Abstract This paper reexamines the phenomenon of judicialization in Japan by integrating legal-philosophical perspectives with socio-legal analysis. Challenging the conventional view of judicialization as the mere expansion of judicial power, it foregrounds litigation as a strategic mechanism of policy transformation, legal reinterpretation, and institutional responsiveness. By drawing upon Bentham’s legal positivism and Dworkin’s principle-based adjudication, the paper highlights influential Japanese frameworks such as Watanabe Chihara’s responsive justice, Tanaka Shigeaki’s policy-formation litigation, and Awaji Takehisa’s institutional reform litigation. These frameworks illuminate how Japanese courts engage with evolving social norms, regulatory gaps, and constitutional principles in diverse contexts - including environmental pollution, labor rights, nuclear governance, and climate change. Through these case studies, the analysis demonstrates that Japanese courts can serve as arenas of normative contestation and democratic accountability, influencing institutional and policy agendas despite procedural and doctrinal constraints.
Adrienne Sala (Thu,) studied this question.