This paper traces the history of the plans advocated by the Bar Associations, other groups and individuals to select judges alternative to the present continental 'Career System' in Japan. The present system has been criticised for more than a century by the Bar and liberal lawyers as bureaucratic or undemocratic. They have insisted that it be abolished and the alternative selection system be introduced in which judges would be selected from mature and experienced practising lawyers as in Anglo-American judiciaries.
In reviewing various plans of what they call 'the Unified System (HOUSOU ICHIGEN)', this paper focuses on the citizen participation programme in the selection committee proposed. Originally the idea was nonexistent or only peripherally included and the initiative was almost exclusively in the Bar's hands. Gradually such lawyer centred plans have given way to substantial participatory proposals and finally merge with the idea of 'the Lower Court Appointment Counsel Committee' resulted from the recent judicial reform in which the number of non-lawyer members exceeds that of lawyers. The history shows how the original idealistic (and self-righteous) stance of the Bar has become more realistic and tactical through the political and ideological processes of the postwar experiences in the judicial reform debates and movements in Japan.

During the Second War period, a field study called "Rural Customs Research" was carried out in the northern part of China then occupied by imperial Japan. It was organized and led by some leading Japanese socio-legal scholars now generally regarded as founding fathers of the Sociology of Law in Japan. And this research was also supported by governmental or semi-governmental organizations strongly interested in the management of the colonies and occupied areas abroad.
This paper critically reviews how this fieldwork and so the socio-legal involvement of the first generation with the colonial management have been discussed in the post war period. And the question whether and how those Japanese sociological lawyers had any "war responsibility" is to be considered, which, in the writer's view has not yet fully examined. In so doing, the paper shows this problem is not a matter of the past but has to do with the present sociological studies of law in Japan and, more generally, with the relation between academic activities and political power, and between "scientific" attitude and political responsibilities.

How have the issues concerning 'law and morality' or 'law and ethics' been discussed in sociological studies of law? What relations and constellations have been presupposed and given therein among the ideas of 'law', 'morality' and 'ethics'? This paper critically examines from rather a bird eye's view various mainstream theories and perspectives on this point. Through this analysis, the writer tries to identify a frame of reference underlying the diversities on the surface. It has a general tendency to take for granted the separation of law and morality in modern society and to see the modern law as a relatively autonomous mechanism. It is pointed that the mainstream discussions are themselves partially biased by the ideological influence of modern law, while they may accurately and often critically grasp the conditions of law in the modern world. And therefore those perspectives seem to have some thoretical weaknesses in analysing the conditions of law in society today.
Then in relation to the present pluralistic situation surrounding law and society, a direction and stance different from that of the mainstream discourse, inspired by the works of Roger Cotterrell, is implied. Such a perspective encourages to see the relations of law and morality as more intricate and entangled phenomena and seems to give a productive and refreshing view on the problems and challenges which the law of the present day is facing.

The Japanese judicial reform movements in the 90s have been advocated and discussed not only by lawyers but by the variety of social actors including politicians, journalists, entrepreneurs and citizen groups. The reform targets are also almost all-embracing. Recruitment of legal professions, judicial budget, quality of court services, civil and criminal procedures, the styles of court decision and legal codes, to mention a few. And the actors' political stances are not so clear-cut as they used to be. Influential business leaders strongly point out the defects in the present judicial system while Japan Federation of Bar Association has been divided on how to evaluate and respond to the reform movements.
And there is strong concern that introduction of deregulation policy into judiciary may cause serious damage on its functions. On the other hand, the basic authoritarian character of the system seems little affected despite criticisms.
The complicated and multifaceted nature of the movements itself proves the need for academic examinations. This mini-symposium has been held under such perspectives with a prominent practicing lawyer and a well-known judge, who both are playing leading roles in the reform movements, as guest panelists together with two socio-legal academics.

Professor Tani's study adopts a positivist approach widely recognized in the political science during 1980s through the work of Michael Michizuki and Tomoaki Iwai. Their middle range perspectives called 'viscosity model' and 'hurdle race model', however, have some fragile aspects, constructed and depending on changeable variables such as LDP's permanent stay in power, 'middle-sized electoral district system' among others. Professor Tani tries to find out what has changed and what has not in the Japan's parliamentary legislation process after many of these conditions were actually altered when LDP slipped off the power in 1993. He picked up the legislation process of 'NPO Act', which he regards typically reflected the new political environment. He thus reviews the validity of the previous models and tries to formulate new perspective on the new situation. Whether his new model was successfully and persuasively discussed in his presentation, however, remains arguable. Even more fundamental criticism may be that in what sense his discussion can be considered as that of socio-legal study, not solely that of political science. It is perhaps necessary to include theories of law and wider perspectives on social processes and social change in addition to those on political systems and actors.

What implications might the trendy "Juridification Theories" have for the reality of law and jurisprudence in Japan? I choose the area of educational law and point out that there are some coincidental traces between the general legal discussions and those in one specific and domestic Japanese jurisprudence. As both deal with the triadic relations between law, state and autonomous spheres in society, the coincidence is of no surprise despite of the seemingly unexpected "encounter".