| 授業科目名 | 年度 | 学期 | 開講曜日・時限 | 学部・研究科 | 全担当教員 | 単位数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14185:法政英書講読Ⅰ(JA) § 14186:（副）法政英書講読Ⅰ(JA) | 2023 | 秋セメスター | 火2 | 法学部 | 小堀 眞裕 | 2 |
キャンパス
衣笠
授業施設
存心館ZS204号教室
授業で利用する言語
日本語
授業の概要と方法
A. W. Bradley, K. D. Ewing, C. J. S. Knight, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Penguin: the 18th Edition, 2022の第１章を読みます。不文憲法や制定法との関係など、英国憲法を学ぶ上で入門書的なことが書かれています。したがって、これを読めば、留学などで憲法部分が学習対象になった時でも、十分対応可能です。
A. W. Bradleyは、オックスフォード大学やエディンバラ大学の教授を務めた先生で、K. D. Ewingは、ロンドン大学キングス・カレッジの教授です。二人とも英国憲法学を代表する有名な研究者です。同書は、英国で最も権威があり、また標準的な教科書で、法学部の学生、司法試験受験生などが読んでいます。
本書は、英国憲法の伝統的な考え方、特に「なぜ不文なのか」、「なぜ慣習は制定法とはされないのか」などに関して基本的なことがしっかり説明されています。例えば、不信任はno confidence, 慣習はconvention, 司法審査はjudical review, 日本で言う議院内閣制はresponsible government, 法律の英文章におけるallowとrequireの違い、など、英語圏法学のテクニカル・タームなどを知ることもできます。英語でしっかりと法学・政治学を勉強しようとするなら、非常に良いテキストです。
なお、各受講生は予習し、その翻訳を通して、文献を精読します。したがって、英語力と高校「現代社会」「政治経済」「世界史」の基本的知識を前提とします。受講生の誤訳を授業中にかなり直しますので、その受講生に留まって、「どの単語をどう訳して、そういう訳になるのか」「その訳をする場合の辞書上の根拠は何か」「主語は何か」などを丁寧に一人20分くらい聞く場合があります。これは当然、その学生の自称「意訳」を直して英文読解力を向上させるためにやっていますが、あまりにも直されると辛いかもしれません。
また、英書講読とは、当然のことながら英書を読む予習ができて、予習をしてくることが前提です。予習ができない、してこない受講生に合わせると英書講読は成り立ちません。英語は予習したくても能力がなくできないという場合も、それには合わせません。したがって、受講する際には、十分注意してください。就職活動などとは、到底両立できません。他方、英語力があり、専門、特に憲法や政治学に対して旺盛な関心がある受講生には、大いに得るところがある授業にしたいと思っています。英国の憲法は、英語でしか分かりません。私は、厳密には英国政治が専門ですが、英語で学ばないと英国憲法は分からないと言うことは断言できますし、講義のみで深く理解できるものではありません。なお、このレベルで英国憲法を学ぶことができるのは、おそらく、日本中の大学を見渡しても3つより少ないと思っています（もしかしたら、ここだけかもしれません）。その貴重な場を大切にして、伝授できることはしっかり行い、授業の質に関しても最大の努力をします。それだけに、生半可な態度・努力・能力では15回全部出席してもFとなる可能性があります。しっかり勉強する力があり、しようとする学生、本当に英語圏で通用している憲法を英語で学びたいと考えている学生にお勧めします。
参考のため、最初の2ページを以下にコピーしておきます。一回で最低でも２ページ進みますので、つまり、これが一回分の最低限と言うことになります。
3 Parliamentary supremacy
the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme... Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses.’ It is a fundamental principle of democratic government that there should be an elected assembly representing the people, and that this assembly should have authority to make laws that apply to the entire population. But there is no universal agreement that such an assembly should have an absolute and unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind and subject matter. In many national constitutions both the existence of the assembly and the extent of its powers are set out in the constitution itself. Without such a constitutional text, are there limits on legislative authority and, if so, where may they be found? And should measures enacted by Parliament prevail over all other rules of law.’ This chapter examines the extent of the legislative authority exercised today by the United Kingdom Parliament located at Westminster, London. We first consider briefly the stages by which that authority was established, since in the absence of a written constitution, the historical background to the authority of Parliament has great significance.
A. The growth of the legislative authority of Parliament The year 2015 marked the 750th anniversary of the Parliament assembled by Simon de Montfort in 1265 to give counsel to Henry III, which for the first time included representatives of the shires, cities and boroughs of England as well as the feudal barons. But to become a legislature in a modern sense, the enlarged royal council had to acquire a regular existence as a body with power to legislate and with settled procedure; and the measures which emerged from that procedure had to be accepted as law. By 1485, it was accepted that measures that had been considered by Parliament and enacted by the monarch could change the common law. With the English Reformation, there disappeared the belief that Parliament could not affect the authority of the Roman Church. Henry VUI and Elizabeth I made the Crown of England supreme over all persons and causes and used the English Parliament to attain this end. Although wide authority was attributed to acts of the ‘King in Parliament’, two views were held as to the justification for this.* The royalist view grounded legislative authority in the King, acting as Sovereign in exercise of divine right, but with the approval of Lords and Commons. By contrast, the parliamentarian view stressed the role of the two Houses, acting on behalf of the nobility and the common people, in exercising supreme authority with the monarch. There continued to be a view that certain natural laws could not be changed, even by the King in Parliament. To set against this view, there was much authority in the law reports and in political writing which indicated that the courts had no power to review the validitv of Acts of Parliament.*
The struggle for supremacy
Legislative supremacy involves not only the right to change the law but also that no one else should have that right. At the heart of the conflicts in the 17th centurv’ that led to the civil war, Charles Ts execution, Cromwell's Protectorate and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, lay the question whether the King could use his prerogative powers to govern without Parliament. In 1603, the King's prerogatives were undefined. Despite the existence of Parliament and the common law courts, the King, through his C>)uncil, exercised not only full executive powers but also a residue of legislative and judicial power. Acts of Parliament which sought to take away any of the ‘inseparable' prerogatives of the Crown were considered invalid.’ Four instances of the struggle for authority between Crown and Parliament may be mentioned.
Ordinances and proclamations
A clear distinction between statutes of the English Parliament and ordinances of the King in Council was lacking long after the end of the 13th century. The Statute of Proclamations 1539 declared that Henry VIII had wide powers of legislating by proclamation without reference to Parliament. This statute did not give the King and Council power to legislate but sought to clarify the position of the authority possessed by proclamations. Il safeguarded the common law, existing Acts of Parliament and rights of properly, and prohibited infliction of the death penalty for breach of a proclamation.* ‘Its chief practical purpose was lo create machinery lo enforce proclamations.'’ Despite repeal of the statute in 1547, .Mary and Elizabeth continued lo resort to proclamations. The judicial powers of the Council, in particular of the Court of Star Chamber, were available lo enforce proclamations. The scope of the royal prerogative lo legislate remained undefined. James I made full use of this power, and in 1611 Chief Justice Coke was consulted by the Council, along with three of his brother judges, about the legality of proclamations. The resulting opinion is lo be found in the Case of Proclamations'.
(1)The King by his proclamation cannot create any offence which was not one before; for then he might alter the law of the land in a high point; for if he may create an offence where none is, upon that ensues fine and imprisonment.
(2)The King hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.
(3)But the King for the prevention of offences may by proclamation admonish his subjects that they keep the laws and do not offend them upon punishment to be inflicted by law; the neglect of such proclamation aggravates the offence.
(4)If an offence be not punishable in the Star Chamber, the prohibition of it by proclamation cannot make it so.
A definite limit was thus put upon the prerogative, the full force of which was effective only when Star Chamber and other conciliar tribunals were abolished in 1640. The gist of the Case of Proclamations is that the King's prerogative is under the law and that Parliament alone can alter the law which the King is to administer.’ This was a critical principle of law which the majority of the Supreme Court applied in the .Article 50 Brexit challenge, holding by reference to the Case of Proclamations that the prerogative (including the power to negotiate and enter into international treaties) could not be used in a manner which would alter statute or common law, and could not be used to bring about a Tar reaching change to the UK constitutional arrangements' that withdrawing from the EU would amount to, without the authorisation of Parliament.’”
A. W. Bradleyは、オックスフォード大学やエディンバラ大学の教授を務めた先生で、K. D. Ewingは、ロンドン大学キングス・カレッジの教授です。二人とも英国憲法学を代表する有名な研究者です。同書は、英国で最も権威があり、また標準的な教科書で、法学部の学生、司法試験受験生などが読んでいます。
本書は、英国憲法の伝統的な考え方、特に「なぜ不文なのか」、「なぜ慣習は制定法とはされないのか」などに関して基本的なことがしっかり説明されています。例えば、不信任はno confidence, 慣習はconvention, 司法審査はjudical review, 日本で言う議院内閣制はresponsible government, 法律の英文章におけるallowとrequireの違い、など、英語圏法学のテクニカル・タームなどを知ることもできます。英語でしっかりと法学・政治学を勉強しようとするなら、非常に良いテキストです。
なお、各受講生は予習し、その翻訳を通して、文献を精読します。したがって、英語力と高校「現代社会」「政治経済」「世界史」の基本的知識を前提とします。受講生の誤訳を授業中にかなり直しますので、その受講生に留まって、「どの単語をどう訳して、そういう訳になるのか」「その訳をする場合の辞書上の根拠は何か」「主語は何か」などを丁寧に一人20分くらい聞く場合があります。これは当然、その学生の自称「意訳」を直して英文読解力を向上させるためにやっていますが、あまりにも直されると辛いかもしれません。
また、英書講読とは、当然のことながら英書を読む予習ができて、予習をしてくることが前提です。予習ができない、してこない受講生に合わせると英書講読は成り立ちません。英語は予習したくても能力がなくできないという場合も、それには合わせません。したがって、受講する際には、十分注意してください。就職活動などとは、到底両立できません。他方、英語力があり、専門、特に憲法や政治学に対して旺盛な関心がある受講生には、大いに得るところがある授業にしたいと思っています。英国の憲法は、英語でしか分かりません。私は、厳密には英国政治が専門ですが、英語で学ばないと英国憲法は分からないと言うことは断言できますし、講義のみで深く理解できるものではありません。なお、このレベルで英国憲法を学ぶことができるのは、おそらく、日本中の大学を見渡しても3つより少ないと思っています（もしかしたら、ここだけかもしれません）。その貴重な場を大切にして、伝授できることはしっかり行い、授業の質に関しても最大の努力をします。それだけに、生半可な態度・努力・能力では15回全部出席してもFとなる可能性があります。しっかり勉強する力があり、しようとする学生、本当に英語圏で通用している憲法を英語で学びたいと考えている学生にお勧めします。
参考のため、最初の2ページを以下にコピーしておきます。一回で最低でも２ページ進みますので、つまり、これが一回分の最低限と言うことになります。
3 Parliamentary supremacy
the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme... Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses.’ It is a fundamental principle of democratic government that there should be an elected assembly representing the people, and that this assembly should have authority to make laws that apply to the entire population. But there is no universal agreement that such an assembly should have an absolute and unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind and subject matter. In many national constitutions both the existence of the assembly and the extent of its powers are set out in the constitution itself. Without such a constitutional text, are there limits on legislative authority and, if so, where may they be found? And should measures enacted by Parliament prevail over all other rules of law.’ This chapter examines the extent of the legislative authority exercised today by the United Kingdom Parliament located at Westminster, London. We first consider briefly the stages by which that authority was established, since in the absence of a written constitution, the historical background to the authority of Parliament has great significance.
A. The growth of the legislative authority of Parliament The year 2015 marked the 750th anniversary of the Parliament assembled by Simon de Montfort in 1265 to give counsel to Henry III, which for the first time included representatives of the shires, cities and boroughs of England as well as the feudal barons. But to become a legislature in a modern sense, the enlarged royal council had to acquire a regular existence as a body with power to legislate and with settled procedure; and the measures which emerged from that procedure had to be accepted as law. By 1485, it was accepted that measures that had been considered by Parliament and enacted by the monarch could change the common law. With the English Reformation, there disappeared the belief that Parliament could not affect the authority of the Roman Church. Henry VUI and Elizabeth I made the Crown of England supreme over all persons and causes and used the English Parliament to attain this end. Although wide authority was attributed to acts of the ‘King in Parliament’, two views were held as to the justification for this.* The royalist view grounded legislative authority in the King, acting as Sovereign in exercise of divine right, but with the approval of Lords and Commons. By contrast, the parliamentarian view stressed the role of the two Houses, acting on behalf of the nobility and the common people, in exercising supreme authority with the monarch. There continued to be a view that certain natural laws could not be changed, even by the King in Parliament. To set against this view, there was much authority in the law reports and in political writing which indicated that the courts had no power to review the validitv of Acts of Parliament.*
The struggle for supremacy
Legislative supremacy involves not only the right to change the law but also that no one else should have that right. At the heart of the conflicts in the 17th centurv’ that led to the civil war, Charles Ts execution, Cromwell's Protectorate and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, lay the question whether the King could use his prerogative powers to govern without Parliament. In 1603, the King's prerogatives were undefined. Despite the existence of Parliament and the common law courts, the King, through his C>)uncil, exercised not only full executive powers but also a residue of legislative and judicial power. Acts of Parliament which sought to take away any of the ‘inseparable' prerogatives of the Crown were considered invalid.’ Four instances of the struggle for authority between Crown and Parliament may be mentioned.
Ordinances and proclamations
A clear distinction between statutes of the English Parliament and ordinances of the King in Council was lacking long after the end of the 13th century. The Statute of Proclamations 1539 declared that Henry VIII had wide powers of legislating by proclamation without reference to Parliament. This statute did not give the King and Council power to legislate but sought to clarify the position of the authority possessed by proclamations. Il safeguarded the common law, existing Acts of Parliament and rights of properly, and prohibited infliction of the death penalty for breach of a proclamation.* ‘Its chief practical purpose was lo create machinery lo enforce proclamations.'’ Despite repeal of the statute in 1547, .Mary and Elizabeth continued lo resort to proclamations. The judicial powers of the Council, in particular of the Court of Star Chamber, were available lo enforce proclamations. The scope of the royal prerogative lo legislate remained undefined. James I made full use of this power, and in 1611 Chief Justice Coke was consulted by the Council, along with three of his brother judges, about the legality of proclamations. The resulting opinion is lo be found in the Case of Proclamations'.
(1)The King by his proclamation cannot create any offence which was not one before; for then he might alter the law of the land in a high point; for if he may create an offence where none is, upon that ensues fine and imprisonment.
(2)The King hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.
(3)But the King for the prevention of offences may by proclamation admonish his subjects that they keep the laws and do not offend them upon punishment to be inflicted by law; the neglect of such proclamation aggravates the offence.
(4)If an offence be not punishable in the Star Chamber, the prohibition of it by proclamation cannot make it so.
A definite limit was thus put upon the prerogative, the full force of which was effective only when Star Chamber and other conciliar tribunals were abolished in 1640. The gist of the Case of Proclamations is that the King's prerogative is under the law and that Parliament alone can alter the law which the King is to administer.’ This was a critical principle of law which the majority of the Supreme Court applied in the .Article 50 Brexit challenge, holding by reference to the Case of Proclamations that the prerogative (including the power to negotiate and enter into international treaties) could not be used in a manner which would alter statute or common law, and could not be used to bring about a Tar reaching change to the UK constitutional arrangements' that withdrawing from the EU would amount to, without the authorisation of Parliament.’”
受講生の到達目標
英国憲法基本書の読解を通じて、不文憲法が中心となっている英国憲法の特質を知る。
事前に履修しておくことが望まれる科目
政治学入門、憲法Ⅰ・Ⅱは、必ず受講しておいてください。比較政治制度論と内容が重なる所があり、学習を助けると思います。
授業スケジュール
| 授業回数/ 担当教員（複数担当の場合） |
テーマ |
|---|---|
| キーワード・文献・補足事項等 | |
| 1 | 簡単な試験、英国憲法の仕組みの簡単な説明 |
なお、以下各回は、テキストとなっている文献の見出しであり、予定通りに進むとは限らないし、前後します。 |
|
| 2 | Parliamentary supremacy |
|
|
| 3 | Taxation, Dispensing and suspending powers |
|
|
| 4 | Meaning of legislative supremacy |
|
|
| 5 | Position different underwritten constitution |
|
|
| 6 | Legislative supremacy and international law |
|
|
| 7 | No legal limitations on Parliament. |
|
|
| 8 | The continuing nature of parliamentary supremacy |
|
|
| 9 | What is an Act of Parliament? |
|
|
| 10 | Constitutional guarantees for Northern Ireland |
|
|
| 11 | British membership of the European Union |
|
|
| 12 | The Human Rights Act 1998 |
|
|
| 13 | Abolition of the House of Lords |
|
|
| 14 | Conclusion |
|
|
| 15 | 最終講義試験 |
|
授業実施形態
BCP停止の場合は、BCPレベル0～2の記載どおりに授業が行われます。
During the suspension period of BCP, classes will be as described in BCP levels 0-2.
【BCP 停止 の場合】
文献の読了（音読を含む）を行い、文献理解を精査する。同時に、その文献の書かれている諸前提（英国不文憲法の考え方）などについて講義を行い、ゼミ形式で学生とやり取りを行う。対面のみで行う。オンラインは行わない。
【BCP レベル1〜2 の場合】
対面授業を原則とする。オンラインは行わない。
【BCP レベル3~4 の場合】
この授業が予定されている曜日時限にオンラインでライブ配信形式で実施する。
During the suspension period of BCP, classes will be as described in BCP levels 0-2.
【BCP 停止 の場合】
文献の読了（音読を含む）を行い、文献理解を精査する。同時に、その文献の書かれている諸前提（英国不文憲法の考え方）などについて講義を行い、ゼミ形式で学生とやり取りを行う。対面のみで行う。オンラインは行わない。
【BCP レベル1〜2 の場合】
対面授業を原則とする。オンラインは行わない。
【BCP レベル3~4 の場合】
この授業が予定されている曜日時限にオンラインでライブ配信形式で実施する。
授業外学習の指示
学生の力量によりますが、90分の授業準備のためにかなりの時間を使うことは十分想定されます。最初にしっかりと時間と力量を割けば、そこで学ぶことによって時間は短縮されるかもしれませんが、いずれにしろしっかりとした予習が必要です。
成績評価方法
| 種別 | 割合(%) | 評価基準等 |
|---|---|---|
| 定期試験（筆記） | ||
| レポート試験 （統一締切日を締切とするレポート） |
||
| 上記以外の試験・レポート、平常点評価 （日常的な授業における取組状況の評価） |
100 | 授業15回には、予習してきた場合（予習をした努力ではなく、しっかりと理解できていること）1回につき5点。計75点。しかし、予習をしたように見えてしていない場合や明確に予習を怠っている場合は、出席しても0点です。最終回の試験は25点満点で行います。 |
成績評価方法(備考)
評価は、公正かつ厳格に行いますので、勉強と理解以外のポイントで何かを訴えてこないでください。その何かで点数が増えることは一切ありません。また、そういう勉強と理解以外でのアピールは、この科目自体の運営を損なうので、やめてください。また、授業中に当てられてから予習し始める人がいますが、それはその回０点となります。
他方、本当によく勉強した場合、理解が飛躍的に高まり、それが授業の中でもよく分かる場合があります。そういう勉強と理解の部分での飛躍は、成績評価のうえでもしっかりと反映させたいと思っております。
他方、本当によく勉強した場合、理解が飛躍的に高まり、それが授業の中でもよく分かる場合があります。そういう勉強と理解の部分での飛躍は、成績評価のうえでもしっかりと反映させたいと思っております。
受講および研究に関するアドバイス
教科書
| 書名 | 著者 | 出版社 | ISBNコード | 備考 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional & Administrative Law | A. W. Bradley et al | Pearson | 使用部分だけを配布します |
教科書(使用頻度、その他補足)
参考書
参考書(使用頻度、その他補足)
参考になるwwwページ
授業内外における学生・教員間のコミュニケーションの方法
manaba+R,学生との直接対話
備考
【科目ナンバリング・カリキュラムマップはこちらから/Click here to see the Curriculum-Map and Course-Numbering】
URL:https://secure.ritsumei.ac.jp/students/pathways-future/course/curriculum.html/
URL:https://secure.ritsumei.ac.jp/students/pathways-future/course/curriculum.html/