Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht
Heft Nr.8 / 4. Jahrgang 1999

The New Administrative Information Disclosure Law in Japan

Narufumi Kadomatsu

On May 14, 1999, the long-awaited Administrative Information Disclosure Law (hereafter "AIDL") was enacted in Japan. The Appendix stipulates that the law is to come in effect within two years. This paper aims to briefly introduce its historical background and review its content.

I. Background

1. Beginning with Sweden's Press Freedom Law and especially after enactment of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966, information disclosure laws have been enacted in most developed countries, for example: Denmark, Norway (1970), France, Netherlands (1978), Austria, Canada, New Zealand (1982), Austria (1987), Belgium (1994), Korea (1996), Ireland (1998).

Although it took a long time to be enacted as a national law, discussions on an Information Disclosure Law in Japan began in the early 1970s. The key phrase that determined the discussion was "right to know". Hata explains the concept as follows:

(I)n order to express his or her opinion on a particular problem, a person must have ample information related to it. For it is not until he/she has enough information that he/she could form an informed opinion. From such a point of view, scholars in the mid-1960s began to insist that Article 21, Paragraph 1 guarantees the right to know as the premise for freedom of expression"(Hata/Nakagawa 1997,129).

This view, which stresses the importance of taking the recipient side of the communication flow into consideration, gained consensus among constitutional scholars as a principle. The Supreme Court also mentions the "right to know" in some decisions. For example, the Hakata Station Film Case decision points out that "in a democratic society the reports of the mass media provide the people with important materials on which to base their judgements as they participate in the nation's politics, and they serve the people's right to know" (Cf. Itoh/Beer 1978, 246-250(248)). In this case, the legality of the lower court’s order to present a part of a news film for evidential use was in