ANJeL was pleased to host this informal research webinar on 10 July, aimed at members in or closely connected with Europe, hosted by Prof Giorgio Colombo (Nagoya U) and Luca Siliquini-Cinelli (Dundee). It follows the successful inaugural symposium held at the University of Pavia in late 2019 (thankfully just before the pandemic), hosted by Giorgio as ANJeL-in-Europe coordinator. Six presentations and some linked materials are set out below. After the lively webinar, Giorgio hosted an even livelier “virtual izakaya” (nijikai) via the free Spatial Chat platform – a first for most of us and certainly for ANJeL!
Opening Remarks – Giorgio F. COLOMBO, Luca Siliquini-Cinelli1.
1. Japan’s Earliest Women Pioneers in Law Teaching — Brief Introductions of their Stories – Mark LEVIN
2. Revisiting Ramseyer: The Chicago School of Law and Economics Comes to Japan – Luke NOTTAGE (with Craig FREEDMAN)
[Click above for paper, see below * for Abstract, and click here for Powerpoints]
3. Japan’s Low Litigation Rate: Lessons from the Labor Tribunal System – Wered BEN-SADE
4. The Japanese Unequal Treaties: From their Signing Until Their Renegotiation – Béatrice JALUZOT
5. IP-related rights and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs): A Japanese Approach – Matteo DRAGONI
* Freedman, Craig and Nottage, Luke R., Revisiting Ramseyer: The Chicago School of Law and Economics Comes to Japan (June 17, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868698
Abstract: Mark Ramseyer has been a leading force in bringing to bear the methods of Law and Economics to an increasingly ambitious analysis of the Japanese legal and economic systems. He has deliberately assumed an iconoclastic position in debunking a number of widely-held beliefs about Japan. More recently he has engendered a bitter degree of controversy by idiosyncratically analysing Korean “comfort women” and residents in Tokyo before and during World War II. In this paper we examine Ramseyer’s long contribution to Japanese studies and conclude that he has too frequently let ideological objectives, paralleling three key tenets of the Chicago School of economics, interfere with what should be cool-headed analysis. While asking many of the right questions, prompting often helpful responses and further research, he unfortunately has let a priori assumptions determine his answers. Ramseyer has proven reluctant to review his assessments or implications, largely dismissing contrary evidence.
Keywords: comparative law, Asian law, corporate governance, consumer law and policy, Japanese studies, economic history, market fundamentalism, rational choice theory, social science methodology