Japan

Domestic Case Law

平成16(受)1968 (2004 (Ju) No. 1968) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2006)


Gender discrimination, Harmful traditional practices, Property and inheritance rights

Two female members of a certain local community which have collective property rights to a common land (called a "common" or a "hamlet") petitioned the court to decide the unconstitutionality of a traditional practice which determined membership and property rights within the community. The court held that this custom which excludes female descendants who married outside of the community, is "contrary to public order and therefore null and void" under Article 90 of the Civil Code. The court held that "the male descendant requirement discriminates against female descendants only because they are females" and it is unreasonable and against the constitutional principle of "essential gender equality."

上告人らは、本件で問題となっている入会地について入会権を有していた者の女性直系卑属であった。本件は、上告人らが、本件における習慣のうち入会権者の資格を男性直系卑属に限ることが公序良俗に反して無効であるなどと主張した事案である。最高裁は、男性直系卑属要件は、民法第90条の下「公序良俗に反しており、したがって無効である」と判断した。 裁判所は、男の男性直系卑属要件は、専ら女子であることのみを理由として女子を男子と差別したものというべきであり、性別のみによる不合理な差別とし、男女の本質的な平等という日本国憲法上の基本的原則に反するとした。



平成16年(あ)2199 (2004 (A) No. 2199) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2005)


Domestic and intimate partner violence

The defendant-husband, who had joint parental authority with his wife, forcibly took his son away from his mother. The court held that the defendant's act constituted kidnapping, as there were no special circumstances which made the defendant's actions necessary, and the act was "violent and coercive." In addition, the court found that the act of kidnapping the child could not be justified even though the defendant had parental authority.

本件は、被告人である夫が、他方親権者である妻から息子を強制的に連れ去った事件である。最高裁は、被告人である夫がそのような行為に出ることを必要とする特段な事情が認められないことから、その行為はが粗暴で強引であるとして、被告人が親権を持っていたとしても、子の略取は正当化できないとし、未成年者略取罪の成立を認めた。



平成14年(あ)805 (2002 (A) No. 805) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2003)


Domestic and intimate partner violence, Trafficking in persons

The defendant-husband of Dutch nationality, married but separated from his Japanese wife, forcibly took his two-year-old daughter away from her mother with the purpose of taking her away to the Netherlands. The court held that the defendant kidnapped his daughter in a "malicious manner" when he pulled her by the legs, hanged her upside down and wedged her between his arm and waist, a criminal offense of kidnapping for the purpose of transporting the kidnapped person to a foreign country, under Article 226(1) of the Penal Code.

本件は、オランダ国籍で日本人の妻と婚姻していた被告人が、当時2歳の娘をオランダに連れ去る目的で、娘の足を引っ張り、逆さに吊るし、腕と腰の間に挟んだりして、母から娘を強制的に連れ去った事件である。 裁判所は、被告人が「悪質な方法」で娘を略取したとし、刑法第226条第1項の「国外移送略取罪」に該当するとした。



戸籍登録変更に関する異議申立書:28212731 (Appeal Concerning an Application for Permission to Revise a Family Registration, ID 28212731) 最高裁第三小法廷(2013年)(Third Petit Branch of the Supreme Court) (2013)


Gender discrimination, LGBTIQ

Person X1 transitioned from female to male. X1 registered as a male and married a woman, X2, in 2008. In 2009, X2 bore a child. In 2012, X1 applied to have the family registry reflect that X1 was the child’s father and that the child was born while X1 and X2 were married. The ward mayor in charge of changes to family registries held that there was a problem with the application because Article 774 of the Civil Law was inapplicable to the child’s situation as the child was not related by blood to X1. X1 did not comply with the ward mayor’s request to fix the application, so the ward mayor filled in the family registry for the child with a blank for father and a note that the child was X2’s oldest son. X1 and X2 filed suit to have X1 added as the child’s father on the grounds that the child should be presumed to be a “legitimately” born child based on Article 772 of the Civil Law. The Supreme Court held that the child should be presumed to be the son of X1, overruling the lower court and the ward mayor’s decision. The court reasoned that under Article 3.1 of the Gender Identity Disorder Law, a transgender man should be treated for all purposes under the law as a man. The court held that this includes being able to marry and have a “legitimate” child. Following this decision, the Ministry of Justice issued a notification on 27 January, 2014 directing that this procedure be followed for any similarly situated families. Subsequently, the state changed the family registry for 45 such couples to reflect that both parents are their children’s parents.

X1は女性だったが、男性になるため、性転換手術を受けた。その後、彼は男性として登録し、2008年に女性のX2と結婚した。その翌年、X2は子どもを出産した。2012年、X1は、X1が子どもの父親であること、子どもがX1とX2の婚姻中に生まれたことを戸籍に反映させることを地方公共団体に請求した。戸籍変更を担当する区長は、子どもがX1と血縁関係にないことから、民法774条の適用を受けられないため、申請に問題があると、子の戸籍に父の欄を空欄にして、子がX2の長男であると記入した。X1とX2は、子が民法772条に基づいて「嫡出子」と推定されるべきであるとして、X1を子の父として加えることを要求し提訴した。最高裁は、X1の子と推定すべきであるとし、下級審および区長の判断を棄却し、「性同一性障害の性別の取り扱いの特例に関する法律」第3条第1項に基づき、トランスジェンダーの男性は、法に基づき、あらことで男性として扱われるべきであるとした。これには、結婚して「正当に」子どもを産むことができることも含まれるとした。この判決を受けて、法務省は2014年1月27日に、同様の状況にある家族に対してこの手続きを行うよう指示する通達を出した。その後、国は、そのようなカップル45組の戸籍を訂正した。



平成25年(許)5 (2013 (Kyo) No. 5) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2013)


LGBTIQ

The plaintiff-husband, who transitioned from female to male, and the plaintiff-wife requested the local public agency to amend their family registry to state the plaintiff-husband as the father of their child. The child was born by artificial insemination and had no blood relationship with the plaintiff-husband. The Supreme Court determined that, since the child was conceived by the plaintiff-wife during marriage, he is presumed to be a child of the plaintiff-husband under the Civil Code, and ordered the family registry to be amended.

本件は、性同一性障害で女性から男性に性転換した原告である夫と原告の妻が、夫を子の父とする戸籍訂正を地方公共団体に対して求めた事案である。子は人工授精で生まれ、夫との血縁関係が存在しなかった。最高裁は、子は原告の妻が婚姻中に妊娠したものであるから、民法上、原告である夫の子であると推定されると判断し、戸籍の訂正を命じた。



平成24年(受)2231 (2012 (Ju) No. 2231) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2014)


Employment discrimination, Gender discrimination

The plaintiff was a physiotherapist in a managerial position at her employer. She requested and was granted maternity leave but was not allowed to return to her position at the end of the maternity leave. She filed a lawsuit against her employer, asserting that there was a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Law. The Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff because the Equal Employment Opportunity Law forbids disadvantaging employees based on the employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, request for maternity leave, or request for transfer to lighter work.

原告は、管理職にあった理学療法士で、育児休業の終了後、元の職に戻れなかったことから、被告の雇用主に対して、男女雇用機会均等法違反に基づいて損害賠償を求めた。最高裁は、男女雇用機会均等法は、妊娠・出産・産前産後休暇の申請・軽易な業務への転換の申請などを理由に従業員に不利益な扱いを禁じていることを理由に、原告を支持した。



平成10年(オ)576 (1998 (O) No. 576) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2001)


Gender discrimination, Gender-based violence in general

The plaintiff had breast cancer and sued her operating surgeon who conducted a mastectomy arguing that he had a duty to inform her in advance that there are other treatments that do not require complete breast removal. The Supreme Court determined that the surgeon had a legal obligation to give her an opportunity to make an informed decision about her treatment, in this case by providing the name and address of medical institutions that conduct breast cancer operations that do not remove the entire breast.

本件は、乳がんと診断され、乳房を完全切除した患者が、乳房を完全切除しなくても済む治療法があることの充分な説明を事前受けていなかったとして、医師を訴えた事案である。最高裁は、医師には原告に対して治療法についての十分な情報を与えた上で決定を行う機会を与える法的義務があると判断し、本件では、乳房を切除しない乳がん治療を行うことができる医療機関の名称及び所在などを説明する義務を負っていたとした。



平成16年(あ)2571 (2004 (A) No. 2571) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2005)


Domestic and intimate partner violence, Sexual harassment, Stalking

The defendant was indicted under the Stalker Regulation Law on a charge of stalking his former girlfriend. The defendant demanded many times by email and phone that she repay costs he incurred while they were dating. The defendant sent a letter to her threatening to distribute nude photos of her if she did not unblock him on her cell phone. The Supreme Court determined that, even though he sent the letter only once, his conduct amounted to “stalking” under the Stalker Regulation Law since his conduct was as a whole persistent and repetitive.

被告人は、元交際相手に対し、交際中にかかった費用の返済をメールや電話で何度も要求し、携帯電話のブロックを解除しなければヌード写真をばら撒くと脅す手紙を送った。最高裁は、手紙を送ったのが1回だけであっても、「つきまとい等」の行為が反復することから、ストーカー規制法の「ストーカー行為」に該当すると判断した。



平成19(あ)1223 (2007 (A) No. 1223) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2008)


Sexual violence and rape

The defendant broke into the house of the victim and, after indecently touching her, tried to escape. The victim was accidentally injured during the escape. The defendant was charged with the crime of Forcible Indecency Causing Injury. The Supreme Court concluded that, even though the injury was not directly caused by assault or intimidation, the defendant could be convicted of Forcible Indecency Causing Injury because the assault was committed closely before or after the indecent act.

被告は、被害者の家に侵入し、わいせつ行為を行った後、その場から逃走するため、被害者に対して暴行を加え、負傷させた。最高裁は、その傷害がわいせつ行為を目的とした暴行や脅迫によって直接引き起こされたものではないとしても、強制わいせつ行為の前後に暴行が行われていることから、被告人は強制わいせつ致傷罪が成立すると結論付けた。



平成28年(あ)1731 (2016 (A). No. 1731) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2014)


Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

The defendant committed acts of obscenity upon a young girl. He alleged that it was only for a monetary purpose—to record the act and give the recording to his acquaintance in return for receiving a loan —and that he had no sexual intent. The defendant appealed the High Court’s ruling that sexual intent is not required to establish a prima facie case of indecent assault, which is proscribed by Article 176 of the Japanese Penal Code. He argued that the High Court’s finding was inconsistent with judicial precedent holding that sexual intent is an element of the crime. The Supreme Court, upon noting that the scope of sexual crimes cannot be properly determined without taking into account the views of contemporary society, found that, in the present day, the focus should be on the existence, details, and extent of sexual damage caused to a victim rather than an assailant’s intent. Thus, the Supreme Court, upheld the High Court’s finding and overturned the 47-year-old jurisprudence. The Court found that, while it could not deny that there may be a situation in which the sexual intent of a perpetrator becomes an important factor in finding the crime, it was not reasonable to uniformly require the existence of such a factor for the crime of indecent assault.

被告人は、金を借りようとしたところ、金を貸す条件として若い女の子にわいせつ行為を行い、その行為を撮影するよう指示された。被告人はこれに関して、その行為の目的は金銭を得ることであり、性的意図はなかったと主張した。被告人は、刑法第176条の強制わいせつ罪の成立には性的意図が必要で、高裁判決は以前の判例に違反するとして、強制わいせつ罪が成立するとした高裁判決を不服とした。最高裁は、性犯罪の範囲は社会の受け止め方を考慮しなければ処罰対象を適切に決することができないとし、現代においては、加害者の意図だけでなく、被害者に与えた性的被害の有無、内容、程度に焦点を当てるべきであると判断し、加害者の性的意図が犯罪認定の重要な要素となる場合はあるが、強制わいせつ罪にこの要素の存在を一律に要求することは妥当ではないとして、高裁判決を支持した。



平成28年(許)45 (2016 (Kyo) No. 45) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2017)


Gender-based violence in general, Statutory rape or defilement, Trafficking in persons

The appellant in this case had been arrested and punished with a fine for allegedly paying for child prostitution in violation of the Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Protection of Children (before its revision by Act No. 79 of 2014). The news media reported his arrest for the alleged charge, and all or part of the coverage was made available at several websites that were searchable on the appellee search engine. This case concerned the appellant’s request—based on his personal rights and moral interests—for an order of provisional disposition, requiring the search engine to make websites that refer to the appellant’s criminal record unsearchable. The High Court dismissed the request. The Supreme Court, on one hand, recalled its finding from precedents that the protection of information related to an individual’s privacy is subject to legal protection. On the other hand, it noted that search engines’ provision of search results (1) may constitute acts of expression and (2) has become an important infrastructure for distribution of information through the internet. The Supreme Court then found that the evaluation of whether providing particular search results amounts to an illegal action must take into account both the benefits of making the information at question unsearchable, and reasons and circumstances pertaining to providing such search results; the court can require that the search engine remove such search results only if the former exceeds the latter. In this case, the Supreme Court found that, while the criminal record at issue pertained to the privacy of the appellant and which he did not wish to be made largely available to the public, such information also concerned the public interest in light of the nature of crimes relating to child porn and child prostitution. In addition, the Supreme Court took into account that the information dissemination was limited to a certain degree considering that such search results did not show up unless a search engine user used the appellant’s name and his residing prefecture together as search keywords. Thus, the Supreme Court found that the benefit of making the information at issue unsearchable did not exceed the need of having the websites at issue on the search engine and sustained the lower court’s ruling.

本件の抗告人は、「児童買春、児童ポルノに係る行為等の規制及び処罰並びに児童の保護等に関する法律」(平成26年法律第79号による改正前)に違反した容疑で逮捕され、罰金刑に処せられた。複数のニュースメディアがその逮捕に関する記事をネット上で公開し、それらの記事は抗告人の氏名と居住する都道府県をキーワードに入れ、検索エンジンで検索すれば出るようになっていた。本件は、抗告人がその人格的権利に基づき、犯罪歴を公開するウェブサイトを検索できないよう検索事業者に削除を求めた仮処分命令の事案である。高裁は、抗告人の請求を棄却した。最高裁は、個人のプライバシーに関する情報は法的保護の対象であるという判例から、本件検索結果の提供は、(1)検索エンジンの表現行為である可能性があり、(2)ネット検索エンジンによる情報流通の社会的役割を果たしていると指摘した。また、特定の検索結果を提供することが違法行為に当たるか否かの評価は、当該検索結果を提供しない法的利益と、提供する理由に関する諸般の事情を比較衡量しなければならず、前者が後者を上回る場合のみ、検索エンジンに対して当該検索結果の削除を求めることができると最高裁は判断した。本件の場合、問題となっている犯罪記録は、抗告人のプライバシーに関わり、抗告人が広く公開されることを望んでいないものではあるが、児童ポルノや児童買春に関する犯罪の性質を鑑み、公共の利益にも関わるものでもある。また、検索エンジンの利用者は、抗告人の氏名と居住する都道府県を検索キーワードとして併用しなければ、関連する逮捕情報が検索結果として表示されないことを考慮すると、その逮捕情報の公開が一定程度制限されていたことが分かる。本件において、最高裁は、検索結果を提供しない法的利益は、検索結果を提供する必要性を超えていないと判断し、高裁判決を支持した。



平成28年(受)2076 (2016 (Ju) No. 2076) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2018)


Employment discrimination, Sexual harassment, Stalking

The appellee, a former employee of the appellant’s subsidiary, suffered sexual harassment and stalking from an employee of the appellant’s other subsidiary who shared the same work site with the appellee. The appellant had developed a corporate-group-wide compliance system, which included a consulting desk at which an employee of the appellant or its subsidiaries could raise and discuss any compliance-related matters. The appellee brought the harassment issue to her supervisors at her immediate employer (i.e. the appellant’s subsidiary) twice, but sufficient solutions were not provided, following which she left the company without bringing the issues to the consulting desk. The stalking continued even after her resignation, so her former colleague who still worked at the appellant's subsidiary brought the issue before the appellant through the consulting desk, but it did not provide sufficient solutions either. The question brought before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant (i.e. a parent company of her former immediate employer) bore the duties based on the principle of good faith to provide certain protective measures to the appellant because it had developed the corporate-group-wide compliance system. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not imposed with such duties in light of particular facts in the case since the appellant did not bring the harassment issue to the consulting desk during her employment. However, in dicta, the Court stated that a parent company, depending on particular facts of the case, can be responsible for providing sufficient solutions to an employee of its subsidiary who is a victim of sexual harassment––failure of which would result in liability for damage based on the principle of good faith––if the parent company provides a system through which the employee could, and actually did, bring an issue of sexual harassment to the parent company’s attention.

上告人の子会社の元契約社員である被上告人は、同じ事業場内で就労していた他の子会社の従業員からセクシャル・ハラスメントやストーカー行為を受けていた。被上告人は、直属の勤務先(上告人の子会社)の上司にこの問題に関して二度相談したが、問題が十分に解決されなかったため、上告人が設置していたグループ会社内全体の社員が事業場内に関する事項を相談できるコンプライアンス相談窓口に相談することなく退職した。その後も被上告人に対するストーカー行為が継続していたため、上告人の子会社に勤務していた被上告人の元同僚は、被上告人のため、上告人の設置したコンプライアンス相談窓口に相談した。しかし、それでも問題は解決されなかった。最高裁では、コンプライアンス相談窓口を設置していたことを理由に、上告人が信義則に基づき一定の付随義務を負うか否かが問題となった。被上告人が在職中にハラスメント問題を相談窓口に申し出なかったことと、本件の特殊な事実関係に照らして、最高裁は上告人が雇用契約上の付随義務を負わないことを確認した。一方で、本件判決は、子会社の従業員がセクシャルハラスメントに遭った際、問題を親会社の相談窓口への申出ることができ、その申出の具体的状況によって、親会社が申出をした者に対し、申出に係る相談の内容等に応じて適切に対応すべき信義則上の義務を負う場合があると判示した。



平成19年(行ツ)164 (2007 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 164) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2008)


Gender discrimination

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a part of a provision in the Japanese Nationality Act conformed with Article 14.1 of the Japanese Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, belief, sex, social status, or lineage. The provision at issue did not grant Japanese nationality to a child born out of wedlock to a non-Japanese mother and a Japanese father––even if the father formally declares and recognizes the father-child relationship––unless the child obtains legal recognition as a child of the man and the woman through their marriage. The Supreme Court first noted that the Japanese Nationality Act does not grant Japanese nationality to a child in the aforementioned situation although it recognizes a parent-child relationship and grants Japanese nationality to a child born out of wedlock if (1) the child’s mother was Japanese or (2) the child’s Japanese father filed for the recognition of the father-child relationship before the child’s birth. The Court found that, while creating this distinction was reasonable at the time of the legislation, such a distinction amounted to unjustifiable discrimination in present day Japan. Thus, the Supreme Court found that the part of the provision at issue was unconstitutional and invalid. In its reasoning, the majority opinion stated, inter alia, “under the Japanese Nationality Act that adopts the principle of jus sanguinis, maintaining a distinction in terms of eligibility to have Japanese nationality based on whether the Japanese parent is the mother or the father of the child at issue does not accord with the basic principle of equality of the sexes.”

本件の争点は、当時の日本の国籍法の一部の合憲性である。当時の国籍法は日本国民である父の非嫡出子について、父母の婚姻により嫡出子たる身分を取得した者に限り日本国籍の取得を認めている。同じく日本国民である父から認知された子でありながら父母が法律上の婚姻をしていない非嫡出子は、その余の同項所定の要件を満たしても日本国籍を取 得することができないという区別が生じていた。最高裁は、このような区別を設けることは、立法当時は合理的であったが、現在の日本では合理的理由のない差別であると判断し、問題となった規定の一部を違憲・無効とした。その理由として、「日本国民である母の非嫡出子が出生により日本国籍を取得するにもかかわらず,日本国民である父から出生後に認知されたにとどまる非嫡出子が届出による日本国籍の取得すら認められないことには,両性の平等という観点からみてその基本的立場に沿わない」と述べた。



平成24年(ク)984 (2012 (Ku) No. 984) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2013)


Property and inheritance rights

In this appeal, a child born to unmarried parents appealed the High Court’s finding that a relevant part of the proviso to Article 900.4 of the Japanese Civil Code was not inconsistent with Article 14.1 of the Constitution of Japan, prohibiting discrimination based on race, belief, sex, social status, or lineage. The proviso set forth that the statutory share in inheritance of a child born out of wedlock is half of that of a child in wedlock. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling and found that the proviso was inconsistent with Article 14.1 of the Constitution. In making this finding, the Supreme Court took into account the changes in the following, which have been observed since 1947––the year in which the Japanese Civil Code was revised after World War II: Japanese society, forms of family, legislative acts in foreign countries, and relevant Japanese legal frameworks. The Supreme Court noted that, even though the system of civil marriage is strongly respected in Japanese society, society has come to accept the idea that a child should not suffer disadvantages based on a factor that she/he did not cause or could not change––whether to have been born in or out of wedlock––and that a child’s rights need to be protected and she/he must be given respect as an individual.

本件は、非嫡出子の法定相続分が嫡出子の2分の1とした日本民法第900条第4号但書が日本国憲法第14条第1項に抵触しないとした高裁判断を不服とした事案である。最高裁は、高裁の判決を覆し、但書が無効だと判断した。本判決では、戦後の民法改正が行われた昭和22年以降の日本の社会、家族の実態、さらに諸外国の立法例の変化を考慮し、非嫡出子の在り方に対する国民の意識変化を指摘した。また、日本社会では、法律婚を尊重する意識が幅広く浸透しているが、父母が婚姻関係になかったという,子にとっては自ら選択ないし修正する余地のない事柄を理由としてその子に不利益を及ぼすことは許されず,子の権利を保証すベきである考えも確立されてきている。



平成16年(受)1748 (2004 (Ju) No. 1748) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2006)


Abortion and reproductive health rights

The Supreme Court was asked to rule whether a father-child relationship could be legally recognized in the case where a child’s mother became pregnant through in-vitro fertilization with the frozen sperm of a deceased husband who, while he was alive, had consented to the use of the sperm even after his death. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling and declined to recognize the father-child relationship. The Supreme Court considered that the legal framework in Japan concerning parent-child relationships did not anticipate such a relationship between a father and his child who was conceived after his death in light of the fact that, even if the father-child relationship had been legally established, the deceased father would not be in a position to hold parental rights, he would not be able to support his child, and the child could not be an heir of the father for the purposes of inheritance. According to the Supreme Court, such issues need to be addressed by legislation upon analyzing several factors including bioethics, child welfare, and social acceptance. As the country lacks such legislation, the Supreme Court did not find that the father-parent relationship could be established.

本件は、亡夫の妻が冷凍保存していた亡夫の精子を用いて人工受精で妊娠した場合に、亡夫と子の父子関係が法的に認められるべきか否かを最高裁が判断した事案である。最高裁は高裁の判決を破棄し、夫は死後の授精、出産の意思をもっていたが、法律上の親子関係が生じることを想定していないとし、父子関係が認められないとした。また、最高裁は、仮に父子関係が法的に成立していたとしても、その父親は親権者になり得る余地はなく、子を養育、扶養することもできず、子が父の相続人にもなり得ないとした。このように、父子関係が存在するか否かは、生命倫理、子の福祉、社会一般の考え方等多角的な観点から検討を行い、立法によって解決されるべき問題であって、日本にこのような法律がない以上、父子関係の形成は認められないとした。



平成19年(許)47 (2006 (Kyo) No. 47) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2007)


Abortion and reproductive health rights, International law

A Japanese married couple petitioned for a court order that a Japanese local government accept birth registers for twins born from a surrogate mother in Nevada with the ovum and sperm of the Japanese couple. The state of Nevada, pursuant to its state court, had issued birth certificates for the twins, which showed the Japanese couple as their parents. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling that the birth registers need to be accepted. It stated that Article 118 of the Japanese Civil Proceedings Act prescribes that a final judgment made by a foreign court takes effect in Japan only if it satisfies all enumerated conditions, which include that “the foreign court’s ruling and its proceedings are not contrary to public policy in Japan.” The Supreme Court recalled that the Japanese Civil Code stands on the premise that a mother of a child is a woman who conceived and delivered the child and that a mother-child relationship is established through objective factors such as gestation and delivery. According to the Supreme Court, when a parent-child relationship can be legally established is a matter that forms the basis of the country’s legal order, and factors for finding such a relationship must be unequivocal. Thus, the Court found that a mother-child relationship between the twins and the Japanese wife could not be established, given that the Nevada court’s ruling, which recognized a parent-child relationship contrary to Japanese laws, ran against the public policy in Japan. In its statement, the Supreme Court urged the Japanese legislature to address the issues of parent-child relationships and assisted reproductive technology through legislation.

日本人夫婦がその卵子と精子を使い、ネバダ州在住の米国人女性に双子の子らを懐胎・出産させた。その後、夫婦は日本へ帰国し、が自らが双子の父母であると記載した出身届を区長である抗告人が受理するよう裁判所に申し立てた。これに対し、ネバダ州の裁判所は日本人夫婦を両親とする双子の出生証明書をすでに発行していた。最高裁は、出生届を受理する必要があるとした高裁判決を破棄し、日本の民事訴訟法第118条により、外国の裁判所が下した終局判決は、「その判決及び手続が日本の公序良俗に反しないこと」などの条件を満たした場合にのみ、日本で効力を生じるとし、また、日本の民法上、母子関係の成立の前提は懐胎し出産した女性がこの母である、母子関係の成立は懐胎、出産という客観的な事実により当然に成立することが前提であると述べた。最高裁によると、実親子関係の成立は、国における身分法秩序の根幹を成すものであり、その関係の存否の基準は一律でなければならない。したがって、日本の民法が実親子関係を認めていない者の間にその成立を認めたネバダ州の判決は、日本の公序良俗に反するものであるとして、双子と日本人夫婦との間に親子関係は存在しないと最高裁は判断し、同時に、早急に立法による対応を促した。



平成25年(受)233 (2013 (Ju) No. 233) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2014)


Divorce and dissolution of marriage, Gender discrimination

A mother, on behalf of her infant child, filed a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment for absence of parent-child relationship with the appellant––a man to whom the mother was married when the child was born. The request for the judgment was based on the fact that a DNA test result showed that, with 99.99 percent probability, the infant was a child of a different man, with whom the mother was having an affair. By the time of the trial, the wife and the child had left the appellant to live with the child’s biological father. Article 772 of the Japanese Civil Code, in general, presumes a man to be the father of a child if the man is married to the mother of the child at the time of conception. While Article 774 allows the husband to file a proceeding to rebut such a presumption, the wife or the child does not have standing to initiate such a proceeding. The Supreme Court, stressing the importance of maintaining legal stability pertaining to familial status, found that the facts that (i) there was scientific evidence that clearly denied a biological father-child relationship and that (ii) the child was currently raised––without any problem––by the biological father does not negate the presumption of the father-child relationship under Article 772 of Japanese Civil Code, as the importance of maintaining the legal stability pertaining to familial status would not be undermined by such factors. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that there was no legal ground to deliver the requested declaratory judgment.

本件は、母親が子供を代理して、子供が生まれたときに母親が結婚していた男性である上告人に対して、親子関係不存在の確認の訴えを提起した事件である。本件において、DNA鑑定の結果、99.99%の確率で子供が上告人の生物学上の子ではないことは明白であった。裁判当時までに、母親と子供は上告人の下で監護されておらず、生物学上の父の下で成長していた。民法772条では、妻が婚姻中に懐胎した子は、夫の子と推定するとしている。また、同774条は、夫が父子関係の推定を覆すための手続きを行うことを認めているが、妻や子にこのような手続きを開始する資格を認めていない。最高裁は、家族的地位に係る法的安定性を維持することの重要性を強調した上で、(1)生物学的な父子関係を明らかに否定する科学的証拠があり、(2)子が現在何の問題もなく生物学上の父に育てられているという事実があっても、そのような要因によって家族的地位に係る法的安定性を維持することの重要性が損なわれることはないとして、民法772条の父子関係の推定を否定するものではないとした。



平成29年(受)2015 (2017 (Ju) No. 2015) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2018)


Divorce and dissolution of marriage, International law

This case concerns the custody of a Japanese couple’s son who was born and raised in the United States until the mother, without the father’s consent, took him to Japan when he was 11 years old. Pursuant to the Japanese implementation of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the father, who was still based in the U.S., petitioned for the return of the son to the U.S. A family court in Tokyo granted the petition. However, the attempt to enforce the order of the court failed as the mother strongly resisted when a court execution officer approached her––the son also voiced his desire to stay in Japan at the time. Subsequently, the father requested habeas corpus relief seeking release of the child. The High Court dismissed the request. In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Japan reversed the High Court’s ruling and remanded the case. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court first recalled its old ruling that care for a child is tantamount to “restraint” within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act and the Habeas Corpus Rules in special circumstances where it cannot be deemed that the child is staying with the care provider based on the child’s free will, even if the child is capable of making her/his own decisions. The Supreme Court found such a special circumstance––undue emotional influence from his mother––existed with respect to the son in light of the fact that he was not capable of making decisions regarding his life when he was taken to Japan, he appeared to have had less than sufficient opportunities to communicate with his father, and he had been largely dependent on his mother. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the restraint at issue was unequivocally unlawful, taking into account that the mother had refused to follow the family court’s order to return the child to the U.S., and that there was no special circumstance in which removing the child would be significantly unjust. This Supreme Court’s unanimous decision may be an indication that the Court will put significant weight on compliance with The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

本件は、日本人夫婦の妻が、夫の同意を得ることなく、米国出身の11歳の息子を米国から日本に連れて帰り、米国にいる夫が東京家庭裁判所に息子の返還命令を申し立た事案である。日本が国際的な親による子の奪取を規定している「ハーグ条約」に加盟したことにより、東京家庭裁判所は返還命令の決定を下した。しかし、執行官が裁判所の命令を執行しようとしたところ、妻が強く抵抗したため、裁判所の命令を執行することができなかった。その後、夫は子の監護等を求めて人身保護請求を求めたが、高裁は夫の請求を棄却した。最高裁は、高裁の判決を破棄し、原審に差し戻した。その理由として、まず、旧判例では、人身保護法及び人身保護規則にいう「拘束」に当たるのは、意思能力がある子の監護について、子が自由意思に基づいて監護者の下にとどまっているとはいえない特段の事情があるときと示していた。本件では、子供が日本に連れて行かれた時点で自分の生活について判断する能力がなかったこと、父親とのコミュニケーションの機会が十分ではなかったと思われること、母親に大きく依存していたことなどから鑑みると、母親からの過度の精神的影響という特別な事情が存在すると最高裁は判断した。さらに、最高裁は、母親が家庭裁判所の返還命令に従わなかったこと、子を連れ去ることが著しく不当となる特段の事情がないことなどを考慮して、問題となっている拘束は紛れもなく違法であると判断した。本最高裁の全員一致による判決は、裁判所が「ハーグ条約」を遵守する姿勢を示している。



平成26年(オ)1023 (2014 (O) No. 1023) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan (Grand Bench)) (2015)


Gender discrimination

The Civil Code requires a husband and wife to both adopt the surname of either the husband or the wife at the time of marriage. The plaintiffs in this case were five women who had either chosen to continue using their pre-marriage surnames, or who had had their notifications of marriage rejected for failing to choose a surname. The plaintiffs sued the State pursuant to the State Redress Act, arguing that the provision violated the Constitution and therefore the failure to take legislative measures to amend or abolish the provision was illegal. The District Court and the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court found that 1) there is no constitutional right to freedom from being forced to change one’s surname upon marriage, 2) the provision does not formally create inequality between the sexes and the fact that the overwhelming majority of married couples choose the husband’s surname is not a direct consequence of the substance of the provision, and 3) the provision does not lack reasonableness nor restrict the individual dignity or the essential equality of the sexes. However, the Supreme Court also noted that while the current provision may not be unconstitutional, it does not mean that allowing married couples to choose separate surnames would be constitutionally unreasonable.

民法では、夫婦が同姓となることが義務付けられている。本件の原告らは、結婚前の姓を使い続けることを選択したか、1つの姓を選択しなかったために婚姻届を却下された5人の女性である。原告らは、国家救済法に基づき国を訴え、同規定が憲法に違反しており、修正または廃止するための立法措置を取らなかったことは違法であると主張した。地裁と高裁は原告らの請求を棄却し、最高裁も同じくその請求を棄却した。最高裁は、(1)婚姻に伴って姓の変更を強制されることを免れる憲法上の権利はない、(2)夫婦同制自体は男女間の不平等を生じさせるものではなく、夫の氏を選択する夫婦が圧倒的多数でも、これは夫婦同制から生じた結果だとは言えない、(3)同規定は合理性を欠き、個人の尊厳と両性の本質的平等を制限するものではない、と判断した。ただし、最高裁は、同規定は違憲ではないが、夫婦が別々の姓を選択することを認めることが憲法上不合理ではないとも指摘している。



平成26年(受)1310 (2014 (Ju) No. 1310) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan (First Petit Bench)) (2015)


Employment discrimination, Sexual harassment

The plaintiffs were two male employees who had been temporarily suspended from work and demoted from their managerial positions for sexually harassing female employees by making comments of a sexual nature in the office. The plaintiffs sued the company, seeking a declaratory judgment that such disciplinary actions were void because there were no grounds for such actions, and/or the actions were taken abusively. The High Court found for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, finding that the disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiffs were not an abuse of the company’s right to take action, and that furthermore the actions did not lack objectively reasonable grounds and were appropriate from a general societal perspective. The Supreme Court reasoned that 1) the plaintiffs had repeatedly made obscene or insulting statements to or about the female employees, despite warnings from superiors, 2) the company had distributed guidelines prohibiting sexual harassment and had held a mandatory seminar on sexual harassment, 3) in many cases, employees who experience sexual harassment may not expressly object due to concerns about damaging relationships with colleagues, despite the distress caused by the harassment, and 4) the plaintiffs, who were in managerial positions, should have recognized the policy and attitude of the company on the issue of sexual harassment as a matter of course.

被上告人らは、上告人の男性従業員2人で、オフィスで女性従業員に性的な発言をしてセクシュアル・ハラスメントを行ったとして、一時的な出勤停止と管理職からの降格処分を受けていた。被上告人らが上告人に対し、上記各処分は懲戒事由を欠き又は懲戒権を濫用したものとして無効であり、上記各降格処分もまた無効であるなどと主張して、出勤停止処分の無効確認や各降格処分前の等級を有する地位にあることの確認等を求めた事案である。高裁は被上告人らを支持したが、最高裁は、被上告人らに対する懲戒処分は、会社の懲戒権を濫用したものではなく、また、客観的に合理的な理由を欠くものでもなく、社会通念上相当であると判断し、高裁の判決を破棄した。最高裁は、(1)原告が上司の警告にもかかわらず、女性従業員に対して卑猥な発言や侮辱的な発言を繰り返していたこと、(2)会社がセクシャル・ハラスメントを禁止するガイドラインを配布し、セクシャル・ハラスメントに関するセミナーを義務的に開催していたこと、(3)多くの場合、セクシャルハラスメントを受けた従業員は、苦痛を感じているにもかかわらず、同僚との関係を懸念して、明確にセクシャル・ハラスメントに反対しない場合が多いこと、(4)管理職であった原告らは、セクシャルハラスメントの問題に関する会社の方針・姿勢を当然認識していたはずであることなどを理由に挙げた。



平成25年(オ)1079 (2013 (O) No. 1079) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2015)


Divorce and dissolution of marriage, Gender discrimination

The plaintiff, who had divorced her former husband and remarried seven months later, sued the State claiming that she had suffered mental distress due to a provision in the Civil Code which barred women from remarrying until six months after the dissolution or rescission of her previous marriage. Both the District Court and the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument, saying that the restriction was not necessarily unreasonable because it was meant to avert confusion over the paternity of any children born immediately after a divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the provision violated the Constitution only to the extent that the restriction exceeded 100 days, because 1) the Civil Code already provided that a child born more than 200 days after the formation of a marriage or less than 300 days after the dissolution/rescission of a marriage would be presumed to have been conceived within the marriage, and 2) advances in medical technology and societal changes made it difficult to justify a restriction lasting beyond 100 days. However, the Supreme Court also affirmed the District Court and High Court in finding that the State was not liable in this case for failing to abolish the regulation, as this did not constitute an exceptional case that might incur liability under the State Redress Act. Shortly after this judgment, the Civil Code was amended to decrease the six-month waiting period to 100 days.

前夫と離婚し、7か月後に再婚した原告が、民法に基づく6か月の再婚禁止期間により精神的苦痛を受けたとして、国家賠償法に基づき損害賠償を求めた事案である。地裁、高裁ともに、再婚禁止期間に関する規定は、父子関係をめぐる紛争の発生を防ぐことにあり、直ちに過剰な制約であると言えないと判断し、原告の請求を棄却した。一方、最高裁は、民法では、婚姻の成立の日から200日を経過した後又は婚姻の解消の日から300日以内に生まれた子を当該婚姻に係る夫の子と推定していること、また、医療の発達及び社会の変化により、100日を超える制限を正当化することは困難であることなどから、100日を超える制限については憲法違反であるとした。しかし、最高裁は、国家賠償法の適用の観点から見た場合には、国家賠償法は適用されないとする地裁および高裁の判断を支持した。本判決直後、民法が改正され、6か月の再婚禁止期間が100日に短縮された。



平成22年(あ)2011 (2010 (A) No. 2011) 最高裁 (Supreme Court of Japan) (2012)


Gender-based violence in general

The defendant was accused of taking and imprisoning four young women in either the guestroom of a hotel or in the defendant’s home. The victims suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of the imprisonment. One of the key issues in the case was whether the defendant’s act constituted the crime of Confinement Causing Injury, or only the crime of Confinement. The defendant argued that a psychiatric condition, such as PTSD, should not be regarded as an “injury” under the Criminal Code. The District Court and the High Court dismissed the defendant’s argument, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that if the defendant illegally imprisoned the victim and the victim developed continuous and characteristic PTSD symptoms as a result of the imprisonment, the victim’s PTSD could constitute an “injury” under the Criminal Code. Therefore, the defendant’s act constituted Confinement Causing Injury. This was the first Supreme Court precedent which found that a purely psychiatric condition which was not accompanied by a physical manifestation could fall within the meaning of “injury.”

被告は、4人の若い女性をホテルの客室または被告の自宅に連れ込み、監禁した。本件は、被害者が監禁により心的外傷後ストレス障害(PTSD)に苦しんだ事案で、(監禁罪は成立するが)監禁致傷罪の成否が争われたケースである。被告は、PTSDのような精神疾患は、刑法上の「傷害」とみなされるべきではないと主張した。しかし、地裁、高裁、最高裁ともに監禁致傷罪の成立を認めた。最高裁によると、被告が違法に被害者を監禁し、監禁の結果、被害者が継続的かつ特徴的なPTSD症状を発症した場合、被害者のPTSDは刑法上の「傷害」に該当し得るとした。本件では、最高裁は被告人の行為は監禁致傷罪に該当すると判断し、これは、物理的な傷害を伴わない純粋な精神的機能の障害が刑法上の傷害に当たることを初めて認めた最高裁判例である。



2009 (JinNa) No. 9 Supreme Court of Japan (2010)


Custodial violence

The plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in divorce proceedings in Wisconsin, USA. The defendant mother took the child to Japan. The plaintiff father sued for custody at the Osaka High Court. The court found in favor of the defendant mother because the father had a history of violence, the child lives a stable life and had many friends in Japan, and the child desired to live with the defendant mother.



2007 (A) No. 520 Supreme Court of Japan (2007)


Sexual harassment

The defendant was indicted under the Stalker Regulation Law on a charge of stalking his former girlfriend by sending two rose bouquets and five letters. The defendant argued that the Stalker Regulation Law is unconstitutional because it infringes a “right to fulfill romantic feelings”. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument opining that even if a right to fulfill romantic feelings were to exist, the purpose of the Stalker Regulation Law is legitimate and its contents are reasonable.



2004 (Ju) No. 247 Supreme Court of Japan (2004)


Divorce and dissolution of marriage

The plaintiff husband filed for divorce arguing that his wife was impossible to live with due to her neurosis for cleanliness. The defendant wife refused to agree to divorce because she had a seven-year-old child who needed child support. The plaintiff dated another woman and was living separately from the defendant for two years and four months before filing for divorce. The Supreme Court refused to grant divorce because (i) the plaintiff destroyed family trust by dating another woman, (ii) the period of living separately was not long, (iii) their child was still only seven years old, and (iv) it would be difficult for the defendant who suffered from a neurosis to find a job to support herself.



2001 (Ju) No. 1066 Supreme Court of Japan (2003)


Employment discrimination

The plaintiff exercised her right under Japanese law to reduce her working hours to spend time taking care of her child. The internal policy of her employer stated that employees who did not attend work for 90% or more of work days are ineligible for a bonus. The plaintiff’s employer counted the plaintiff’s shortened working days as absences and refused to pay her a bonus. The plaintiff sued her company for a bonus. The Supreme Court determined that the employer’s internal policy violated public policy and the employer should have counted actual working hours when calculating attendance rate.



2007(A) No. 1961 Supreme Court of Japan (2008)


Stalking

The accused was charged with the act of stalking a female customer at a shopping mall, taking photographs of her buttocks in trousers with his cellular phone with a built-in digital camera from a close distance. The court held that this act constituted an obscene act making a victim feel embarrassed or insecure under the Hokkaido Prefecture Ordinance on Prevention of Violent Public Nuisance No. 34 of 1965, which criminalizes obscene behavior.



Legislation

ストーカー規制法(平成12年法律81号)(Anti-Stalking Control Law (Act No. 81 of 2000)) (2000)


Domestic and intimate partner violence, Dowry-related violence, Gender-based violence in general

The Stalker Control Law prohibits acts of stalking, against a victim or the victim’s spouse, at the victim’s residence, place of employment or school. In addition to broadly prohibiting stalking, the statute also includes lying in wait, demanding a meeting, violent acts, silent phone calls and sending dirty or explicit items, animal carcasses or sexually insulting materials. The Chief of Police may issue a warning, and the Public Safety Commission may issue a prohibition order, upon petition by the victim. To ensure its effectiveness, the statute provides for imprisonment with work or a fine to be imposed on people who repeatedly violate the Law or who violate a prohibition order.

ストーカー規制法は、特定の者またはその配偶者に対して、その住居、職場、学校などでのストーカー行為について必要な規制を行うだけでなく、待ち伏せ、面会、交際等の義務のないことを要求すること、粗野又は乱暴な言動、無言電話、汚物、動物の死体や性的羞恥心を害する物の送付なども規制の対象に含まれる。また、被害者の申し立てにより、警察署長は警告を、公安委員会は禁止命令を出すことができる。また、実効性を確保するために、同法に繰り返し違反した者や禁止命令に違反した者には、懲役または罰金に科せることができる。



配偶者からの暴力の防止及び被害者の保護等に関する法律(平成13年法律第31号)(Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims, etc. (Act No. 31 of 2001)) (2001)


Domestic and intimate partner violence, Dowry-related violence

The Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims etc. (the “Act”) was enacted to prevent spousal violence. The Act aims to protect victims by establishing a system for notification, counseling, protection and support for self-reliance following an incident of spousal violence. The Act provides that the court shall, upon a petition from the victim, issue a restraining order, exclusion order and prohibition of telephone contact order (collectively, a “Protection Order”) where a victim is highly likely to experience serious psychological or bodily harm due to the actions of his or her spouse or domestic partner. The Act does not cover partners who are in a relationship but live separately. To ensure the effectiveness of the Protection Order, violations of the Act include imprisonment with work or fines. Furthermore, the Act requires that citizens who detect spousal violence make efforts to a Spousal Violence Counseling and Support Center, temporary protection, support worker, or a police officer.

配偶者からの暴力を防止するため、「配偶者からの暴力の防止及び被害者の保護等に関する法律」(以下「本法」)が制定された。本法は、配偶者からの暴力が発生した場合の通報・相談・保護・自立支援の体制を整備し、被害者の保護を図ることを目的としている。また、本法により、配偶者やパートナーの行為により、被害者が深刻な精神的・身体的被害を受ける可能性が高い場合、被害者からの申立てにより、裁判所が接近禁止命令、排除命令、電話連絡禁止命令(以下、総称して「保護命令」)を発令することができるようになった。なお、本法は、交際中であっても別居しているパートナーを対象としていない。保護命令の実効性を高めるため、同法に違反した場合は、懲役または罰金が科せられる。また、同法は、配偶者からの暴力を発見した市民が、配偶者暴力相談支援センター、一時保護、支援員、警察官などに働きかけることを義務づけています。



雇用の分野における男女の均等な機会及び待遇の確保等に関する法律(昭和47年法律113号)(Act on Securing, Etc., of Equal Opportunity between Men and Women in Employment (Act No. 113 of 1972)) (2017)


Employment discrimination, Gender discrimination, International law, Sexual harassment

The Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment ("the Act") aims to promote equal opportunities and treatment of men and women in the workplace. The Act falls under Article 1 of the Constitution’s mandate for the government to ensure equality under law and promote measures to ensure the health of working women during pregnancy and after childbirth. Japan enacted the Act in 1985 upon the United Nation’s ratification of Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. The Act prohibits employment discrimination based on sex at each stage of recruitment, assignment, and promotion. It also prohibits discriminatory treatment based on marriage status, pregnancy, and childbirth. In addition, an Amendment to the Act in 2017 obligates employers to take steps to prevent harassment based on a protected status. To ensure its effectiveness, the Act requires that employer violations of the statute be publicly announced, and a fine imposed on employers who violate the reporting obligation.

「雇用の分野における男女の均等な機会及び待遇の確保等に関する法律」は、職場における男女の均等な機会及び待遇を促進することを目的としている。本法は、憲法第1条の「法の下の平等を確保し、働く女性の妊娠中及び出産後の健康を確保するための措置を推進すること」に該当します。 日本は、国連の女性差別撤廃条約の批准を受けて、1985年に本法を制定した。 同法は、採用、配置、昇進の各段階において、性別に基づく雇用差別を禁止した。また、婚姻関係、妊娠・出産に基づく差別的取り扱いも禁止している。2017年、同法改正により、雇用主は保護されるべき地位に基づくハラスメントを防止するための措置を講じることが義務付けられた。 その実効性を確保するため、同法では、雇用主が法令に違反した場合にはその違反を公示し、罰金を課すことができる。



明治40年法律第45号 (Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1907)) (2007)


International law, Sexual violence and rape, Trafficking in persons

The Penal Code (the “Code”) covers Japanese criminal law and sentencing. The relevant provisions with respect to gender justice issues in the Code are Rape, Gang Rape, Forcible Indecency, and Inducement to Promiscuous Intercourse. Rape was initially classified as a crime only involving female victims, but was amended to include men in 2017. The Code states that a person who commits one of more of the listed crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with work for life, or for a definite term corresponding to the gravity of a crime. Further, based on the “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime” adopted by the United Nations, the Code was amended in 2005 to include the crime of Human Trafficking. Under the amendment, selling or purchasing a human is a crime, with the criminal punishment being more severe in cases with the purpose of profit, indecency, or marriage.

刑法は、犯罪と刑罰を規定している法律である。刑法の中で、ジェンダー・ジャスティスに関連する条項は、強姦、集団強姦、強制わいせつ、淫乱性交誘引が含まれる。強姦は当初、女性の被害者のみを対象とした犯罪として分類されていたが、2017年に男性も対象とされるよう刑法が改正された。同法では、列挙された犯罪の1つ以上を犯した者は、終身刑または罪の重さに応じた有期懲役に処される。 さらに、国連の「国際的な組織犯罪の防止に関する国際連合条約を補足する人(特に女性及び児童)の取引を防止し、抑止し及び処罰するための議定書」に基づき、2005年に刑法が改正され、人身売買が追加された。本改正により、人身売買が犯罪となり、営利目的、わいせつ目的、結婚目的で人身売買した場合は刑事罰がさらに重くなる。



日本国憲法 (Constitution of Japan) (1945)


Domestic and intimate partner violence, Forced and early marriage, Gender discrimination, Gender-based violence in general

Under Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution, “all citizens of Japan are equal under the law, and shall not be discriminated against in political, economic or social relations on the basis of sex.” Article 24 of the Constitution states that marriage can only be formed through the mutual consent of both sexes, and it must be maintained through mutual cooperation of husband and wife. Furthermore, Article 24 provides that “husband and wife have equal rights” under the law. Based Article 14 and Article 24, the following laws were enacted: the Basic Act for a Gender Equal Society requires the state and local public entities to take steps towards the formation of a gender-equal society; the Act on Securing of Equal Opportunity and Treatment Between Men and Women in Employment prohibits employers from discriminating based on gender; and the Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims etc., and the Stalker Control Law protect women from gender-based violence.

日本国憲法第14条では、「すべて国民は、法の下に平等であって、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分又は門地により、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において、差別されない」とある。憲法第24条では、「婚姻は、両性の合意のみに基いて成立し、夫婦が同等の権利を有することを基本として、相互の協力により、維持されなければならない」とある。第14条と第24条に基づき、国や地方公共団体が男女共同参画社会の形成に向けて取り組むことを定めた「男女共同参画社会基本法」、事業主が性別による差別を行うことを禁止した「雇用の分野における男女の均等な機会及び待遇の確保等に関する法律」、女性を性暴力から守るための「配偶者からの暴力の防止及び被害者の保護等に関する法律」や「ストーカー規制法」などの法律が制定された。