (hereinafter 2013 Package Travel Proposal): ‘The [full] harmonisation of certain aspects of package contracts and assisted travel arrangements is necessary for the creation of a real consumer internal market’. Unlike the old Package Travel Directive of 1990 (Council Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours, 13 June 1990, OJ 1990 No. L 158/59), the 2013 Package Travel Proposal partially rests on full harmonisation – for details see Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on package travel and assisted travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, Directive 2011/83/EU and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC, 9 July 2013, COM(2013) 512 final.

  26. 26.

    See CESL Explanatory Memorandum (i.e., the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the CESL Regulation Proposal; hereinafter CESL Explanatory Memorandum), p. 11: ‘[F]or traders … [the CESL] would eliminate the need for research of different national laws’ – for details see Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, 11 October 2011, COM(2011) 635 final. As already explained at a different occasion, the Commission is convinced that traders consider contract law-related issues as among the biggest barriers to entering the cross-border market. Two of the three most often mentioned disincentives for trading across borders identified in a study of 2011 were the ‘[d]ifficulty in finding out about the provisions of a foreign contract law’ (ranked first with a total of 40 % of respondents considering this issue to have at least some practical impact) and ‘[t]he need to adapt and comply with different consumer protection rules in … foreign contract laws’ (ranked third with a total of 38 %) – for details see The Gallup Organization Hungary, ‘European Contract Law in Consumer Transactions. Analytical Report’, Flash Eurobarometer 321 (2011), p. 19, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_321_en.pdf and Wrbka (2015a), p. 225.

  27. 27.

    See, e.g., CESL Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4: ‘[Consumers] would also enjoy more certainty about their rights when shopping cross-border on the basis of a single set of mandatory rules’.

  28. 28.

    Grundmann (2013), p. 126.

  29. 29.

    This refers to EU regulations.

  30. 30.

    This refers to EU directives.

  31. 31.

    For details on this issue, see Wrbka (2014c), pp. 35 and 45.

  32. 32.

    For this and some further examples of common methods of sending, see, e.g., Rabl (2002), p. 148; Eccher and Riss (2014b), § 429 Recital 2. For a comment on uncommon methods of sending see, e.g., Rabl (2002), pp. 137–138.

  33. 33.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 25 October 2011, OJ 2011 No. L 304/260.

  34. 34.

    For details on these two see Wrbka (2014c), pp. 32–37.

  35. 35.

    For both negative and positive remarks on the two-tiered regime see Wrbka (2014c), pp. 46–49.

  36. 36.

    For details see, e.g., Stuyck (2010), pp. 50–54.

  37. 37.

    BGBl 1961/37.

  38. 38.

    BGBl 1999/186.

  39. 39.

    Note that Austria is a Contracting Party to this Convention. For details see, e.g., Kietaibl (2012), § 903 Recitals 7–12; Bollenberger (2014), § 903 Recital 3; Binder and Kolmasch (2014), § 903 Recitals 18–21 (each with further references).

  40. 40.

    BGBl 2011/100.

  41. 41.

    See Article 5 European Convention on the Calculation of Time-Limits.

  42. 42.

    For this differentiation see, e.g., § 933(1) ABGB and Wrbka (2015c), p. 18.

  43. 43.

    For case-law examples, see, in particular, the following judgments of the Austrian Supreme Court: 2 Ob 535/90; 7 Ob 506/91; 5 Ob 504/96 (5 Ob 505/96); 1 Ob 41/03 s; 7 Ob 32/04 p; 1 Ob 138/05 h; 5 Ob 53/12 y.

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., Kurschel (1989), pp. 97 et seq.; Wrbka (2015c), p. 37 with further references.

  45. 45.

    Wrbka (2015c), pp. 45–52.

  46. 46.

    RGBl Nr. 69/1916 (3rd partial amendment of the ABGB, which came into effect on 1 January 1917).

  47. 47.

    For details on § 297a ABGB, see, e.g., Eccher and Riss (2014a), § 297a; Helmich (2012), § 297a; Homann (2012), § 297a (each with further references).

  48. 48.

    On the history of the JCC, see, e.g., Sokolowski (2010); Oda (2009), pp. 113–117; Marutschke (2009), pp. 85–97; Igarashi (1990), pp. 2–6; Haley (1991), pp. 75–77.

  49. 49.

    See, e.g., Wrbka (2014a), p. 1 with further references.

  50. 50.

    For details, see, e.g., Wrbka (2014a); Kano (2013), pp. 251–252 with further references. For additional, general comments on the development of Japanese Private Law see further, e g., Okuda (1985), pp. 1–22; Ishikawa (2013), pp. 267–285; Kitagawa (1990), pp. 125–141; Stoll(1990), pp. 151–175; Müller-Freinfels (1990), pp. 177–202; Minear (1970).

  51. 51.

    Kano (2013), p. 256. For general comments on the perceived problem of the JCC as being incomplete, outdated and imprecise see, e.g., Uchida (2011), pp. 707–708; Kano (2013), pp. 252–253; Nakata (2013), p. 205; Wrbka (2014a), p. 4.

  52. 52.

    Dernauer (2013) with reference to Kawashima Takeyoshi, a Japanese private law scholar who lived in the twentieth century, and Hattori Shirō, a Japanese linguist.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., Ramseyer and Nakazato (1999), pp. 6–21; Haley (1998), pp. 156–176; Haley (1991), pp. 169–200; Upham (1978), pp. 205–221. For more recent comments on this topic see, e.g., the contributions in Vanoverbeke et al. (2014), in particular Takahashi (2014); Vande Walle (2014); Ozaki (2014); Hamano (2014).

  54. 54.

    Dernauer refers to Takashi Uchida, one of the most influential figures in the JCC debate. Just like Kawashima and Hattori, Uchida is of the opinion that the Japanese society, in particular the way social interactions take place, asks for an independent or special civil code. Nevertheless, the discussions within the JCC Reform Commission show that strong account is taken of developments in other parts of the world. In particular, developments in the EU, such as the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), but also at a bigger stage, such as UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, the UN Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods (CISG), have influenced the discussion. For details see, e.g., Uchida (2011) and Nakata (2013), pp. 208–214.

  55. 55.

    See, e.g., the works of the Japanese Civil Code (Law of Obligations) Reform Commission (‘民法 (債権法) 改正検討委員会’; minpō (saikenhō) kaisei kentō iinkai; hereinafter JCC Reform Commission) (for details see http://www.shojihomu.or.jp/saikenhou/English/index_e.html; Accessed 31 August 2015) or the Research Group on the Civil Code Reform (民法改正研究会; minpō kaisei kenkyūkai). Both groups focused on the law of obligations. Several other groups added narrower or sectoral research output. The Research Group on the Prescription Rules (時効研究会; jikō kenkyūkai) can be considered as one such example – for details on these see Kano (2013), p. 253 at note 11.

  56. 56.

    Some authors argue that the Japanese Ministry of Justice was not able to withstand the pressure for reform by legal academia – see, e.g., Nakata (2013), p. 207, where the author in this context uses the term ‘strong driving force’ (starke Antriebskraft) of the academic groups; Kamo (2010), p. 171, where also this author refers to the academic working groups as a ‘driving force’.

  57. 57.

    For details, see the classification by Kozuka and Nottage (2014), p. 239. For a members’ list see, e.g., http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000068987.pdf.

  58. 58.

    The text of the Interim Draft Proposal is available at, e.g., http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000112242.pdf. Commented versions are available at, e.g., http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000112244.pdf and http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000112247.pdf (all in Japanese) (Accessed 31 August 2015).

  59. 59.

    For comments on the Interim Draft Proposal, see, e.g., Nakata (2013).

  60. 60.

    Die Ergebnisse liegen derzeit nur in japanischer Sprache vor und sind unter http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingikai_saiken.html abrufbar. Der JBGB-AG-Reformvorschlag ist unter http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001136445.pdf erhältlich.

  61. 61.

    Für eine kurze, englischsprachige Zusammenfassung der Regierungsentscheidung s Jiji Press (2015).

  62. 62.

    On this issue in the context of unfair standard business terms, see, e.g., Kano (2013), p. 258. For details on the JCCA see, e.g., Dernauer (2006), pp. 245–268.

  63. 63.

    An English language-version is available at http://www.shojihomu.or.jp/saikenhou/English/index_e.html (Accessed 31 August 2015).

  64. 64.

    Article 3.1.25(1) JCC Reform Commission Draft titled defines general conditions, i.e., business terms as ‘the aggregate of contract terms which are formulated in advance for use in multiple contracts’. Article 3.1.26 JCC Reform Commission Draft (‘requirements of incorporation of the general conditions’) adds the following conditions for their contractual inclusion:

    1. (1)

      The person supplying the general conditions shall present (hereinafter referred to as ‘disclose’) the general conditions to the other party by the time of conclusion of the contract, and when both parties agree to using such general conditions in the contract, the general conditions shall become the contents of the contract; provided, however, that in cases where, owing to the nature of the contract, it is extremely difficult to disclose the general conditions at the time of conclusion of the contract, the person supplying the general conditions shall indicate to the other party to the effect that the general conditions will be used at the time of conclusion of the contract, and when the other party was placed in a position of being able to know the general conditions by the time of conclusion of the contract, the general conditions shall be deemed to have been disclosed at the time of conclusion of the contract.

    2. (2)

      Notwithstanding the provision of (1), with regard to contents of terms which the other party to the person supplying the general conditions knew of at the time of conclusion of the contract, it may not assert that those terms should not be the contents of the contract on the grounds that the general conditions were not disclosed.

    Translation taken from http://www.shojihomu.or.jp/saikenhou/English/index_e.html.

  65. 65.

    Article 30(5) Interim Draft Proposal.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Kano (2013), p. 258–259.

  67. 67.

    See, in particular, Article 35(3) and (4) Interim Draft Proposal and Article 30(2) and (3) Final Draft Proposal.

  68. 68.

    Articles 7, 11 and 15 JCC respectively.

  69. 69.

    Articles 9, 13 and 17 JCC respectively.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., Kano (2013), p. 255; Oda (2009), p. 123.

  71. 71.

    For a translation of the JCCA, see, e.g., http://www.consumer.go.jp/english/cca/index.html or http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=108&vm=04&re=02 (both last accessed 31 August 2015).

  72. 72.

    For details, see Chap. 2 JCCA.

  73. 73.

    For details, see Chap. 3 Sects. 1 and 2 JCCA.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., Kano (2013), pp. 259–260.

  75. 75.

    Article 167(1) JCC. For comments on the Japanese system of prescription periods, see, e.g., Nagata (2006).

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., the special prescription periods for claims relating to services provided by lawyers (Articles 171 and 172 JCC; 2, 3 or 5 years), certain medical services (Article 170(i) JCC; 3 years) or services in the context of construction works (Article Article 170(ii) JCC; 3 years).

  77. 77.

    In this sense, see also Kano (2013), p. 256.

  78. 78.

    See Article 7(2) Interim Draft Proposal.

  79. 79.

    For parallels to European discussions, see, e.g., the DCFR, more precisely III. – 7:201 DCFR (general rule of 3 years) and III. – 7:307 DCFR (absolute rule of 10 years in general and 30 years for claims for damages for personal injury) and the Part VIII CESL Proposal (Article 179 to be exact). The latter one proposes a general, short/objective period of 2 years and a long or absolute period of 10 years (30 years in case of personal injury).

References

  • Akkermans B (2014) Property law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 71–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Backes C, Eliantonio M (2014) Administrative law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 189–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R (1998) Reflexive legitimacy in international arbitration. In: Gessner V, Budak AC (eds) Emerging legal certainty. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 347–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder M, Kolmasch W (2014) § 903. In: Schwimann M, Kodek G (eds) ABGB Praxiskommentar Band IV, 4th edn. LexisNexis, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollenberger R (2014) § 903. In: Koziol H, Bydlinski P, Bollenberger R (eds) ABGB Kurzkommentar, 4th edn. Verlag Österreich, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski F (1988) Fundamentale Rechtsgrundsätze. Springer, Vienna

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski F (1990) Die praktische Bedeutung der Rechtsethik und die Möglichkeiten ihrer Vermittlung. In: Bydlinski F, Mayer-Maly T (eds) Rechtsethik und Rechtspraxis. Tyrolia-Verlag, Innsbruck, pp 11–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski F (2011) Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff, 2nd edn. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski P (2014) § 6. In: Koziol H, Bydlinski P, Bollenberger R (eds) ABGB Kurzkommentar, 4th edn. Verlag Österreich, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1969) Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dernauer M (2006) Verbraucherschutz und Vertragsfreiheit im japanischen Recht Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Dernauer M (2013) Japanese contract law from a European perspective. Yomiuri Shimbun, http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/chuo/dy/research/20131128.html. Accessed 31 Aug 2015

  • Eccher B, Riss O (2014a) § 297a. In: Koziol H, Bydlinski P, Bollenberger R (eds) ABGB Kurzkommentar, 4th edn. Verlag Österreich, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccher B, Riss O (2014b) § 429. In: Koziol H, Bydlinski P, Bollenberger R (eds) ABGB Kurzkommentar, 4th edn. Verlag Österreich, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernhout F, van Rhee R (2014) Elements of procedural law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 287–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Gessner V (1998) Globalization and legal certainty. In: Gessner V, Budak AC (eds) Emerging legal certainty. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 427–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann S (2013) The EU consumer rights directive: optimizing, creating alternatives, or a dead end? Uniform Law Rev 18(1):98–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (2014a) Foundations. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (2014b) Philosophy of law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 313–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley JO (1991) Authority without power. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley JO (1998) The spirit of Japanese law. University of Georgia Press, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamano R (2014) Access to attorneys in Japan and judicial reform. In: Vanoverbeke D, Maesschalck J, Nelken D, Parmentier S (eds) The changing role of law in Japan – empirical studies in culture, society and policy making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 157–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmich E (2012) § 297a. In: Kletečka A, Schauer M (eds), ABGB-ON, rdb.at, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Heringa AW (2014) Consitutional law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 157–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Homann N (2012) § 297a. In: Schwimann M, Kodek G (eds) ABGB Praxiskommentar Band II, 4th edn. LexisNexis, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Igarashi K (1990) Einführung in das japanische Recht. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa H (2013) Codification, decodification, and recodification of the Japanese civil code. In: Rivera JC (ed) The scope and structures of civil codes. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 267–285

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiji Press (2015) Administration to push major revision to civil code. The Japan Times online. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/31/national/crime-legal/administration-to-push-major-revisions-to-civil-code. Accessed 31 Aug 2015

  • Kamo A (2010) Crystallization, unification, or differentiation? The Japanese civil code (law of obligations) reform commission and basic reform policy (draft proposals). Columbia Journal of Asian Law 24:171–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano N (2013) Reform of the Japanese civil code – the interim draft proposal of 2013. ZJapanR/JJapanL 18:249–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiler J, Panzavolta M, Roes D (2014) Criminal law. In: Hage J, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 121–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Kietaibl C (2012) § 903. In: Kletečka A, Schauer M (eds), ABGB-ON, rdb.at, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitagawa Z (1990) Drei Entwicklungsphasen im japanischen Zivilrecht. In: Coing H, Hirano R, Kitagawa Z, Murakami J, Nörr KW, Oppermann T, Shiono H (eds) Die Japanisierung des westlichen Rechts. J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 125–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozuka S, Nottage L (2014) Policy and politics in contract law reform in Japan. In: Adams M, Heirbaut D (eds) The method and culture of comparative law: essays in honour of Mark Van Hoecke. Hart, Oxford, pp 235–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurschel I (1989) Die Gewährleistung beim Werkvertrag. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Marutschke H-P (2009) Einführung in das japanische Recht, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Minear RH (1970) Japanese tradition and western law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Freinfels W (1990) Japanisierung westlichen Rechts oder Verwestlichung japanischen Rechts? In: Coing H, Hirano R, Kitagawa Z, Murakami J, Nörr KW, Oppermann T, Shiono H (eds) Die Japanisierung des westlichen Rechts. J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 177–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagata M (2006) Das Verjährungsrecht in Japan – Entstehungsgeschichte, objektive und subjektive Elemente. In: Kunig P, Nagata M (eds) Deutschland und Japan im rechtswissenschaftlichen Dialog. Carl Heymans, Cologne, pp 71–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakata K (2013) Die Internationalisierung des Vertragsrechts und das japanische Recht. ZJapanR/JJapanL 18:165–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyer J (1998) Binding territoriality and functionality? Globalization meets the law. In: Gessner V, Budak AC (eds) Emerging legal certainty. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 401–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Oda H (2009) Japanese law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okuda M (1985) Zivilrecht und Zivilrechtswissenschaften in Japan seit der Rezeption europäischer Rechte im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Gottfried Baumgärtel (ed) Grundprobleme des Privatrechts. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozaki I (2014) Law, culture and society in modernizing Japan. In: Vanoverbeke D, Maesschalck J, Nelken D, Parmentier S (eds) The changing role of law in Japan – empirical studies in culture, society and policy making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 50–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Petzold A (1998) Obtaining information on foreign legal systems. In: Gessner V, Budak AC (eds) Emerging legal certainty. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 283–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabl C (2002) Die Gefahrtragung beim Kauf. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer JM, Nakazato M (1999) Japanese law – an economic approach. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowski C (2010) Der so genannte Kodifikationenstreit in Japan. Iudicium, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll H (1990) Zur neueren Entwicklung des japanischen Zivilrechts in rechtsvergleichender Sicht. In: Coing H, Hirano R, Kitagawa Z, Murakami J, Nörr KW, Oppermann T, Shiono H (eds) Die Japanisierung des westlichen Rechts. J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 151–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck J (2010) Setting the scene, in cases, materials and text on consumer law. In: Micklitz H-W, Stuyck J, Terryn E (eds) Cases, materials and text on consumer law. Hart, Oxford, pp 1–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi H (2014) Towards an understanding of the ‘Japanese’ way of dispute resolution: how is it different from the west. In: Vanoverbeke D, Maesschalck J, Nelken D, Parmentier S (eds) The changing role of law in Japan – empirical studies in culture, society and policy making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Uchida T (2011) Contract law reform in Japan and the UNIDROIT principles. Uniform Law Rev XVI:705–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upham FK (1978) Law and social change in postwar Japan. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vande Walle S (2014) What keeps plaintiffs away from the court? An analysis of antitrust in Japan, Europe and the US. In: Vanoverbeke D, Maesschalck J, Nelken D, Parmentier S (eds) The changing role of law in Japan – empirical studies in culture, society and policy making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanoverbeke D, Maesschalck J, Nelken D, Parmentier S (eds) (2014) The changing role of law in Japan – empirical studies in culture, society and policy making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Clive E (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: draft common frame of reference (DCFR), Full Editionth edn. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law – draft common frame of reference (DCFR) outline edition. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2012a) Consumers and the proposal for an optional common European sales law – no roads lead to Rome? Kyushu University Legal Research Bulletin. http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/kulrb/stefan.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2015

  • Wrbka S (2012b) The proposal for an optional common European sales law – a step in the right direction for consumer protection? EUIJ-Kyushu Rev 2:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2014a) Japan’s civil code reform plan – seen from a western perspective. Kyushu University Legal Research Bulletin. http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/kulrb/stefan2.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2015

  • Wrbka S (2014b) The dilemma of European consumer representation in deliberative networks – the democratic deficit in the context of the drafting of the common European sales law. In: Fenwick M, Van Uytsel S, Wrbka S (eds) Networked governance, transnational business & the law. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2014c) The (paritally) revised Austrian passing of risk regime: an example of fragmentation of domestic law as a consequence of EU harmonisation. EUIJ-Kyushu Rev 3 and 4:29–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2015a) European consumer access to justice revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2015b) The potential and limits of teleological reduction shown with the example of the Austrian warranty regime. In: Fenwick M, Wrbka S (eds) Flexibility in modern business law: a comparative assessment. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka S (2015c) Geplante Obsoleszenz aus Sicht des Gewährleistungsrechts. Expert Opinion for the Vienna Chamber of Labour, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Stefan Wrbka

Authors
  1. Stefan Wrbka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Wrbka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan

    Mark Fenwick

  2. Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan

    Stefan Wrbka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wrbka, S. (2016). Comments on Legal Certainty from the Perspective of European, Austrian and Japanese Private Law. In: Fenwick, M., Wrbka, S. (eds) Legal Certainty in a Contemporary Context. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0114-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0114-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0112-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0114-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation