美濃部達吉と宮沢俊義 - 日本憲法学史における1920年代 -
Minobe Tatsukichi and Miyazawa Toshiyoshi
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this article is to clarify one section of the thought situation of 1920's while doing it mainly on law thought of Minobe Tatsukichi and Miyazawa Toshiyoshi. The conventional study drew two people as master and pupil relations. The Tennoukikansethu- jiken that brought decisive switch for life of the scholar of both was a historic case to symbolize such relations on this occasion. However, seeing from a different point of view, the relations of both are different. The methodology of the study of both was in particular entirely different. Minobe who played an active part in 1910's thought that his study of the constitution as the tool which realized political justice mainly. The political justice that he pursued accorded with the political aim of the then Taisho-democracy. Therefore Minobe was able to become a leading political thinker to lead the times. Against this, Miyazawa formed his thought in 1920's. 1920's was the times when party politics established it. However, the politics has begun to already decay. The study of Miyazawa departed in such situation. His study came under strong influence of such a political environment. He was affected by Neo-Kantianism to distinguish Sein from Sollen. Since then Miyazawa aims for studying law as the existence. The scientific study of the constitution that he pursued came out of influence of Neo-Kantianism in those days. In article, I want to highlight an atmosphere of the times of such 1920's while paying attention to difference of Minobe and Miyazawa on thought.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to clarify one section of the thought situation of 1920's while doing it mainly on law thought of Minobe Tatsukichi and Miyazawa Toshiyoshi. The conventional study drew two people as master and pupil relations. The Tennoukikansethu- jiken that brought decisive switch for life of the scholar of both was a historic case to symbolize such relations on this occasion. However, seeing from a different point of view, the relations of both are different. The methodology of the study of both was in particular entirely different. Minobe who played an active part in 1910's thought that his study of the constitution as the tool which realized political justice mainly. The political justice that he pursued accorded with the political aim of the then Taisho-democracy. Therefore Minobe was able to become a leading political thinker to lead the times. Against this, Miyazawa formed his thought in 1920's. 1920's was the times when party politics established it. However, the politics has begun to already decay. The study of Miyazawa departed in such situation. His study came under strong influence of such a political environment. He was affected by Neo-Kantianism to distinguish Sein from Sollen. Since then Miyazawa aims for studying law as the existence. The scientific study of the constitution that he pursued came out of influence of Neo-Kantianism in those days. In article, I want to highlight an atmosphere of the times of such 1920's while paying attention to difference of Minobe and Miyazawa on thought.
참고문헌 (15)
- 芦部信喜, "憲法制定権力", pp.10~50 (1983), 東京大学出版会
- 家永三郎, "美濃部達吉の思想史的研究", pp.75~123 (1964), 岩波書店
- 上山安敏, "憲法社会史", pp.33~57 (1977), 日本評論社
- 兼近輝雄, "解説", 大山郁夫著作集, 5, pp.345~355 (1988), 岩波書店
- みどり, "共同性の復権", pp.157~250 (2000), 信山社
- 高見勝利, "宮沢俊義の憲法学史的研究", pp.15~330 (2000), 有斐閣
- 立花隆, "天皇と東大", pp.355~400 (2005), 文藝春秋
- 長尾竜一, "日本法思想史研究", pp.22~278 (1981), 創文社
- 樋口陽一, "日本憲法学にとっての論理と価値", pp.9~45 (1994), 日本評論社
- 藤原保信, "大山郁夫と大正デモクラシー", pp.8~230 (1989), みすず書房
- 松沢弘陽, "丸山真男回顧談 上巻", pp.40~78 (2006), 岩波書店
- 松本三之介, "近代日本の知的状況", pp.136~200 (1974), 中央公論社
- 丸山真男ほか, "座談─宮沢俊義を語る", ジュリスト, (3), pp.44~55 (1977)
- 三谷太一郎, "日本の政治学のアイデンティティを求めて", 成蹊法学, (3), pp.2~22 (1999)
- 山下威士, "憲法学と憲法", pp.45~145 (1987), 南窓社