{"created":"2023-07-27T07:52:34.794912+00:00","id":28119,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"638d2bab-8555-4da9-8b21-43b52c14ff4e"},"_deposit":{"created_by":21,"id":"28119","owners":[21],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"28119"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:doshisha.repo.nii.ac.jp:00028119","sets":["4251:5483:5484:5485:8743","8:1215:1216:8741"]},"author_link":["28823"],"item_1693811493084":{"attribute_name":"出版タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_version_resource":"http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85","subitem_version_type":"VoR"}]},"item_1694490770713":{"attribute_name":"権利者情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"DA03093518","nameIdentifierScheme":"AID"}],"rightHolderNames":[{"rightHolderLanguage":"ja","rightHolderName":"同志社法學會"},{"rightHolderLanguage":"en","rightHolderName":"The Doshisha Law Association"}]}]},"item_1_alternative_title_2":{"attribute_name":"その他（別言語等）のタイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_alternative_title":"イギリスの最高裁判所は議会の閉会をなぜ審査し違法と判断できたのか : ミラー第2事件判決瞥見","subitem_alternative_title_language":"ja"}]},"item_1_biblio_info_14":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2020-10-31","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"4","bibliographicPageEnd":"1463","bibliographicPageStart":"1421","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"72","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"同志社法學","bibliographic_titleLang":"ja"},{"bibliographic_title":"The Doshisha Hogaku (The Doshisha law review)","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_1_description_12":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"イギリス最高裁判所は、ミラー(第2)事件判決で、議会の閉会を審査し違法との判断を下した。この判断は、日本の違憲審査と比較したとき、大変に興味深い。そこで、本稿では、同判決の論理を整理したうえで、その背後にあるイギリスの一般的な考え方を、①原告適格、②司法判断適合性（司法審査の限界）、③実体判断の判断規準の3つの点から探究する。","subitem_description_language":"ja","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"},{"subitem_description":"The UK Supreme Court adjudged the prorogation of Parliament illegal in the Miller (No. 2) case. This judgement is quite interesting from the viewpoint of comparison with the way of constitutional litigation in Japan. This article tries to analyze the way of thinking in this judgement and to explore the approach of the UK case law concerning the following three points: 1. Standing, 2. Justiciability, 3. Standard to substantial review.","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_1_description_13":{"attribute_name":"内容記述","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"故竹中勲教授追悼号 II","subitem_description_language":"ja","subitem_description_type":"Other"},{"subitem_description":"In memory of the late Professor Isao Takenaka II","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Other"},{"subitem_description":"Article","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_description_25":{"attribute_name":"フォーマット","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"application/pdf","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.14988/00028111","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_1_publisher_15":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"同志社法學會","subitem_publisher_language":"ja"}]},"item_1_publisher_16":{"attribute_name":"出版者（英）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"The Doshisha Law Association","subitem_publisher_language":"en"}]},"item_1_relation_24":{"attribute_name":"関連サイト","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_relation_name":[{"subitem_relation_name_language":"ja","subitem_relation_name_text":"掲載刊行物所蔵情報へのリンク ／ Link to Contents"}],"subitem_relation_type":"isFormatOf","subitem_relation_type_id":{"subitem_relation_type_id_text":"https://doors.doshisha.ac.jp/opac/opac_link/bibid/SB00960336/?lang=0","subitem_relation_type_select":"URI"}}]},"item_1_source_id_17":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"03877612","subitem_source_identifier_type":"PISSN"}]},"item_1_source_id_19":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN00165970","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_1_subject_27":{"attribute_name":"日本十進分類法","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"327.933","subitem_subject_scheme":"NDC"}]},"item_1_text_8":{"attribute_name":"著者所属","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"ja","subitem_text_value":"近畿大学大学院法務研究科教授"}]},"item_access_right":{"attribute_name":"アクセス権","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_access_right":"open access","subitem_access_right_uri":"http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"上田, 健介","creatorNameLang":"ja"},{"creatorName":"ウエダ, ケンスケ","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"},{"creatorName":"Ueda, Kensuke","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{},{},{},{}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2021-04-26"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"028004140034.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"1.1 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"028004140034.pdf","url":"https://doshisha.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/28119/files/028004140034.pdf"},"version_id":"fd90986e-e68f-423a-9108-cd1ad2f7d9b4"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"イギリス最高裁判所","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"ミラー(第2)事件判決","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"原告適格","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"司法判断適合性","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"判断規準","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"憲法原理","subitem_subject_language":"ja","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"The UK Supreme Court","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Miller (No. 2) case","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Standing","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Justiciability","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Standard","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Constitutional Principles","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"イギリスの最高裁判所は議会の閉会をなぜ審査し違法と判断できたのか : ミラー(第2)事件判決瞥見","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"イギリスの最高裁判所は議会の閉会をなぜ審査し違法と判断できたのか : ミラー(第2)事件判決瞥見","subitem_title_language":"ja"},{"subitem_title":"イギリス ノ サイコウ サイバンショ ワ ギカイ ノ ヘイカイ オ ナゼ シンサシ イホウ ト ハンダン デキタ ノカ : ミラー ダイ2 ジケン ハンケツ ベッケン","subitem_title_language":"ja-Kana"},{"subitem_title":"Why was the British Supreme Court able to judge the prorogation of the parliament justiciable and illegal?","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"1","owner":"21","path":["8741","8743"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"PubDate","attribute_value":"2021-04-26"},"publish_date":"2021-04-26","publish_status":"0","recid":"28119","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["イギリスの最高裁判所は議会の閉会をなぜ審査し違法と判断できたのか : ミラー(第2)事件判決瞥見"],"weko_creator_id":"21","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-12-06T04:50:20.461628+00:00"}