春雨直播app

This book is the result of interdisciplinary research inspired by the growing importance of “judicial dialogue” in Europe. We attempted to examine its reality and significance from as many diverse perspectives as possible at the present state of academic research.
 
The title of this book, “Judicial Dialogue”, refers to the phenomenon in which judges “dialogue” with judges of other courts; it is a term that has become widely used in recent years, especially in Europe. This expression originated from Mr Bruno Genevois of the French Council of State (Conseil d'État), in 1978, that regarding its relationship with the Court of Justice of the European Communities, what was needed was not a “war of judges” but a “dialogue of judges.” He proposed, unfortunately in vain, that preliminary questions be sent to the Court of Justice rather than unilaterally adopting a solution that differs radically from the existent case-law of the Court of Justice. Thus, this expression originally refered to an institutionalised “dialogue” between the ECJ and national courts of the Member States.
 
The phenomenon of “judicial dialogue” has particularly aroused widespread attention since the 1990s, as international courts or similar institutions have increased and developed, and autonomous legal orders with their own courts have coexisted while their mutual relationships have become closer; in other words, “internationalisation” and “globalisation” have reached national courts and tribunals. Notably, first, international court networks and case law are being formed under a conscious strategy of promoting “judicial dialogue” among members of international and national courts who are directly involved. Second, “judicial dialogue” is being discussed not only in EC/EU law, but also in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), European Economic Area (EEA) law, and more broadly in relation to national courts, international courts (including judicial dispute resolution institutions and arbitration), and between domestic and international courts. Consequently, when considering the formation of international case law, it is no longer possible to ignore the various “judicial dialogues” at multiple levels. However, contrary to courts in Common Law countries, courts in so-called “civil law countries“ in Europe (such as France, Italy, etc.) did not have a judicial practice of explicitly citing precedents from other countries. Additionally, the secrecy of deliberations was almost insurmountable obstacles for outsiders such as academic researchers to verify its existence and reality based on objective data.
 
This book is probably the first attempt at interdisciplinary research in which specialists in European law (Profs. Ito & Suami), international law (Profs. Hamamoto, Teraya, Sawada & Nakai), and international politics (Prof. Amiya) have undertaken the problems on the reality and theoretical issues of “judicial dialogue,” while considering regions outside of Europe, particularly Latin America, Asia and Japan, where the phenomenon of “judicial dialogue” is virtually unknown and has yet to be analysed.
 

(Written by ITO Yoichi, Professor, Graduate Schools for Law and Politics / 2025)