The Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL) was established at the University of Sydney, the University of NSW and the Australian National University in 2002. Its primary aim is to promote research, teaching, and community engagement with Japanese law, especially in Australia. ANJeL organised its annual international conference at the University of Sydney earlier this year under the theme of Japanese Law on Trial, which was supported by the Japan Foundation, Sydney.

Omusubi editor Catherine Maxwell spoke to one of the co-directors of ANJeL, Dr Luke Nottage, senior lecturer at the Sydney University Law Faculty, about the Network and its activities.

I think there are two main reasons. First, Japan is still our major economic partner and a lynchpin of the Asian economies, including China. Japan is also interested in developing regional partnerships in security and sees Australia as a natural partner. Secondly, in a broader sense Japan has a fascinating and evolving society and political system. These days Japanese law is very much intertwined with economics, security, politics and society. Sometimes the law slows down developments, sometimes it reflects them and sometimes it pushes them forward. But you cannot ignore the legal system in all those areas now.

How does the Japanese legal system compare with the Australian legal system? What are some of the interesting characteristics?

The Japanese legal system has some interesting similarities to the Australian one. For example, it has a similar sort of historical trajectory in developments starting from the late 19th century, when the modern legal system got going in Japan. Likewise, it was really only in the late 19th century that we started to assemble our legal system in Australia. Another similarity is that Australia has had to grow in independence from, in our case, English law. Likewise, the modern Japanese legal system has borrowed heavily from continental Europe, especially Germany, but over the 20th century it has become increasingly autonomous – particularly in the last few decades.

Yet Japan is interesting because it has been influenced by a variety of different legal systems. Australia is still mainly influenced by English law and to a lesser extent other Commonwealth countries. Japan has more disparate influences. It’s had a strong influence from continental Europe, enacting several comprehensive Codes, and is now interested in the deluge of European Union law. But Japan also had a lot of case law development, and a big dose of Anglo–American-based law reforms during the Occupation period after World War 2. And in the last few decades it’s had another dose. Some people even talk about the ‘Americanisation of Japanese law’, but really this is a broader influence from globalisation. Japan has signed up to a lot of international conventions and is increasingly influenced by international law and new global standards. So it has three strong hybrid influences on its legal system. That’s interesting to compare with Australia, where maybe there’s still less openness to international developments.

One of the recent developments in Japanese law is the introduction of the saiban-in (lay assessor)* system, which was something discussed at the recent conference.

Well that’s interesting because it’s saying we want a system that’s less driven by career judges, we want more participation in the legal system. On the one hand that seems very Anglo-American because it looks like a sort of jury system. But when you look closely at it, the system involves the judges and lay people selected randomly to deliberate together in trials of serious criminal cases, unlike the jury members in the Anglo-American system, who are always kept away from the judge when they make their factual determinations. So this saiban-in model is really more along continental European lines. It’s a good example of a change in the legal system which appears to be Anglo-American, but is equally, if not more so, continental European. In itself it is a significant step for Japan because it’s part of broader changes to their legal system since the 1990s, to make the system more accessible and participatory. That’s another reason why it’s interesting to look at Japan, because of all the changes that have happened over the last ten years in particular.

What is the level of interest in Japanese law in Australia?

It’s very good. If you look at the universities there seems to be much more relative interest per capita than the United States, for instance. Despite Japan’s economic slowdown in the 1990s, in Australia we seem to have maintained momentum in developing interest in Japanese law at universities. I think a reason for this is that we have so much Japanese language and culture being taught in the high schools. Also, many law schools in Australia require combined degrees so we get a lot of law students doing courses in Japanese language or culture, and when they get the chance to do Japanese law they jump at it.

And then there’s a lot of broader interest. ANJeL has over 200 individual members and about a third of those are based in Australia and New Zealand. Many of our members are in the academic world, but there are also a lot of legal practitioners and people in government or business, mostly with legal backgrounds. One of Australia’s most successful exports is its lawyers, so we’ve got a lot of very active Australian members in Tokyo law firms! Our Network is all about keeping them in touch with each other, because there are now hundreds of people out there interested in the many connections between the Australian and Japanese legal systems.

Can you tell me some more about ANJeL activities?

The first of our three main areas is Teaching and Learning. This includes supporting students through prizes for coursework in Japanese law at the three founding institutions, the University of Sydney, ANU and UNSW, sponsored by a Japanese lawyer in Tokyo who did an LLM in Sydney decades ago, Mr Akira Kawamura. There is also the nation-wide ANJeL Blake Dawson Waldron Essay Prize in Japanese Law, sponsored by a major Australian law firm.

Secondly, ANJeL has a strong focus on broader outreach, especially through our websites, mirrored at the three institutions. The websites make research papers available online, including material from conferences like the one in February and selected material from the Journal of Japanese Law, as well as other useful resources.

Thirdly, the most important focus has been our research activities. These include the support of short-term visitors, who come to pursue their research and share their findings and expertise with us. They have included not just academics but also practitioners. As part of all these changes in Japanese law since the late 1990s, the courts in Japan are very keen to find out what’s going on in different parts of the world. A new development since last year is to have ‘Judges-in-Residence’ sent from Japan on year-long sabbatical to do more detailed research and to get to know the Australian legal system as a whole. In conjunction with the University of Melbourne’s Asian Law Centre (ANJeL’s inaugural affiliate), we now have one judge coming to Sydney and also spending time at ANU in Canberra, and a second judge going to Melbourne. Previously, such sabbaticals were almost always spent in Europe and the United States.

What is the role of the Judges-in-Residence, is it mainly research or do they assist in teaching?

Primarily it’s research and ANJeL’s role is to help them meet with other legal institutions in Australia relevant to their research topic as agreed with the Supreme Court of Japan. But we also encourage them to talk to our students and it’s a welcome opportunity for them to see what is of interest to young Australians and what they find difficult to understand and compare. I think that opens everyone’s eyes.