KIHARA,Jun - Faculty of Law Department of Law and Politics

KIHARA, Jun

Faculty, Department/Institute

Faculty of Law Department of Law and Politics

Academic status (qualification)

Professor Apr. 1,2018

Undergraduate Degrees・University

2009
1996

Academic Degrees

博士（法学）東北大学

Research Publications

No.	Type of publication	Date of publication (Date of presentation)	Title	Publisher and journal name	Volume number
1	Papers1	2020/11～2020,11,00,,,	Rechtsphilosophie Ken TAKESHITAs		70,4,830-853
2	Papers1	2020/11～2020,11,00,,,	Others from a view point of rational law		,,-
3	Papers1	2016/7～2016,07,00,,,	Constitutional Law and Political Interpretation		62,1,47-85
4	Papers1	2015/3～2015,03,00,,,	Self-Ownership Theory and its Limit		60,3,417-442
5	Papers1	2014～2014,00,00,,,	Book Review : A Reply to Prof. Ichiro Sako		,,149-153
6	Book2	2012/3～2012,03,00,,,	Border and Freedom on Kant's rational law		viii, 226p
7	Papers1	2012～2012,00,00,,,	Homogeneity and Identity between legal systems	Research reports	,53,139-147
8	Papers1	2010～2010,00,00,,,	Border and the democratic peace by Kant		2010,,188-199
9	Papers1	2008～2008,00,00,,,	Intelligible possession and criticism on labour theory of property by Immanuel Kant	Research reports,Fukushima National College of Technology	,49,79-91
10	Papers1	2006～2006,00,00,,,	Between legality and illegality: a study of legal ethics	Research reports,Fukushima National College of Technology	,47,109-117
11	Papers1	2006～2006,00,00,,,	Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism:A View from Kant's “Gemeinwesen”	The Annals of Legal Philosophy	2005,2005,156-164,194
12	Papers1	2004/10～2004,10,00,,,	Logik der Souveranen Staastheorie Kants	The Chuo law review	111,3,223-263
13	Papers1	2004～2004,00,00,,,	Hobbes gegen Kant? ; oder Beziehung zwischen Gewalt und Recht im Bezug auf heutige Weltordnung	Research reports,Fukushima National College of Technology	,45,111-119
14	Papers1	2003～2003,00,00,,,	"Vorbehalt des Gesetzes" und die Wechselung der Rechtsstaatsidee	Research reports,Fukushima National College of Technology	,44,95-107
15	Papers1	2001/8～2001,08,00,,,	Eine Freiheitslehre Souveranitatsstaates : Kants Kritik uber Widerstandsrecht	The Chuo law review	108,4,181-213
16	Papers1	1999/5～1999,05,00,,,	Formalitat und Materialitat im Begriff Rechtsstaates	The Chuo law review	105,10,177-202

Book2021/4～

PapersRechtsphilosophie Ken TAKESHITAs70,4,830-8532020/11～0437-648X

PapersOthers from a view point of rational law,,-2020/11～

Book2019/8～9784792306519

Papers2019/8～

Papers2017/11～

PapersConstitutional Law and Political Interpretation62,1,47-852016/7～10.15099/000158140286-3642

PapersSelf-Ownership Theory and its Limit60,3,417-4422015/3～10.15099/000020210286-3642

PapersBook Review : A Reply to Prof. Ichiro Sako,,149-1532014～0387-2890

BookBorder and Freedom on Kant's rational lawKihara, Junviii, 226p2012/3～9784792305291

PapersHomogeneity and Identity between legal systemsKIHARA JunResearch reports,53,139-1472012～0916-6041Why the League of Nations failed ? From the point of view, this paper examines the critic of League of Nations by German theorist Carl Schmitt and the meaning of the Monroe doctrine. As a result of this study, I conclude that the concept of International order based on universal justice inevitably brings a form of imperial rule.

PapersBorder and the democratic peace by Kant2010,,188-1992010～0387-2890

Papers2009/10～

Papers2009/9～

PapersIntelligible possession and criticism on labour theory of property by Immanuel KantKIHARA JunResearch reports,Fukushima National College of Technology,49,79-912008～0916-6041Kant criticized so-called labour theory of property, which was advocated by John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government". However Kant's criticism to labour theory was only pointed to the aspect of acquisition of land (ground). This paper gives two reasons for this background. Firstly, Kant divided the object of property into two groups; external thing and internal thing. According to this division, land is purely external thing.So we cannot explain the acquisition of land by labour theory, which starts from the view of internal mine (my body and labour). Secondly, according to Kant, land is regarded as "substance" of things, and other things as "inherence". It means that land is not only the object of private property but also the ground of a public legal system. Dealing with only private property, labour theory of property cannot be applied to original acquisition of land. To the contrary, Kant proposed the basic theory of property as intelligible possession. Though it contains some unclear points, it enables to explain two important faces of land property; private property and public dominion.

PapersBetween legality and illegality: a study of legal ethicsKIHARA JunResearch reports,Fukushima National College of Technology,47,109-1172006～0916-6041From modern dualistic law thinking, all human behaviors should be divided into two categories, legality and illegality. However, there is another legal domain between legality and illegality, or there are phenomena, which are clearly illegal but left as permissible behaviors. This paper considers this special domain of law world.

PapersPatriotism and Cosmopolitanism:A View from Kant's “Gemeinwesen”KIHARA JunThe Annals of Legal Philosophy2005,2005,156-164,1942006～10.11205/jalp1953.2005.1560387-2890Following Rousseau's theory of people's sovereignty and his concept of law, Immanuel Kant described his ideal state as “Gemeinwesen”. He consciously and intentionally denied world republic in his book “Zum ewigen Frieden”. According to Rousseau, the virtue can become fruitful only within the context of “l'amour de la patrie” (patriotism). Rousseau's patriotism and republic theory is to be expected in a small city state, not in a large state. As such, anti-world republic dogma by Kant reflects the significance of patriotism in small state posited by Rousseau. Unlike Rousseau, however, Kant interpreted “patriotism” as directed at “Land”, and “Volk” as being a group with single ethnic identity, not as an universal “Volk”. Such distinctive characteristic of Kant's state theory has generally been assumed to have derived from his pre-modern character and historic circumstances.
In this paper, I suppose that the source of difference in the concepts held by the two distinct philosophers can be found in the difference of the size of states they presupposed. Rousseau considered his “republic” as a small sized city state, so the object of his patriotism could be pure and abstract fatherland, ignoring the traditional framework of property system (societas civilis). To the contrary, Kant struggled to form his state theory as a middle-sized territorial state, which aimed to destroy traditional and privileged property system and to separate territorial sovereignty from economical private land property rights. Therefore Kant's concepts of “Land” and “Volk” played an important role to build a theory of modern and republican territorial states. This indicates that it was logically natural for Kant to deny the concepts of the world republic.

PapersLogik der Souveranen Staastheorie KantsKihara JThe Chuo law review111,3,223-2632004/10～0009-6296

PapersHobbes gegen Kant? ; oder Beziehung zwischen Gewalt und Recht im Bezug auf heutige WeltordnungKIHARA JunResearch reports,Fukushima National College of Technology,45,111-1192004～0916-6041Die Arbeit behandlt jenes Buch "Paradise and Power", das von Robert Kagan beschreibt wurde, in Bezug auf die Beziehung zwischen Gewalt und Recht. Nach Kagan entspricht der Gegensatz zwichen Unilateralismus von USA und heutige EU dem Gegensatz zwischen hobbesischen Weltordnungsanschauung und kantische Weltdnungsanschauung, d.h. zwischen Gewalt und (Volker) Recht. Aber auch die USA entwickelt sich als unabhangiger, souveraner und nationaler Staat in der internationale Ordnung. Theoretsisch gesagt, Gewalt und Recht wirken gegenseitig. Entweder Gewalt oder Recht kann den Vorrang vor andere haben. Die beide unterstutzt miteinander.

Papers"Vorbehalt des Gesetzes" und die Wechselung der RechtsstaatsideeKIHARA JunResearch reports,Fukushima National College of Technology,44,95-1072003～0916-6041Der vorliegende Aufsatz behandelt den "Vorbehalt des Gesetzes (VG)" im bereich offentlicher Rechtslehre nach dem 2. Weltkrieg. Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg in Japan ist VG zweideutig verstanden. Einerseits ist VG als Eingriff in die Menschenrechte betrachtet, deshalb ist das im Bereich der Verfassungsrechtslehre verboten. Anderseits ist VG im Bereich der Verwaltungsrechtslehre als Voraussetzung der "Gesetzmassigkeit der Verwaltung" anerkannt. Die Urasche dieses Widerspruch stammt davon, dass der heutige moderne Verfassungsstaat zwei verschiedene Staatsidee enthalt. Namlich erfordert moderne Sozialstaatsidee zahlreiche Eingriffe in die Freiheit. Und es darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes (d. h. VG) erlaubt werden. Aber die neugeborene japanische Verfassungsrechtslehre und Naturrechtsstaatsidee, die nach der Erlebnis Totalismus wieder eingeschatzt wurde, kritisiert Eingriff in die Freiheit. Diese Arbeit erortert die Entsprechung von zweideutigen VG und zwei Staatsidee modemer Konstitutionalismus. Und es lasst sich erklaren, dass dieser Widerspruch in der japanischen offentlichen Rechtslehre vom unklaren Gesetzesbegriff stammt.

Papers Eine Freiheitslehre Souveranitatsstaates : Kants Kritik uber WiderstandsrechtKihara JunThe Chuo law review108,4,181-2132001/8～0009-6296

PapersFormalitat und Materialitat im Begriff RechtsstaatesKihara JunThe Chuo law review105,10,177-2021999/5～0009-6296

KIHARA, Jun

Faculty, Department/Institute

Academic status (qualification)

Undergraduate Degrees・University

Academic Degrees

Awards

Research Publications

Courses Taught