抄録

英語圏の法哲学やイギリスの憲法理論においては一般に,「法の支配」の多義性・論争性が強調されるので,「法の支配」を「善き法の支配rule of good law」と混交する考え方は消極的に評価される.他方,日本の司法制度改革を理論的に主導した佐藤幸治の議論の特徴は,「法の支配」それ自体が本来的に「善きもの」であるかのように語る点にある.この語り口を可能にするのが,「法の支配」と「法治主義」の法秩序形成観における差異を強調し,前者の優位を論ずる佐藤の独特な「法の支配」論である.本稿は,戦後公法学の論争上に佐藤の「法の支配」論を位置づけた上で,現代イギリス憲法学の理論動向を参考にしながら,佐藤の憲法学説を批判的に検討する.そして,佐藤の議論のように,政治道徳哲学への越境を禁欲し,法理論の枠内で「法の支配」を厳密に概念構成する学説が孕む問題性を明らかにする.

abstract

In Anglo-American political or constitutional theory, the concept of "rule of law" is tend to be formal one, and distinguished from "rule of good law". But the ideology that prevailed the reformation of judicial system of Japan, is "rule of law" as "rule of good law". In this essay, I want to read the constitutional theory of Professor SATO Koji rather critically, because he is the one who advocated the concept of "rule of good law" as the ideology for that reformation. Professor SATO stressed the difference between "rule of law" and "Rechtsstaat" from the perspective of "law-making process". But comparative study of English-Japanese constitutional theory will show that "rule of law" is much more contested concept than Professor SATO might hope to be.