Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:16:01.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Japan Ready for Enduring Powers? A Comparative Analysis of Enduring Powers Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Trevor Ryan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to understand why the uptake of “third generation” enduring powers in Japan has been disappointing from the perspective of reformers who introduced the powers in 2000. In addition to questions about optimum design of this particular legal instrument, it is an opportunity to explore deeper questions about regulation and the role of law and the market in ageing, post-industrial societies such as Japan. First, the article explains the form that enduring powers take in Japan. Second, it presents statistics on the uptake of enduring powers. Third, the article presents possible reasons for this low uptake, including unsuitable social norms, a lack of awareness, excessive regulation, unresponsive doctrine, and entrenched judicial values. Finally, the article concludes that while these reasons all have explanatory value and are not easily disaggregated, comparative analysis presents some promising developments in Japan such as the growth in candidates to take on enduring powers who are regulated and organised through legal professions, civil society, local government, and the court system. At a deeper level, the article concludes that the fate of enduring powers turns not only on regulatory and doctrinal levers but also on the relative strengths within Japan’s continuing legal development of divergent views on the imposition of formal legal norms and market mechanisms upon relationships previously regulated by informal social norms or administrative decree.

Keywords

enduring powersdurable powerslasting powersageingdementia
Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 9: Special Issue: Socio-Legal Research on Southeast Asia: Themes, Directions, and Challenges , 1 January 2014 , pp. 241 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 World Health Organisation, Dementia: A Public Health Priority (2012), <http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/dementia_report_2012/en/> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

2 See Dinerstein, Robert D, “Implementing Legal Capacity Under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The Difficult Road From Guardianship to Supported Decision-Making” (2012) 19 Human Rights Brief 8 Google Scholar; Glen, Kristin Booth, “Changing Paradigms: Mental Capacity, Legal Capacity, Guardianship, and Beyond” (2012) 44 Colum. H.R.L. Rev. 93.Google Scholar

3 Eleven percent of Australians according to Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee, Inquiry into Powers of Attorney (2010) 21, citing the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Older People and the Law, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (2007) 71, citing Office of the Public Advocate, Queensland Government, submission 76 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into older people and the law (2006), 7; New Zealand Law Reform Commission, Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney, Report No 71 (2001) 5.

4 45% of persons aged 50 or older: AARP Research Group, Where There Is a Will: Legal Documents among the 50+ Population, Findings from an AARP Survey (2000) <http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/will.pdf> 5 (last accessed 4 October 2013).

5 Arai, Makoto, “Reconsidering the Voluntary Guardianship System and its Raison D’être (nin’i kouken seido no sonzaiigi, saikou)” (2013) 45 Jissen Seinenkouken 4 Google Scholar, 8.

6 Ibid.

7 See Breaux, John B. & Hatch, Orrin G., “Confronting Elder Abuse, Neglect, And Exploitation: The Need For Elder Justice Legislation” (2003) 11 Elder L.J. 207 Google Scholar, 263; Hall, Margaret, “Equitable Fraud: Material Exploitation In Domestic Settings” (2006) 7 Elder Law Review 4 Google Scholar; New Zealand Law Reform Commission (2001), supra note 3 at 5.

8 The two main Acts were the Act to Partially Revise the Civil Code (minpou no ichibu o kaisei suru houritsu), Act no. 149 of 1999 and the Act on Voluntary Guardianship Contracts (nini kouken keiyaku ni kansuru houritsu), Act no. 150 of 1999.

9 Civil Code (minpou) Act no. 89 of 1896, s. 7

10 Ibid., s. 25.

11 Ibid., s. 9, s. 120(1), s. 859(1).

12 The term “curator” is derived from the civil law tradition, which has traditionally had a more gradated concept of guardianship: Okamura, Mihoko, “The Adult Guardianship System (seinen kouken seido) ”, in National Diet Library, ed., Declining Fertility, Ageing and Countermeasures (shoushi koureika to sono taisaku) (Tokyo: National Diet Library Publications, 2005) at 198 Google Scholar, 200.

13 Civil Code, s. 11. Note that this translation differs from official version. The same parties may apply for appointment as those who may apply for guardianship.

14 Civil Code, s. 13 (Acts Requiring Consent of Curator) states: (1) A person under curatorship must obtain the consent of his/her curator if he/she intends to perform any of the following acts…: (i) receive or use any [principal fund which can bear dividends or interest], (ii) borrow any money or guarantee any obligation, (iii) perform any act with the purpose of obtaining or relinquishing any right regarding real estate or other valuable property, (iv) take any procedural action, (v) make a gift, make any settlement, or agree to arbitrate…, (vi) accept or renounce any inheritance, or partition any estate, (vii) refuse an offer of a gift, renounce any bequest, accept the offer of gift with burden, or accept any bequest with burden, (viii) effect any new construction, renovation, expansion, or major repairs; or (ix) make any lease agreement…, (2)… the family court may make an order that the person under curatorship must obtain the consent of his/her curator even in cases he/she intends to perform any act other than those set forth in each item of the preceding paragraph; provided, however, that this shall not apply to [any act relating to daily life, such as the purchase of daily household items], (3) [The court may consent to an act in lieu if the curator’s consent], (4) An act which requires the consent of the curator may be rescinded if it was performed without such consent[.]

15 Civil Code, s. 876-4 (Order Granting Power of Representation to Curator), states: (1)… the family court may make an order that grants power of representation to the curator, concerning specified juristic acts for the person under curatorship, (2) An order referred to in the preceding paragraph made upon the application of any person other than the person under curatorship shall require the consent of the person under curatorship, (3) The family court may rescind an order referred to in paragraph 1 in whole or in part[.]

16 Civil Code, s. 15(1). The same parties may apply for appointment as those for guardianship.

17 Ibid., s. 15(2). The person receiving assistance may request the family court to overrule, increase, reduce or remove the assistant’s authority. If an assistant no longer has any agency or revocation right, the order comes to an end ensuring that only people who need legal protection are subject to an order. Civil Code (minpou) s. 17 (Order Requiring Person to Obtain Consent of Assistant) states: (1)… the family court may make the order that the person under assistance must obtain the consent of his/her assistant if he/she intends to perform any particular juristic act; provided, however, that the act for which such consent must be obtained pursuant to such order shall be limited to the acts [a curator is permitted to perform] provided in paragraph 1 of Article 13, (2) The order set forth in the preceding paragraph at the request of any person other than the person in question shall require the consent of the person in question, (3) [The court may consent to an act in lieu of the assistant’s consent], (4) An act which requires the consent of the assistant may be rescinded if it was performed without such consent[.]

18 Ibid., s. 13(1), s. 17(1).

19 Ibid., s. 17(4).

20 With the exception of making a bequest or acknowledging a child. Civil Code, s. 876-9 (Order Granting Power of Representation to Assistant), states: (1)… an assistant, or a supervisor of an assistant, the family court may make an order that grants power of representation to the assistant, concerning specified juristic acts for the person under assistance, (2) The provisions of paragraph 2 [individual’s consent required] and paragraph 3 [court may rescind] of Article 876-4 shall apply[.]

21 The legal status of the contract is regarded as a “contract for mandate” (i’nin keiyaku). In voluntary guardianship, this contract for mandate grants complete or partial agency over activity of a legal nature regarding health, nursing care, and management of property for a person who has insufficient decision-making capacity through a mental cause. Unlike a statutory guardian, the exact content of that agency depends on the individual contract. If the guardian is an attorney, for example, the contract might permit litigation to recover debts etc.

22 Act on Voluntary Guardianship Contracts (nin’i kouken keiyaku ni kansuru houritsu), Act no. 150 of 1999, art. 4(1).

23 Although s. 120 of the Civil Code, providing for revocation rights for “cooling off” periods, may be applicable to voluntary guardians.

24 Japan National Notaries Association website: <http://www.koshonin.gr.jp/nin.html> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

25 Ibid.

26 Ministry of Justice website: <http://houmukyoku.moj.go.jp/yamagata/static/kaitei0401.pdf> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

27 Act on Voluntary Guardianship Contracts, s. 4(1).

28 Supreme Court of Japan website: <http://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo-f/saiban/koken/ninigoken_mousitake> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

29 Civil Code (minpou), Act no. 9 of 1898 s. 862.

30 Kobayashi, Akihiko & Otaka, Ichiro, Understanding the New Adult Guardianship System (wakariyasui shin seinen kouken seido) (Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 2000) at 63.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., 64.

32 Supreme Court of Japan, Summary of Adult Guardianship Related Cases (seinen kouken kankei jiken no gaikyou) <http://www.courts.go.jp/about/siryo/kouken.html> (last accessed 4 October 2013). Although the number of applications in 2007 (April 2007–April 2008) dropped by about 23% from the previous year, this aberration can be explained by a national program in 2006 related to the Disability Autonomy Support Act (shougaisha jiritsu shien hou) Act no. 123 of 2005, which caused a spike in the application for persons with severe disabilities.

33 Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee, supra note 3 at 21; AARP Research Group (2000), supra note 4 at 5.

34 Jinno, Reisei, “The Operation of the Enduring Power of Attorney System in Germany (doitsu ni okeru nin’i kouken seido no unyou)” (2011) 41 Koushou Hougaku 1, 2.Google Scholar

35 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 4.

36 Okamura (2005), supra note 12 at 208.

37 Setterlund, Deborah, Tilse, Cheryl & Wilson, Jill, “Substitute Decision making and Older People” (1999) 139 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 1 Google Scholar, 3.

38 Iuchi, Shougo, “Preliminary Report Relating to Promotional Activity for the Voluntary Guardianship System (nin’i kouken seido kouhou katsudou ni kakaru chuukan houkoku tou)” (2012) 733 Houmu Tsuushin 47 Google Scholar, 48.

39 Ibid., 47-48.

40 Matsushima, Yukiko, Contemporary Japanese Family Law (Tokyo: Minjiho Kenkyuukai, 2000) at 25.Google Scholar

41 Uchida, Takashi, Institutional Contract Theory: Privatization and Contract (seidoteki keiyakuron: mineika to keiyaku) (Tokyo: Hatori Shoten, 2010) at 3 Google Scholar; Uchida, Takashi & Taylor, Veronica L, “Japan’s “Era of Contract”, in Foote, Daniel H., ed., Japanese Law: a Turning Point (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2007) at 455 Google Scholar; Yokoyama, Toshikazu, Marketisation and Commercialisation of Social Security (shakai hoshou no shijouka-eirika) (Tokyo: Shin Nihon Shuppansha, 2003) at 31.Google Scholar

42 Yokoyama (2003), supra note 41 at 32.

43 Okamura (2005), supra note 12 at 199.

44 Iuchi (2012), supra note 38 at 54.

45 For a theoretical analysis of the “social disintegration through law” drawing from Habermas, see Teubner, Gunther, ed., Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Anti-Trust, and Social Welfare Law (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987) at 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Noguchi, Naohiro, “The Situation of Voluntary Guardianship Appointments (nin’i kouken juninsha no joukyou) ” (2013) 45 Jissen Seinenkouken 16 Google Scholar, 17.

47 “Con Artists Calling”, The Japan Times (8 September 2008); Okamura (2005), supra note 12 at 207.

48 Nakayama, Fukiko, “The Current Situation and Issues of the Voluntary Guardianship System (nin’i kouken seido no genjo to kadai)” (2011) 22(4) Rounen Seishin Igaku Zasshi 400 Google Scholar, 402.

49 Johnson, David, “Criminal Justice in Japan”, in Foote, Daniel H., ed., Law in Japan: A Turning Point (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2007) at 355.Google Scholar

50 Weber, Max, Economy and Society (1968), in Freeman, Michael, ed., Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 8th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) at 883.Google Scholar

51 For a discussion of Kawashima’s work and influence, see Feldman, Eric, “Law, Culture, and Conflict: Dispute Resolution in Postwar Japan”, in Foote, Daniel H., ed., Law in Japan: a Turning Point (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2007).Google Scholar

52 Johnson (2007), supra note 49 at 367-368; Taylor, Veronica, “Re-Regulating Japanese Transactions: the Competition Law Dimension”, in Amyx, Jennifer & Drysdale, Peter, eds., Japanese Governance (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003) at 134 Google Scholar, 150; Nottage, Luke, “The Cultural (Re)Turn in Japanese Law Studies” (2008) 39 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 755 Google Scholar, 763; Anderson, Kent & Ryan, Trevor, “Japan: the Importance and Evolution of Institutions at the Turn of the Century”, in Ann Black, E. & Bell, Gary F., eds., Law and Legal Institutions of Asia (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2011) at 120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 146; Kitagawa, Zentaro, “Development of Comparative Law in East Asia”, in Reimann, Mathias & Zimmermann, Reinhard, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) at 237 Google Scholar, 252.

53 Iuchi (2012), supra note 38 at 52; Onuki, Masao, “The Achievements of ‘Legal Support’ and the Role of Judicial Scriveners (riigaru sapooto niokeru jisseki to shihou shoshi no yakuwari)” (2005) 58(6) Houritsu no hiroba 22 Google Scholar, 27; Akanuma, Yasuhiro, “Issues regarding the Adult Guardianship System and the Role of Lawyers (seinen kouken seido no kadai to bengoshi no yakuwari)” (2005) 58(6) Houritsu no hiroba 16 Google Scholar, 17; Shirai, Noriko, “Use of the Adult Guardianship System for Contracts for Nursing Insurance (kaigo hoken keiyaku ni okeru seinen kouken seido no riyou)” (2005) 58(6) Houritsu no hiroba 35 Google Scholar, 36; Furui, Keiji, “Issues regarding the Role and Work Borne by Social Welfare Officers (shakai fukushishi ga ninatte kita yakuwari to jitsumujou no kadai)” (2005) 58(6) Houritsu no hiroba 29 Google Scholar, 29; Arai, Makoto, Akanuma, Yasuhiro & Oonuki, Masao, The Adult Guardianship System: The Theory and Practice of the Law (seinen kouken seido: hou no rinri to jitsumu) (Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 2006) at 250.Google Scholar

54 Iuchi (2012), supra note 38 at 53.

55 Ingmanson, Sarah M., Corporate Pension Reform in Japan: Big Bang or Big Bust? (MA in International Affairs Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2004)Google Scholar, <http://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/pages/pdf/SarahIngmanson_Thesis.pdf> (last accessed 4 October 2013) 41, 83.

56 Ryan, Trevor, “The Trust in an Ageing Japan: Has Commercialisation Precluded the Trust from Reaching its Welfare Potential?” (2012) 7 As. J.C.L. 197 Google Scholar, 217-218; Ryan, Trevor, “Japan’s 2004 Pension Reforms in Response to Demographic Change: a Legal Critique” (2006) 8(1) Asian Pac. L. & Pol’y J. 1 Google Scholar, 3.

57 Ryan, “The Trust in an Ageing Japan” supra note 56 at 217.

58 For example, the influence of the financial world in skewing trust law reform towards commercial, securitisation purposes: ibid., 220.

59 See William Edwards, “Delivering A Verdict On Lasting Powers of Attorney”, Mondaq (UK) (6 January 2009) paragraph 5; Samanta, Jo, “Lasting Powers of Attorney For Healthcare Under The Mental Capacity Act 2005: Enhanced Prospective Self-Determination For Future Incapacity Or A Simulacrum?” (2009) 17(1) Med. L. Rev. 377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

60 Noguchi (2013), supra note 46 at 21; Starnes, Richard A., “Consumer Fraud and the Elderly: The Need for a Uniform System of Enforcement and Increased Civil and Criminal Penalties” (1996) 4(1) Elder L.J. 201 Google Scholar, 217.

61 See Grabosky, Peter N., “Using Non-governmental Resources to Foster Regulatory Compliance” (1995) 8(4) Governance: an International Journal of Policy and Administration 527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karp, Naomi & Erica F. Wood, “Guardianship Monitoring: A National Survey of Court Practices?” (2007) 37 Stetson L. Rev. 143 Google Scholar, 190.

62 Breaux & Hatch (2003), supra note 7 at 262.

63 Starnes (1996), supra note 60 at 220.

64 Ibid., 215.

65 Ryan (2006), supra note 56 at 207; Kobayashi, Toru, “The Potential of the Civil Trust in an Ageing Society (koureishakai to minjishintaku no kanousei)”, in Arai, Makoto, ed., Fundamentals and Practice of Trust Law (shintakuhou no kiso to unyou) (Tokyo: Nihon Hyouronsha, 2007) at 150 Google Scholar, 159.

66 Okamura (2005), supra note 12 at 208.

67 Karp & Wood (2007), supra note 61 at 184-191; Grabosky (2007), supra note 61 at 544.

68 Akanuma, Yasuhiro, “Issues Surrounding the Voluntary Guardianship System and Directions for Reform and Revision (nin’i kouken seido no kadai to kaizen kaisei no houkousei)” (2013) 45 Jissen Seinenkouken 78 Google Scholar, 83.

69 Jinno (2011), supra note 34 at 2.

70 Ibid., 3, 6.

71 Doron, Israel, “Elder Guardianship Kaleidoscope: A Comparative Perspective” (2002) 16(3) Int’l J.L. Pol’y & Fam. 368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 378.

72 Okamura (2005), supra note 12 at 202.

73 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 401.

74 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 4.

75 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 401.

76 Akanuma (2013), supra note 68 at 82.

77 Supreme Court of Japan statistics: <http://www.courts.go.jp/about/siryo/kouken> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

78 Onuki (2005), supra note 53 at 22.

79 Ibid, 23. The organisation’s website URL is <http://www.legal-support.or.jp> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

80 Ibid., 23-27.

81 Ibid., 23.

82 Ibid., 23.

83 Ibid., 25.

84 See <http://www.legal-support.or.jp/public> (last accessed 4 October 2013).

85 Unspecified, “Fostering Citizen Guardians and Supporting Their Activities (shimin koukennin no yousei to katsudou shien)” (2012) 9 Kaigo Hoken Jouhou 6, 6-14.

86 Elderly Welfare Act (roujin fukushi hou) Act 133 of 1963, s. 32-2.

87 Supreme Court of Japan statistics.

88 “Property of the Elderly Targetted (rougo no zaisan ga nerawareru)”, NHK Close-up Gendai (22 May 2008).

89 Jinno (2011), supra note 34 at 10.

90 Germany’s BGB s. 1908f states: “(1)An association having legal personality may be recognised as a custodianship association if it guarantees that it 1. has a sufficient number of suitable employees and will supervise and give further education to these and insure them appropriately for damage that they may cause to others in the course of their activity, 2. methodically endeavours to acquire voluntary custodians, introduces them to their tasks, gives them further education and advises them and authorised representatives, 2a. methodically gives information on enduring powers of attorney and custodianship orders, 3. enables an exchange of experience between the employees.”

91 See Fukui, Kouta, “Can Commercial Guardianship and Asset Management Suffice? A Report on Victoria, Australia’s State Trustees Company (seinen kouken zaisan kanri wa eiri jigyou tariuruka? Ousutoraria bikutoria shuu no State Trustees sha no chousa houkoku)” (2007) 28 Shintaku kenkyuu shoureikin ronshuu 110.Google Scholar

92 Analysis of the Current Situation of the Adult Guardianship System and a Consideration of Current Issues (seinen kouken seido no genjou no bunseki to kadai no kentou) (Tokyo: The Japan Adult Guardianship Association, 2010) <http://www.minji-houmu.jp/download/seinen_kenkyuhoukoku.pdf> (last accessed 4 October 2013) 11; Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 400.

93 Alexander, George J, “Durable Powers of Attorney As A Substitute For Conservatorship” (1998) 4 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 653 Google Scholar, 666.

94 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 9, 14.

95 Samanta (2009), supra note 59 at paragraph 44.

96 Hansen, L.C. & Rodjman, E., “The Use of Living Wills at the End of Life: A National Study” (1996) 156 Archives of Internal Medicine 9 Google Scholar, cited in Samanta (2009), supra note 59 at paragraph 44.

97 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 14.

98 Bueno, Julia Calvo, “Reforming Durable Power of Attorney Statutes to Combat Financial Exploitation of the Elderly” (2003) 16 National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Quarterly 20 Google Scholar, 21; Smith, Robert, “Evaluating the Donor’s Competence to Sign an Enduring Power of Attorney” (1996) 4 Journal of Law and Medicine 82 Google Scholar, 82-83.

99 Akanuma (2013), supra note 68 at 80.

100 Arai, Makoto, “Present Situation and Issues Regarding the Adult Guardianship System (seinen kouken seido no genjou to kadai)” (2005) 58(6) Houritsu no hiroba 4 Google Scholar, 7.

101 Civil Code (minpou) Act no. 89 of 1896, s. 653.

102 Arai (2005), supra note 100 at 7.

103 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 403.

104 Akanuma (2013), supra note 68; Arai (2005), supra note 100 at 7.

105 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 43.

106 See O’Neill, Nick and Peisah, Carmelle, Capacity and the Law (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2012)Google Scholar, <http://www.worldlii.org/au/journals/SydUPLawBk/2011/12.html> (last accessed 4 October 2013) 10.3, 10.4.

107 Ibid.

108 See for example, Legal Practices Tribunal v Ford [2008] LPT 12, <http://www.lsc.qld.gov.au/Documents/FordLPT08-012.pdf> (last accessed 4 October 2013) discussed in Barbara Hamilton and Tina Cockburn, “Capacity to Make a Will and Enduring Power of Attorney: Issues New and Old” (2008) (December) Queensland Law Society Journal 14, 14.

109 Foote, Daniel H., “Judicial Creation of Norms in Japanese Labor Law: Activism in the Service of – Stability?” (1996) 43 UCLA L. Rev. 635 Google Scholar, 637-638; Taylor, Veronica L., “Continuing Transactions and Persistent Myths: Contracts in Contemporary Japan” (1993) 19 Melbourne U.L. Rev. 371 Google Scholar, 378; Luke Nottage, Changing Contract Lenses: Renegotiations in English, New Zealand, Japanese, US and International Sales Law and Practice, <http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/anjel/documents/ResearchPublications/NottageCLPE2006paper.pdf> (last accessed 4 October 2013) 15.

110 Ryan (2006), supra note 56 at 225.

111 Upham, Frank K., Law and Social Change in Postwar Japan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987) at 16.Google Scholar

112 Mark Ramseyer, J. & Nakazato, Minoru, “The Rational Litigant: Settlement Amounts and Verdict Rates in Japan” (1989) 18 J. Legal Stud. 263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 266-270.

113 Haley, John O., “The Paradox of Weak Power and Strong Authority and the Japanese State”, in Boyd, Richard & Ng, Tak Wing, eds., Asian States: Beyond the Developmental Perspective (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005) at 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 11.

115 Alexander (1998), supra note 93 at 656. Terry R. Carney & David Tait, The Adult Guardianship Experiment: Tribunals and Popular Justice (Leichhardt: Federation Press, 1997) at 197.

116 Arai (2013), supra note 5 at 9.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

119 Ibid, 10.

120 Supreme Court of Japan statistics.

121 Act on Voluntary Guardianship Contracts (nini kouken keiyaku ni kansuru houritsu), Act no. 150 of 1999, s. 10.

122 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 404.

123 Akanuma (2005), supra note 53 at 20.

124 Kobayashi & Otaka (2000), supra note 30 at 74.

125 Nakayama (2011), supra note 48 at 404.

126 Ibid.

127 Dworkin, Ronald, Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993) at 221–229.Google Scholar

128 Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1986)Google Scholar, chapter 7.

129 Dworkin (1993), supra note 127 at 221-229.

130 See for example, Channick, Susan Adler, “The Myth of Autonomy at The End-of-Life: Questioning The Paradigm of Rights” (1999) 44 Villanova Law Review 577 Google Scholar; Walker, Sarah, “Autonomy or Preservation of Life? Advance Directives and Patients with Dementia” (2011) 17 University College London Jurisprudence Review 100 Google Scholar; Dresser, Rebecca, “Dworkin on Dementia: Elegant Theory; Questionable Practice” (1995) 25 Hastings Centre Report 32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donnelly, Mary, “Best Interests, Patient Participation and The Mental Capacity Act 2005” (2009) 17 Medical Law Review 25.Google ScholarPubMed

131 Channick (1999), supra note 130 at 631; Walker (2011), supra note 130 at 115.

132 Channick (1999), supra note 130 at 624.

133 Ibid., 631.

134 For a useful explanation of supported decision-making, see Dinerstein (2012), supra note 2.

135 Foote (1996), supra note 109 at 638; Hiroshi Oda, Japanese Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) at 9-11.

136 Uchida & Taylor (2007), supra note 41 at 474.