WEKO3
アイテム
制度的応答の偏在とその構造 : 司法アクセスの視点から見る日本のリーガルテックと生成AI
https://doi.org/10.15057/0002061032
https://doi.org/10.15057/00020610323c850004-9618-4bc9-9c0b-fea4e5de9f74
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
hogaku0240202670.pdf (2 MB)
|
|
| Item type | デフォルトアイテムタイプ（フル）その２(1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2025-10-16 | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | 制度的応答の偏在とその構造 : 司法アクセスの視点から見る日本のリーガルテックと生成AI | |||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | The Structure of Selective Institutional Responses : Legal Tech and Generative AI in Japan from an Access-to-Justice Perspective | |||||
| 言語 | en | |||||
| 作成者 |
小林, 一郎
× 小林, 一郎 |
|||||
| アクセス権 | ||||||
| アクセス権 | open access | |||||
| アクセス権URI | http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 | |||||
| 内容記述 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||
| 内容記述 | 論説 | |||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||
| 内容記述 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||
| 内容記述 | This article investigates why Japan’s institutional response to legal tech and generative AI has remained limited and asymmetrical, especially when contrasted with more interventionist approaches in the U.S. and Germany. Whereas unauthorized practice of law （UPL）has been actively litigated abroad, Japan’s regulatory focus remains narrowly confined to corporate-use tools like contract review systems, with limited concern for access- to-justice issues facing individuals and small businesses. This silence is not solely attributable to adjacent licensed professions such as judicial scriveners, but reflects deeper structural and cultural factors that have obscured latent demand and shaped regulatory preferences. Addressing a gap in the literature, the article conceptualizes this pattern as “institutional silence”―a deliberate and persistent institutional inaction that maintains existing symbolic and professional orders. Using comparative legal analysis and original survey-based data on small business adoption of legal tech and generative AI, the study shows how institutional responses may be selectively activated or withheld in ways that quietly limit the diffusion of transformative technologies. It contributes theoretically by revealing how regulatory inaction itself can serve as a mode of preserving professional boundaries and managing technological disruption. While the analysis centers on the domain of UPL, the article situates this case within a broader pattern of regulatory disengagement across Japan’s legal-institutional framework, particularly in domains where legal norms have lagged behind business practice. In this context, it further suggests that as generative AI advances, its ability to reveal and interact with such silences―especially through mechanisms like tag design in Retrieval-Augmented Generation（RAG）systems―may gradually compel legal and regulatory systems to revisit previously unarticulated normative gaps. | |||||
| 言語 | en | |||||
| 出版者 | ||||||
| 出版者 | 一橋大学大学院法学研究科 | |||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||
| 日付 | ||||||
| 日付 | 2025-08 | |||||
| 日付タイプ | Issued | |||||
| 言語 | ||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||
| 出版タイプ | ||||||
| 出版タイプ | VoR | |||||
| 出版タイプResource | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 | |||||
| selfDOI | ||||||
| ID登録 | 10.15057/0002061032 | |||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | ||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | PISSN | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | 1347-0388 | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | ||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | AA1161370X | |||||
| 収録物名 | ||||||
| 収録物名 | 一橋法学 | |||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||
| 巻 | ||||||
| 巻 | 24 | |||||
| 号 | ||||||
| 号 | 2 | |||||
| 開始ページ | ||||||
| 開始ページ | 267 | |||||
| 終了ページ | ||||||
| 終了ページ | 308 | |||||
