[Abstract] toAccording to the constitution of Japan's right to know the information public law, Japan law inconsistent understanding. Some scholars believe that the Constitution stipulates that the twenty-first "freedom of expression" and other terms, as the constitution right, some scholars think that the preamble to the constitution of "national sovereignty" as the right to know basis. Information disclosure law did not use the "right to know" concept, and stressed that "national sovereignty" and the "government accountability". The national sovereignty and the right concepts of different levels, and does not contradict the provisions in the law. For the protection and development of civil rights, "the right to know" should be affirmed in the law of information publication.
 
   [keyword] Japan's right to know constitutional basis law of information publicity
 
   Japan in May 7, 1999 formulated the "on administrative organs to maintain information public law" (hereinafter referred to as "information"), published in May 14th, and effective as of April 1, 2001. [1] in the three years after the implementation of the law, the Ministry of internal affairs according to the law in 2004 April, began to organize experts and scholars on the status of implementation of this method are reviewed, and report in 2005 March. [2] the report on the "freedom of Information Act" does not use the "right to know" concept and the use of "national sovereignty", emphasize "accountability" representation of the actual effect is also investigated [3]. Japanese scholars in the discussion of making information public law, information about the public law nature of the right, the content, the Constitution and so on, a lot of controversy. People are more informed right and its constitutional basis, national sovereignty and constitutional basis. The author of the relevant information disclosure law on national such basic rights summarized as constitutional right. This paper made a brief analysis on Japanese law concerning information disclosure law right theory and the system condition, in order to benefit the China relevant theory and legal system construction.
   One, the constitutional basis for the theory of the right
   The right to know, in Japan, often expressed as "the right to know". The effect of Japan in 1948 USA, press in USA occupation was under the guidance of the military news week, hit the slogan "all free from the beginning of the right to know!" The earliest use of the term "right to know". The right to know as a legal concept has been used in the writings, in twentieth Century 60's early 70's. When the "right to know" and "freedom of information" put on a par with. Along with the information disclosure law USA, Sweden and other countries to Japan, started the "right to know" and "freedom of information" to discuss.
   In Japan generally believe that right contains two meanings: one is the public from the government, media and other sources of information be free access to all kinds of information rights, namely "information brought to"; two is the public to the information available to the government requires open information disclosure "claim" (also known as the "information in Japan discovery claim", meaning the same). The former is called "the freedom to know"; the latter is called "the right to know". The free circulation of [4] free requirements known state without prejudice to public opinion, information, such as the abolition of censorship, this twenty-first Japanese "constitution" stipulates that "freedom of expression", meaning that freedom is broad, fundamental rights nature should belong to the people. The right to know, is the right to request for state and local public organizations and other public institutions, is the information disclosure law on the right to know, is the focus of academic discussion.
   The constitution of the right to know, more controversial Japanese academic circles. Because the Constitution does not specify the right to know, so can only from the relevant provisions in the constitution of Japan deductive derivation. Most scholars believe that the "constitution" stipulates that the twenty-first "freedom of expression" into the constitution of the right to know. [5] professor Usaki Masahiro think: guarantee the constitution "freedom of expression", only understood as the behavior make the public thought, opinion from the limits of national liberation, some narrow. If blocked access to the source of the information, then there is no significance on people's behavior. From the sender thoughts, opinions and other information not to be distorted, successfully passed to the recipient's hands, takes the entire free process security. With the increasing number of the modern state function, information is more and more big country. "If the state information that, by not recognized, want to fully formed ideas, opinions are not possible." "Therefore, as a necessary condition for the formation of ideas, opinions, acknowledged the public contact, using the national information right is necessary." "Visible, only security without prejudice to any negative 'freedom to know' is not enough, must also ensure national requires countries to provide the necessary information to the right." Is to protect "freedom of expression", including the nature of the right of insurance request "right to know". [6]
   To advocate the "constitution" article twenty-first "freedom of expression" contains informed right at the same time, many scholars believe that right belongs to the specific nature of the right of claim. For example, Professor Itou Masaki think: "right" as to information holders to request the information disclosure and provides the "right to know has the basic rights of the most important property rights, but the specific only to the twenty-first on is not clear". The right to request the government information, which may request, in any program request, must be specified system. "This system makes the right to know has the rights of specific and can get the judicial relief". [7] Lu Department letter like professor also advocated legal provisions about the right to make specific rights. He think: in the modern society, highly developed information technology, in order to reconstruct "in the people freedom of expression", security as the performance of the receiver's freedom, which is considered as the "right to know" is necessary. "The right to know in the traditional sense is' country to freedom ', but not limited to, is playing the suffrage (into the nation's freedom of action)." "The right to know is to actively request rights of government information publicity. In this sense, also has the right to request the right to request the state and society national implementation of a policy (depending on the country to free) nature, which is also a characteristic of the right to know the maximum. However, in order to make these rights become claim specific, making information public law is necessary." [8] some other scholars also hold the same view. [9]
    Compared to the "constitution" article twenty-first "freedom of expression" into the constitution according to the point of view, some scholars also have different views. Professor Abe Taitaka said: "the original freedom of expression freedom right, is not to be impeded by the right. And information disclosure request right is claims on the country's information publicity. Although it is thought to derive from freedom of expression, but its nature is different." Freedom of expression "includes not only the administrative information, but also obtain information on civil rights. Administrative information and private information is different." The right to know on the right to know is not only simple, and about the government's right to know. "Therefore, compared with the" constitution "article twenty-first, it should be based on relevant national administrative monitoring and politics in part on." Because, as the sovereign national delegate administrative government system is not a piece of white paper, the need for regular proper supervision, so the administrative information public is often necessary. [10] visible, and the government of Professor Abe Taitaka's "law of Information Publicity Outline case" views, advocating "national sovereignty idea". [11]
   The constitution of the right to know, some scholars think that the "constitution" article twenty-fifth "all citizens are entitled to maintain minimum health and cultural right to life", "the state must in all aspects of life to improve and enhance social welfare, social security and public health", namely to the constitution about "right to life" by the right basis. [12] some scholars think that the "constitution" article ninety-third "local self-government political rights people living in" can be used as the basis for informed right. [13]
   Some scholars will be right for a general understanding of the constitution according to the. Believe that right contained in several provisions of the Constitution: the Constitution stipulates that the thirteenth "all citizens will be respected as an individual", can be used as the right according to, because the government centralization and monopoly power information collection, management, transmission, to ensure national as a personal dignity, aware of the government's information is necessary the provisions of article twenty-first of the constitution; freedom "about" performance, can be used as the right according to the information receiver, as readers and listeners, admit that there are plenty of judging material rights in the general public, should have the right to know the position of the constitution; twenty-fifth provisions of the "right to life", also includes the right, because in order to maintain the Constitution stipulates that the twenty-fifth health have minimum cultural life, collect, obtain information and knowledge right is necessary; in addition, that article fifty-seventh of the constitution "the house and Senate, open meetings;" seventy-ninth "the Supreme Court Justices National Review"; eighty-second "public trial" "the special law; ninety-fifth residents voted"; ninety-sixth "constitutional amendment referendum" and so on, can be used as the basis of the constitution of the right to know. [14]
   Properties of the right to know is the specific rights, can be divided into the abstract right and concrete right. Abstract the right to say that, the right to know is a national initiative for open government information, right of claim and the right of claim of state, the right to become claim specific, only by the provisions of the constitution is not clear, the law object information, request procedure is necessary. [15] specific right, some scholars think, according to the provisions of the constitution will be produced directly from the government's disclosure; [16] the scholar thinks, "constitution" article twenty-first of the freedom of expression, guarantee the dynamic performance of freedom and passive freedom, actively require disclosure of information rights and the right to know, in the final analysis is a legal right. [17]
   On the basis of the two constitution, national sovereignty theory
   Although the theory of law of information publicity in Japan in legal circles, most scholars discussed around the "right to know", but the government's proposed "information disclosure law case", "compendium of Information Disclosure Bill" and "freedom of information act of Congress", not the concept of "right to know" "according to the national sovereignty, and put forward the concept", stressed that the government of national "explanation obligation". Some scholars have advocated the freedom of information act according to the "constitution" is about "national sovereignty", "political rights" and other provisions. In this paper, the concept called "the national sovereignty theory".
   "Information disclosure law case" outline of first about the purpose of the Act provides that "the concept of national sovereignty", "to the national government of accountability" (see note 11), about the "right to know" concept, there is no use. "Regulations on the purpose of Information Disclosure Act" and "information" and outline for the case of roughly the same, also did not make clear a regulation "right to know" content. "Information disclosure law" the first stipulation: "this law is designed according to the national sovereignty idea, provide claim administrative document discovery, based on these Provisions for administrative organs to maintain information more open, so that the activities of the government to the national accountability are fulfilled, and helps promote under the national understanding and the criticism of the fair, democratic administration." Case law and the outline is different, the law will outline "national administrative surveillance and to participate in the" to "the national understanding and criticism of justice, democratic administration", is still "according to the national sovereignty concept".
   The national sovereignty theory of scholars, generally by the "constitution" of the "sovereignty belongs to the people" was announced, "the government relied on the sacred trust of the people, its authority from the national, the exercise of its powers by the national representative, suffrage clause about national sovereignty principle and its benefits are enjoyed by the people" and other content as well as the constitution the establishment of the information disclosure system, as a basis for. Generally considered: sovereignty belongs to all the people, "in the political process of democracy, the full understanding of the political situation is indispensable, to know that the government information as a constitutional right guaranteed". [18] "the Sovereign of administrative entrustment government operating system, not the white appointed, the need for administrative activities have often, properly monitored, so we must implement the administrative information public. This is the information disclosure system according to the." [19] "the right to know is included in the national sovereignty principle and democratic principle (autonomy) within the national rights. To national sovereignty, democracy function fully, we must guarantee the 'free, rich information circulation', must make the national often, fully inspired. National government information freedom of degree of contact, can be said to be the essence of national sovereignty to test functional state standard." [20]
   On the national sovereignty theory, the government is explained in "the guiding ideology of" law of Information Publicity Outline case, "in order to improve the development of democracy, to entrust the state sovereign national, government to perform the various activities of the clear responsibility system setup is necessary." In Japan, "while taking the cabinet system, the exercise of executive power to the parliament. But in the national relationship in the administrative organs, to fulfill that responsibility system setup, rule structure in the present constitution, according to the constitution foundation of national sovereignty idea of state affairs more substantive impetus. At the same time, the system of administrative operation of the information to the national general public, make national everyone to think, to form the correct views, so that the national surveillance, in fulfillment of administrative." The necessity of national sovereignty idea will change the system, "information disclosure legal system, so far as the individual law. On specific administrative organs to maintain information, provision should be national requirements discovery system, or unequal national requirements provide system. However, for the public to improve administrative operation, the government completely to show responsibility, on the original system, with all the information administrative organs have as the object, the provisions of national everyone can put forward their claim on these information, that is to establish a general disclosure request right system, as the core of information disclosure legal system, this is very necessary." [21] the government is not the "right to know" provisions in law, the "guidelines" information disclosure law outline case explains: "right to know" whether the provision in the law of information publicity about the purpose of the provisions, are discussed. "Indeed, in our country about information disclosure law make the comment, 'the right to know the word' to improve the information disclosure legal system of national concern, played a role in the institutionalization of propulsion. However, in the legal provisions in the use of the language is appropriate, as is necessary in addition to explore the legal issues". "The guiding ideology of" law of Information Publicity Outline and explanation: a case of the "right to know", in constitutional law, some people advocate the "constitution" preface "national sovereignty idea" and "constitution" stipulates that the twenty-first "freedom of expression" articles according to the. Advocating freedom of expression, including not only the national wide convey ideas and information, and accept the freedom of the content, but also should be understood to include the right to request the government retains information disclosure. In this case, which is called "the right to know". On the "right to know" also have different understanding of the concept of. Some people think that the "right to know" basically is the abstract right, to be as specific rights to the legal system to change; some people think that "the constitution" the twenty-first freedom of expression, in the final analysis is liberty, not including claims; some people believe that the "right to know" includes a claim their information disclosure; some people think that the "right to know" there is already a constitutional right, etc.. And in the Supreme Court case does not admit a claim of "the right to know". Considering this, the government drafted FOIA draft, without the "right to know" and the "according to the national sovereignty concept", in the law of information publication is to follow the idea of establishing the information disclosure system full. [22]
    Three, the court of the right to know
   The Supreme Court of Japan as early as November 26, 1969 on the "Hakata Station case" decision, began to emphasize the "right to know". The decision points: reports authorities reported, in a democratic society, provide the information important for citizen participation in government, serving in the national "right to know"; therefore, and show that the freedom of thought in parallel, report the facts of freedom in the course of the "freedom of expression under the provisions of article twenty-first of the constitution" of protection; and in order to make the report, authorities reported content correctly, must according to Article twenty-first of the constitution spirit, in the free and full respect for reporting, and fully respect to reports and interviews of freedom. [23] pay attention to "the case of the right to know" argument, was the Supreme Court's "Ministry of foreign affairs secrets case" (May 31, 1978) decision reference. [24]
   In the local public organizations began to formulate regulations for public information, courts in the lawsuit, the general is the right to request the administrative documents of judgment, that claim decision right is rare, the Supreme Court and court related information to the public is not admitted as a right of claim decision right. But in the local court "Kagoshima Prefecture meals lawsuits" (September 29, 1997) the judgment, more thoroughly about the information disclosure of the right to know. The decision on one hand from the provisions of article twenty-first of the constitution "is freedom of expression" the right to know; on the other hand also acknowledged that other provisions of the Constitution also includes the right to know. The Court pointed out: the constitution "derivative free expression" out "right to know", "the right to know, the public to the government, the administrative information disclosure request right of the 'right' (narrow 'right'), from democracy, national sovereignty principle can be obtained based on article ninety-third of the constitution; third on the" chief "direct election rules, article ninety-second of the Constitution and the local autonomy law, the Constitution and the relevant rules, keep the case data of administrative organs of information, it is necessary to residents of discovery; information disclosure with the right to request the official document discovery body, the county residents constitution of abstraction right to give effect, and by the referee made" official document discovery claims "the ultimate realization of the rights of. [25]
   In the "information disclosure law" promulgated and implemented, because the method of "right to know" negative attitude, the court in the relevant information disclosure decision relates to the "right to know" explanation is negative. In the Kyoto District Court of first instance (December 27, 2001), the Osaka High Court of second instance (July 25, 2002) an information disclosure law ruling, a court has admitted: "in a democratic society, citizens for the right to exercise sovereignty, national rights, namely national free to contact the national management, retain the information rights protected of course, is the premise of ensuring freedom of expression; provisions of article twenty-first of the constitution, as the premise to guarantee the right to know"; on the other hand, also known as: "the right to know, right of claim based on no provisions of positive law of disclosure standards and specific discovery, as the general can compulsory judicial right is difficult, as the character of the right of claim in the abstract sense only, can not directly effect the specific rights and obligations." [26]
    Evaluation of the right to know information public law four, and after four years
   In the "information disclosure law" did not use the "right to know" concept, does not highlight the core nature of right to know, but to highlight the "according to the national sovereignty concept", emphasize to the national government's "national" that the correct understanding and criticism of "responsibility" and to promote the specific rights under administration; the specific provisions of national "administrative document discovery request right". Although the law is in the law does not use the "right to know" concept, but the provisions of the law specifically request right still belongs to the right to know the nature, just eliminate the abstract right and the right to know more specific.
In the information disclosure law after four years of implementation, the ministry began to organize the information disclosure system operation review in 2004 April, and in 2005 3 at the end of the proposed "about information disclosure law system management review report" (hereinafter referred to as the report). In the report, still sure about the provisions of purpose clauses. The report said: "although the provisions about using 'right' concept in case a lot of comments, but about the 'right' content, extension and constitutional position, there are different understanding theory. And, as the right of claim rights' right ', not always be in the Supreme Court case that. Considering this situation, this concept is not used in the objective clause." "Explain, from the implementation of information disclosure law after the situation, with the information disclosure law on judgment and review advisory report, 'the right to know the concept of' no, to explain the distribution principle, the burden of proof, not problems." [27] government for further argument in law did not use the "right to know" concept is correct, in the report also stipulated in the local public entities to the provision of evidence, and cited the provisions of the relevant laws of foreign evidence: "from the prefectural and city government designated 60 information disclosure regulations, use the 'right' concept has 53, one in 34 of the provisions of. In the use of 'right' constitution according to, in addition to 'local autonomy based on purpose', in the constitution article is not clear. And the use of 'accountability' concept has 59 Ordinance, which has 53 used in the objective rules ";" from the information disclosure legal system of foreign law, the provisions of relevant laws to, 30 countries studied, only one country South Korea using the 'right' use 'accountability;' of New Zealand, Mexico, South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina shikoku". The [28] report also admits, "although not in law using the 'right' concept, but the law does not exclude the right to know", for the "discovery of the right to request the provisions, the principle of openness of ideological formation of the information structure", to further study the "right to know" are of great significance. The government on the right to know the system of information disclosure law arrangement, is certainly full of.
   Five, the conclusion
   Explore the establishment of information disclosure system in Japan's theory, the rights of the basic theory of the system, related to the national sovereignty and the right to know. Whether the "right to know" explicitly stipulated in the law, whether the provision in the law to the provisions, there are two kinds of views. The government proposed the "Information Disclosure Act" and "freedom of information act of Congress" are not written "right to know", and to "national sovereignty idea" as the foundation.
The national sovereignty and the right to know, although can derive the national government's information disclosure and the right to request shall establish an information disclosure system, but they are two concepts of different levels. The national sovereignty, refers to the supreme power of the state is that all citizens; and the right to know, is a kind of basic civil rights and concrete rights derived therefrom. National sovereignty is the right level, mainly for the final decision on the state of affairs of the right and the right to know; mainly relates to the national rights and interests, is not only a specific request, but also other relevant follow-up right basic rights. So, the national sovereignty and the right to know both in law and is not a contradiction.
   Although the Supreme Court has not clearly recognized the right to know, but there is no clear opposition to judgment, and in other types of cases had acknowledged the right expression. Confirm the "right to know" to explain the law in the trial court in the law of information publication, better protect and develop the public rights. From the national development and the requirement of the public right, the "right to know" should be affirmed in the law of information publication. The Japanese government in the formulation of the law of information publication, regardless of the public and scholars, from "use right" concept in the Information Disclosure Act, and in the four years after the implementation of the review is still a negative attitude, reason is not sufficient; the development of civil rights, no positive effects.
   (the original: "Pacific Journal" published in 2007 first; the other set: "Method the letter network")

(author: Liu Jie, doctor of law, Beijing Dacheng Law Firm Shanghai branch lawyer, arbitrator of Shanghai Arbitration Commission)
Notes.

[1] Japan "freedom of Information Act" in May 7, 1999 through the end of May 14, 1999, (Law No. forty-second) published in 2000, according to the provisions of Decree No. fortieth, come into force on April 1, 2001.
[2] Japan "information disclosure law" "annex" third paragraph: "the government should take the four years after the enforcement of law as the goal, to the jurisdiction of the enforcement of law and information disclosure litigation review, to take the necessary measures according to the result of".
[3] Japan "information disclosure law" the Chinese translation, Liu Jie: "the right to know and information disclosure law" in the "appendix" part of "Japan 'about the administrative organ to maintain information public law'", the book of 296th pages, Tsinghua University press, 2005 edition.
[4] see research [Japan] Japan Information Disclosure Law: "the information disclosure system of points", 18 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1997, including the right to know the author says "information leading to" and "information disclosure request right"; [Japan] well Jia Xian et al: "information public", 144 page, Tokyo, administrative agencies, book 1998, Professor Nakau Sakimasahiro said: "the 'freedom of expression' is not 'for freedom of expression, including of course' have 'circulation of information freedom' and 'receive free (known as free)'"; [Japan] Sakamoto Changseong: "the Constitution theory of", 100 ~ 101 pages, Tokyo, written Tang, 1995, the authors believe that right includes two aspects, namely, the continuous message recipients that received and the right to freedom of information sender to their behavior freedom and claims the right to access to information.
[5] of Japan's "constitution" twenty-first article: "security of assembly, association, expression, publication and all other manifestations of freedom. Shall conduct check. Must not violate the privacy of communication." -- from Jiang Shilin editor: "constitution" world book, 385 pages, Qingdao, Qingdao University Press, 1997.
[6] see [Japan] Ide Yoshinori: "information public", 143 to 144 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1998.
[7] see [Japan] Itou Masaki: "the constitution", 3 edition, 324 pages, Tokyo, Hong Tang, 1995.
[8] see [Japan] Lu Department letter: "the constitution", a new version of joy, 160 to 162 pages, Tokyo, Iwanami shoten, 1997.
[9] for example [Japan] Misaki Sato Koji: "the constitution", 3 edition, 516 pages, Tokyo, Qing Lin college, 1995; bridge the Dan: "the Japanese Constitution", 415 to 417 pages, Tokyo, Yuhikaku publishing, 1980; Matsui Shige: "freedom of information", from 22 to 23 pages, Tokyo, Iwanami shoten, 1996; Ishimura Yoji: "decentralization and public information law", "carrying case times" (Japan), 931, 102 pages of legislation, to advocate the right to know, to make it right to request specific.
[10] see [Japan] Abe Taitaka: "[debates · proposal] information disclosure", 6 to 7 pages, Tokyo, Japan review press, 1997.
[11] "law of Information Publicity Outline case" first stipulation: "this law according to national sovereignty idea, provide claim national administrative document discovery requests, in order to improve the public administrative operation, so that the activities of the government to the people that the responsibility and obligation to be performed at the same time, to promote the National on administrative surveillance, joined the purpose." On the information disclosure law national sovereignty theory, in the following analysis.
[12] such as professor Okura Yasuhiro in the "government information disclosure system to maintain and constitution" [load (day) "law times", points out that the 64 No. twelfth] in an article: "in order to satisfy the desire of knowledge and culture right is the core of" personal right "pursuit of happiness, the minimum culture for healthy life, knowledge, contact information is indispensable".
For example, in [13] fast Professor load "jurist in the" personal information and public "[" (Japan), (1994.), "public information, personal information protection", page 84] in an article that the right to know "especially according to local autonomy from Article 93 2 understanding of direct democracy features in the final analysis, according to residents the right to participate in politics".
[14] see [Japan] Shimizu Yukio: "information and method", 21 to 22 pages, Tokyo, the central economic press, 1998.
[15] such as Lu Department letter like Professor in its editor in chief of the "constitution" (new edition, 160 ~ 162 pages, Tokyo, Iwanami shoten, 1997) that a Book: to obtain concrete discovery claim must have legal provisions, "the right to know is to actively request rights of government information publicity, with the requirements of the state to take measures of state property right and social right request characteristics in its significance. However, to make it become the right of claim of concrete, it is necessary to develop the information disclosure law." Professor Itou Masaki editor of the "constitution" (3 edition, 324 pages, Tokyo, Hong Tang, 1995) a book also said: "the right to know has the right to the most basic properties, but its specific rights, only to the 21 on is not clear. From the government as the right hand, must determine what information, the program can discovery request system. According to this system so that the right to know has the specific rights of the original, also can get the judicial relief."
[16] such as professor Okura Yasuhiro in the "government information disclosure system to maintain and constitution" [load "legal times" (Japan), Vol. 64, No. 12] in an article that: "as a constitutional law constitute the government retains information access, in the specific legislation completely under the condition of lack, if according to the specific circumstances of the the right to carry out, also may produce the government disclosure obligations."
[17] such as Hashimoto and Professor Dan in the "constitution of Japan", revised edition, (Tokyo, Yuhikaku Publishing) in the proposition: "Article 21 1, understanding for the protection of the freedom of expression is active and passive freedom of expression as well. The problem is the right to know the scope and boundaries....... If the abstract, citizens have the right to know, but considering realistically, in reality, as the nature of the right of constitution (the right to request the positive information disclosure) is weak." "Approach, to clear the scope of the right to know the limits of and the exercise of the rights of, to have effective force, we must make the freedom of information act as American law like that. Although the right to know can be traced to the constitution, but from the legislative point of view, it should be specific legal rights."
[18] see [research] information disclosure law: "the information disclosure system of points", 19 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1997.
[19] see [Japan] Abe Taitaka: "[debates · proposal] information disclosure", page 7, Tokyo, Japan review press, 1997.
[20] see [Japan] Yamauchi Mihiro, Furukawa Ju: "the constitution status and prospects", 185 pages, north of Tokyo, tree press, 1996.
[21] see [research] information disclosure law: "the information disclosure system of points", 195 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1997.
[22] see [research] information disclosure law: "the information disclosure system of points", 196 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1997.
[23] see [research] information disclosure law: "the information disclosure system of points", 29-30 pages, Tokyo, administrative agencies, 1997.
[24] see [Japan] Nakamura Mutsuo, Tomoto Teruki: "50 years" constitutional adjudication, pages 188-189, Tokyo, long press, 1997.
[25] see [Japan] Tajima Yasuhiko: "Kagoshima Prefecture meals litigation and the right to know", load [Japan] "the law times" 71, No. 6, third pages.
[26] see [Japan] Ministry: "report" information disclosure law system operation review, "points" to improve the carrier of information disclosure system, pp. 28-29, administrative agency, 2006.
[27] see [Japan] Ministry: "report" information disclosure law system operation review, load "information disclosure system improvement points", twenty-seventh pages, the administrative agency, 2006.
[28] see [Japan] Ministry: "report" information disclosure law system operation review, load "information disclosure system improvement points", twenty-eighth pages, the administrative agency, 2006.