PRACTICE OF LAW-RELATED EDUCATION TO DEVELOP LEGAL
LITERACY
Kyoko ISOYAMA＊

I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the practice of Law-Related Education to develop legal literacy
in Japan, focusing on the practice of Law-Related Education in elementary school, the efforts of Law-Related
Education by courts and bar associations, and the efforts of Law-Related Education for teacher training inteachersʼ colleges. The practice of Law-Related Education in elementary school is known as Justice Studies.
One of the learning activities is a case study called Soji Toban (Cleaning Duty, hereinafter referred to as theSoji Toban case study), which conveys the idea of justice within the context of school culture, education andlaws and rules in Japan. Recently, various efforts of Law-Related Education have been implemented todevelop legal literacy for citizens, trainee teachers and teachers.

II. PRACTICE “DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, MAKING RULES”
A. Process of “Dispute resolution: Public Participation in the Judicial System, Making Rules”1
This section presents a Soji Toban case study developed by the Law-Related Education Promotion
Council. The Soji Toban case study was published in “Whose rules? Considering Law-Related Education”2.
The contents of “Whose rule?” are organized into four Law-Related Educational units. The Soji Toban casestudy is one of the learning activities in the third unit which is titled “Dispute resolution: participation in
judicial judgment, making rules” for 6th grade.
Japanese schools have a custom of the Soji Toban that are different from foreign schools. Through thiscase study, elementary school children can learn the idea of fact-finding in the judicial system. After that,
according to their awareness, they can come to know other problems in their classroom and learn to makerules to solve those problems by themselves.
The Soji Toban case study takes place based on the following facts3.
In xxx Elementary School, the time for cleaning is set between 1:00 and 1:15 in the afternoon.
The 6-1 Class is assigned to clean four places: its classroom (including a sink), a music room (4th floor),and stairs between the 1st floor and the 4th floor. The class has four groups, each of which is composed ofeight pupils. Each group changes the place to clean every week among the four places. The music roomhas cleaning equipment to be used only for the room. Brooms and dustpans in a cleaning closet in theclassroom are to be used for the classroom, the corridor, and the stairs. There are two dustpans in thecloset, and pupils use one for both the classroom and the corridor, and the other for the stairs.
The goal of the 6-1 Class is “to clean as much as possible.” Every day, they finish the cleaning within
the scheduled 15 minutes, and then the whole class enjoys playing tag or another game in the schoolyard.

Faculty of Education, Shizuoka University, Japan.
Hokyoikusuishinkyogikai. (2014). Rulewa Darenomono: Minnade Kangaeru Hokyoiku. (Whose rules? Considering Law-Related
Education). Homusho. pp. 46-68. （法教育推進協議会『ルールは誰のもの？─みんなで考える法教育─』法務省 2014 年 3 月，pp.
46-68.）
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid. p. 52.
＊
1

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 105

Work in this case is allotted as follows:4
There are 10 brooms and 2 dustpans in the cleaning closet in the classroom. The dustpans are sharedby pupils to clean places (1), (2), and (3).
(1) Classroom

8 pupils (4 for sweeping the floor with brooms, 4 for wiping the floor)(2) Corridor & sink

8 pupils (2 for sweeping the floor with brooms, 2 for cleaning the sink, 4 for
wiping the floor)(3) Stairs

8 pupils (4 for sweeping the floor with brooms, 4 for wiping the floor)(4) Music room

8 pupils (there are cleaning tools only for the room)

The following problem occurs:5
One day, Ms. A on cleaning duty got angry, saying that some people skipped their cleaning duty. Mr.
B and Mr. C, who were criticized by name as truants, retorted that they did not skip their duty. They
started to quarrel, which did not settle down. Other pupils gathered anxiously. Other pupils who hadfinished cleaning the other places as scheduled came to see how things were going. They had waited for
all the classmates to get together in the schoolyard, but noticed there were no pupils in charge ofcleaning the classroom. In the end, they could not play tag with all the classmates, which they had looked
forward to.
After the children assess what state the case is in, they and the teacher will conduct the following roleplay6.
Teacher: Whatʼs the matter?
Ms. A (Classroom): Soon after we started cleaning the classroom, Mr. B and Mr. C disappeared. It is not
the first time. They were getting along well, and they often chatted during cleaning time by shirking thecleaning duty. Even today, they disappeared as usual. Even when I tell them to clean, they always makeexcuses. I felt bad about their attitude.
Teacher: Was it hard to clean without the two of them?
Ms. A (Classroom): Today, one person was absent, which made it hard to carry desks. It was at least
seven minutes since they disappeared. They were long coming. Therefore, we had to work much harder
to complete the cleaning within the cleaning time. Mr. B and Mr. C are blameful, as they ignore the goalof our class, “Clean as much as possible.”
Teacher: What were the two of you doing?
Mr. B (Classroom): She misunderstood us. It hurts me as I was engaged in cleaning seriously. I was oncleaning duty with a broom. I went to the closet to take a dustpan, but there was no dustpan. Feelingstrange, I asked people in charge of cleaning the corridor and the stairs where the dustpan was. When I
finally found it and came back, she criticized me for having avoided the cleaning duty. I think it isunreasonable. In the first place, it was only twice that we were accused of chatting during cleaning time.

Ibid. p. 53.
Ibid.
6
Ibid. pp. 54-55.
4
5

128

168TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

Mr. C (Classroom): Mr. B was cleaning the classroom. When I heard there was no dustpan, I went with
him to search for another dustpan. A person in charge of cleaning the corridor told us that persons incharge of cleaning the stairs use both. Therefore, I instantly went to the people in charge of cleaning thestairs. First, we went downstairs to the first floor and asked the person in charge of cleaning the stairs on
the first floor for a dustpan. But we were told we couldnʼt use it. Then we went upstairs to the fourth
floor and waited for a person to finish using a dustpan. Finally, we got the dustpan and returned. Yet, wewere accused of having skipped the duty, and nobody listened to us. It is unreasonable. Unless wefetched a dustpan, we could not gather any trash.
Teacher: Ms. D, you were in the corridor, werenʼt you?
Ms. D (Corridor): I was cleaning the corridor. As Ms. A said, Mr. B and Mr. C were not in the classroom
for a long time. I saw them going out of the classroom together. After a while, they were near the stairs. I
saw them fooling around. Mr. B was tickling Mr. C in the ribs, and Mr. C burst into laughter. They did notseem to be looking for a dustpan. As they were always talking about soccer, they must have been talking
about it then. In the first place, only one person is enough to pick up a dustpan. There is no need for two
persons to fetch it.
Teacher: Mr. E, you were in the stairs, werenʼt you? Did you see two of them?
Mr. E (Stairs): Mr. B and Mr. C came to the stairs. I was on the fourth floor, and they ran up the stairs
from the first floor. As I was using a dustpan, I had them wait for a while. Later I heard that a first
grader turned over a trash can on the first floor and tiny pieces of wastepaper were scattered on thestairs. Therefore, people on the first floor could not give them the dustpan.
Teacher: Ms. D said that you and Mr. B were fooling around.
Mr. C (Classroom): Ms. D said I was fooling around, but that means that she kept looking toward thestairs without cleaning the stairs. I believe it is she that skipped the cleaning duty. As Ms. D has bad
eyesight, she might mistake somebody else for me. Or, as she is good friends with Ms. A, she is convincedthat we always skip cleaning duty. First, we tried to retrieve the dustpan from a person on the first floor,
but failed. Then, we went up to Mr. E on the fourth floor. Again, we were told to wait. We went
downstairs to the third floor and waited for Mr. E to return the dustpan there. Come to think of it, Mr. B
cleaned some dirt off my clothes while we were waiting. Iʼm sure his action seemed playful to her.
In the case, Mr. B & Mr. C asserted that they did not skip cleaning duty, Ms. A asserted that they did skip
cleaning duty, Ms. D testified that they did skip cleaning duty, and Mr. E testified as an unbiased witness that
Mr. B and Mr. C had been looking for a dustpan and that one had not been returned from the first floor.
Children get into character as Ms. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, Ms. D, and Mr. E, and they all explain what theyexperienced.
The teacher will ask the children, “Whatʼs the matter?” “Was it hard to clean without the two of them?”“What were the two of you doing?” “Ms. D, you were in the corridor, werenʼt you?” “Mr. E, you were on thestairs, werenʼt you? Did you see two of them?” “Ms. D said that you and Mr. B were fooling around.”The process of Soji Toban has mainly 6 steps:7① Read the case Soji Toban② Do the role-play.
③ First, think about whether Children B & C did or did not skip cleaning duty in your opinion. Why did
you think so?
④ Discuss the Soji Toban case. Think about whether Children B & C did or did not skip cleaning duty in

7

Ibid. pp. 50-60.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 105

the groupʼs opinion.
⑤ Present the groupʼs opinion.
⑥ Then, after discussion, think about whether Children B & C did or did not skip cleaning duty in youropinion. Why did you think so? Did your opinion change?
When children look back on their experiences during the case study, they come to consider:8 firstly,“When judging what was true, what kinds of things should you be careful about?”, such as being careful informing oneʼs judgment and being conscientious of resolving all conflicts; secondly, viewing and thinking
about justice; thirdly, the comparison of the Soji Toban case with trials; and fourthly, the interest in the lay
judge system.
B. Childʼs Legal Viewing and Thinking ModelIn the process of legal thinking, which is one of problem solving, there are several states including the“stage of searching for legal norms for problem solving”, “stage of interpreting and applying the founded
norms”, “examining the results and making decisions stage” and “the stage legally justifying the decision”9.
Given the discussions over these stages of legal thinking, childrenʼs legal views and thinking can be
hypothetically represented graphically as the figure below indicates10.

Fig. Childʼs legal viewing and thinking model〈Fumihiko TAKAHASHI. (2013). Hotekishikoto Ronri. Seibundo. p. 227. In reference to Fig. 10-3, author
designed from childʼs perspective.〉
The childʼs legal viewing and thinking works in a series of “conflict resolution” processes such as finding
problems, applying rules, and thinking of solutions. The childʼs legal view and thinking work greatly, among
other things, when the child applies rules. Specifically, the child will analyze problems to solve using two
viewpoints such as “making laws” by legislators entrusted with legislation and “value judgments” for benefits
and costs to individuals. From the viewpoint of “making laws”, the child will consider based on the “legal
judgment” criteria of laws and articles made by agreeing to be “good to everyone”. From the viewpoint of“value judgments”, the child will consider based on the criteria of whether the values are “good for the
Ibid. pp. 61-64.
Keizo YAMAMOTO. (1997). Hotekishikono Kosoto Tokushitsu: Jikorikaino Genkyoto Kadai. Masahiko IWAMURA, et al. eds.
Gendaihogakuno Shisoto Hoho. (Iwanamikoza Gendaino Ho 15). Iwanamishoten. pp. 256-258.（山本敬三「法的思考の構想と特質─自己理解の現況と課題─」岩村正彦他編『現代法学の思想と方法（岩波講座現代の法 15）』岩波書店，1997 年 6 月，pp.
231-268.）
10
Fumihiko TAKAHASHI. (2013). Hotekishikoto Ronri. Seibundo. pp. 193-232.（高橋文彦『法的思考と論理』成文堂，2013 年，
pp. 193-232.）
8
9

130

168TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

individual” or good for everyone. The child will think about events in social life and act to solve problems
while going back and forth through legal viewing and thinking processes.

III. IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATION WITH LAWYERS AND EDUCATORSFOR EFFECTIVE LAW-RELATED EDUCATION
A. Law-Related Education to Develop Citizenship
The authorʼs idea of citizenship is to encourage society to realize a better society, interested in problems
that are occurring in society, and discussing cooperatively with diverse people toward solving the problems11.
In the field of social studies, citizenship is generally defined as “knowledge, understanding, ability, attention,
attitude required as a member of the state and society.”12
The role of Law-Related Education to develop citizenship is as follows. Firstly, it is to be interested in thelegal issues that are happening in society. Secondly, it is to discuss cooperatively with diverse people toward
solving legal problems. Thirdly, it is to utilize viewing and thinking of legal things.
Jane Jenson explains that contemporary issues involving citizenship and law include citizenshiprequirements and their limits, the relationship between citizenship and democratic rules, and defining
citizenship with a national perspective13. Such a reaffirmation of citizenship has had influence on the meaningof legal literacy. Legal literacy as an aspect of citizenship will be discussed, firstly, as participation in thepolitical community in light of oneʼs rights and responsibilities, secondly, as democratic participation and,thirdly, as participation as a member of the nation.
B. Law-Related Education to Educate Citizens
Law-Related Education in the United States is addressed as part of education for citizens. At that time,education for citizens is expressed in three phrases: “civic education” “citizenship education” or “public
education”. Law-Related Education as Civic Education is positioned in political education and civic education
to foster citizens who can make decisions14. Law-Related Education as Citizenship Education refers to one
approach to developing citizenship such as multicultural education, environmental education and Educationfor Sustainable Development (ESD)15. Law-Related Education as Public Education is considered as an
educational activity for those who are not legal experts16.
“Lawyers in the Classroom”17 by the American Bar Association shows the importance of cooperation
between lawyers and educators through suggesting the way to prepare for Law-Related Education classes.
Specifically, those are to call the school, prepare, think about the student, observe the time, talk with eyes, ask
for opinions and urge questions, participate actively, meet as a real person, be lively, ensure both sides of thedebate are addressed, frequently ask students questions, share personal experience with the matter, teach incooperation with teachers, refer to bulletin boards and postings, call on some students, walk around theclassroom, enable studentsʼ questions and reactions to be heard throughout the class, prepare 35 copies, andleave the distribution to the teacher.

Kyoko ISOYAMA. (2016). Shogakko Shakaikaniokeru Houtekiliteracyno Ikuseiwo Mezasu Jyugyono Koso:
Hotekisankagakushuno Jireiwo Tsujite. Kiyoshi KARAKI, ed. ‘Komintekishishitsu’towa Nanika: Shakaikano Kako・Genzai・Miraiwo Saguru. Toyokanshuppansha. pp. 26-27. （磯山恭子「小学校社会科における法的リテラシーの育成を目指す授業の構想
─法的参加学習の事例を通じて─」唐木清志編著『「公民的資質」とは何か─社会科の過去・現在・未来を探る─』東洋館出版
社，2016 年，pp. 26-27.）
12
Akihide TANIKAWA. (2000). Komintekishishitau. Nihonshakaikakyoikugakkai. ed. Shakaikakyoikujiten. Gyosei. pp. 53-55.（谷川彰英「公民的資質」日本社会科教育学会（編）『社会科教育辞典』ぎょうせい，2000 年 10 月，pp. 54-55.）
13
Jenson, Jane. (2006). Introduction: Thinking about Citizenship and Law in an Era of Change. Law Commission of Canada. ed.
Law and Citizenship. UBC Press. pp. 3-21.
14
Niemi, Richard G. and June, Jane. (1998). Civic Education; What Makes Students Learn. Yale University. p. 29.
15
Parker, Walter C. and Kaltsounis, Theodore. (1986). Citizenship and Law-Related Education. Atwood, V. A. ed. Elementary
School Studies: Research as a Guide to Practice. National Council for the Social Studies. pp. 14-33.
16
Peck, Robert S. and White, Charles J. eds. (1983). Understanding the Law: A handbook on Educating the Public. American Bar
Association.
17
White, Charles, ed. (1984). Lawyers in the Classroom. American Bar Association Special Committee on Youth Education for
Citizenship.
11

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 105

C. Law-Related Education as Public Education
Law-Related Education in Japan as Public Education is implemented through various efforts byorganizations such as the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, other bar associations, the Japan Federation of ShihoShoshi Lawyers Association, each Shiho-Shoshi Lawyers Association, and the Supreme Court. Below, theefforts of Law-Related Education by courts and bar associations are introduced18.
Law-Related Education by courts is implemented by lectures by judges, mock trials or mediations, court
visits and the creation of audiovisual teaching materials19. In 2002, the Kanto Bar Association held asymposium on the theme of “Law-Related Education for Children”. On April 19, 2003, the “Law-Related
Education Committee for Citizens” was established. The “Law-Related Education Committee for Citizens” isaimed at the following:20 firstly, the formulation and practice of Law-Related Education to nurture andsupport members in the free and fair democratic society; secondly, the research and development of teachingmaterials for Law-Related Education in schools etc.; thirdly, information exchanges with educatorsconcerning Law-Related Education; and, fourthly, other measures necessary for achieving the abovementioned measures.

IV. TEACHER TRAINING EFFORTS IN LAW-RELATED EDUCATIONThe efforts of Law-Related Education for teacher training at Shizuoka University as a teachersʼ college
are cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, cooperation with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations andthe Shizuoka Bar Association, cooperation with the Court, the investigation of the judicial systems in othercountries, and practicing Law-Related Education lessons.
Firstly, through cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, officials and students discuss development of
Law-Related Educational teaching materials and classes. Sometimes students can meet “Hourisu-kun” which
is a character created by the Ministry of Justice for Law-Related Educational events. Secondly, mock trial
competitions for high school students are organized by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. Students
learn how to participate in mock trials in high school in preparation for the event. Sometimes, students canmeet “Saisai” which is a lay judge character created by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in LawRelated Educational events. Thirdly, students participate in a trial tour for university students organized by
the court. Fourthly, students interviewed judges and prosecutors in Guam and Helsinki. Fifthly, students
visited the border in Tijuana and learned the meaning of citizenship, equality and human rights from theirexperience. Sixthly, students as pre-service teachers practice Law-Related Educational lessons in junior highschools. Specifically, Law-Related Educational units include ʻContractʼ, ʻJudicial Systemʼ, ʻConflict andAgreementʼ. These practices can improve their instructional skills to teach children Law-Related Education.
Seventhly, through cooperation with the Shizuoka Bar Association, students used the courtroom to teachjunior high school students about Law-Related Education.

V. CONCLUSION
This paper has shown the practice of Law-Related Education to develop legal literacy in Japan. LawRelated Education is provided to non-lawyers such as children and students, citizens, and trainee teachers
and teachers as a part of teacher training. To enhance the effectiveness of Law-Related Education,
cooperation between educators and lawyers is important.
However, there are a number of challenges to cooperation between lawyers and educators. These
challenges include: firstly, the necessity of planned and ongoing projects; secondly, the support for autonomy
of lawyers and educators; thirdly, the investigation of the effects of Law-Related Education throughThe efforts of Law-Related Education by the Ministry of Justice can be found in my copy ʻCurrent Situation and Challenge for
Law-Related Educationʼ, same Resource Material Series.
19
Hokyoikukenkyukai. (2005). Hajimeteno Hokyoiku: Wagakuniniokeru Hokyoikuno Fukyu・Hattenwo Mezashite. (First LawRelated Education). Gyosei. pp. 149-150.（法教育研究会『はじめての法教育̶我が国における法教育の普及・発展を目指して̶』
ぎょうせい，2005 年 3 月，pp. 149-150.）
20
Nihonbengoshirengokai. Hokyoikutte Nani? （日本弁護士連合会「法教育ってなぁーに？」（https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/
activity/human/education.html)(visit; 2018.1.5）.）
18

132

168TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

cooperation between lawyers and educators; fourthly, the clarification of legal qualities and abilities requiredof teachers; and, fifthly, the improvement of teacher training for Law-Related Education. It is hoped that LawRelated Education will be more deeply discussed and practiced by various people being actively involved.
References
Hokyoikusuishinkyogikai. (2014). Rulewa Darenomono: Minnade Kangaeru Hokyoiku. (Whose is rules?).
Homusho. （法教育推進協議会『ルールは誰のもの？─みんなで考える法教育─』法務省 2014 年 3 月。）
Kyoko ISOYAMA. (2018). Hokyoikuniokeru Shakaitekijishono Mikata・Kangaekatano Ikusei: Hotekishikono
Processwo Tegakaritoshite. Yuji EDUCHI, Yoshiyasu IDA, Kiyoshi Karaki, et al. eds. 21seikino Kyoikuni
Motomerareru ‘Shakaitekina Mikata・Kangaekata’. Teikokushoin. pp. 12-23. （磯山恭子「法教育における社会的事象の見方・考え方の育成─法的思考のプロセスを手がかりとして─」江口勇治監修，井田仁康，
唐木清志，國分麻里，村井大介『21 世紀の教育に求められる「社会的な見方・考え方」』帝国書院，2018 年
3 月，pp. 14-23. ）Akira HASEGAWA. (1996). Kaishakuto Hoshiko: Legal・Mindno Tetsugakunotameni. Nihonhyoronsha. （長谷川晃『解釈と法思考─リーガル・マインドの哲学のために─』日本評論社，1996 年 2 月。）
Naoki KOBAYASHI. (1991). Law and Legal Thinking: Characteristic and Limits of Legal Thinking. The Japan
Association of Legal Philosophy. Legal Thinking Today (The Annual of Legal Philosophy 1990).
Yuhikaku. pp. 35-54. （小林直樹「法と法的思考」日本法哲学会編『法的思考の現在（法哲学年報 1990）』
有斐閣，1991 年 3 月，pp. 35-54. ）Keizo YAMAMOTO. (1997). Hotekishikono Kosoto Tokushitsu: Jikorikaino Genkyoto Kadai. Masahiko
IWAMURA, et al. eds. Gendaihogakuno Shisoto Hoho. (Iwanamikoza Gendaino Ho 15). Iwanamishoten.
pp. 231-268. （山本敬三「法的思考の構想と特質─自己理解の現況と課題─」岩村正彦他編『現代法学の思想と方法（岩波講座現代の法 15）』岩波書店，1997 年 6 月，pp. 231-268. ）Fumihiko TAKAHASHI. (2013). Hotekishikoto Ronri. Seibundo. （高橋文彦『法的思考と論理』成文堂，2013年。
）
Kyoko ISOYAMA. (2016). Shogakko Shakaikaniokeru Houtekiliteracyno Ikuseiwo Mezasu Jyugyono Koso:
Hotekisankagakushuno Jireiwo Tsujite. Kiyoshi KARAKI, ed. ‘Komintekishishitsu’towa Nanika: Shakaikano
Kako・Genzai・Miraiwo Saguru. Toyokanshuppansha. pp. 27-30. （磯山恭子「小学校社会科における法的リテラシーの育成を目指す授業の構想─法的参加学習の事例を通じて─」唐木清志編著『「公民的資質」とは何か─社会科の過去・現在・未来を探る─』東洋館出版社，2016 年，pp. 26-30.）
Kyoko ISOYAMA. (2010). Hokyoikuniokeru Hotekisankagakushuno Jyuyousei. Akihide TANIKAWA, Yuji
EGUCHI, Yoshiyasu IDA, et al. eds. Shiminkyoikueno Henkaku. Tokyoshoseki. pp. 174-184. （磯山恭子「法教育における法的参加に関する学習の重要性」谷川彰英監修， 江口勇治，井田仁康，伊藤純郎，唐木清志
編『市民教育への変革』東京書籍，2010 年 5 月，pp. 174-184.）
Jenson, Jane. (2006). Introduction: Thinking about Citizenship and Law in an Era of Change. Law Commissionof Canada. ed. Law and Citizenship. UBC Press. pp. 3-21.
White, Charles, ed. (1984). Lawyers in the Classroom. American Bar Association Special Committee on Youth
Education for Citizenship.
Hokyoikukenkyukai. (2005). Hajimeteno Hokyoiku: Wagakuniniokeru Hokyoikuno Fukyu・Hattenwo Mezashite.
(First Law-Related Education). Gyosei. （法教育研究会『はじめての法教育̶我が国における法教育の普及・発展を目指して̶』ぎょうせい，2005 年 3 月。）
Homusho. Hokyoiku.（法務省「法教育」（http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/shihouhousei/index2.html）（visit; 2018.
1.5）.）
Nihonbengoshirengokai. Hokyoikutte Nani?. （日本弁護士連合会「法教育ってなぁーに？」（https://www.
nichibenren.or.jp/activity/human/education.html）（visit; 2018.1.5）.）
133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 105

Saibansho. Saibaninseido. （裁判所「裁判員制度」（http://www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/）（visit; 2018.1.5）.）
Additional Statement: This paper is rewritten in English by referring to the references, especially my copy.

134