Bibliographic record
Abstract
わが国では、2021 年 4 月から法制審議会担保法部会における動産債権担保法制の改正をめぐる議論が開始され、2022年12月には「中間試案」が公表された。片山・平野は、すでにフランスにおける 2006 年担保法改正に関する共同研究を行い、日仏法学会や比較法学会で報告をし、わが国における担保法研究をリードしてきた. 今回は、それを基礎として、さらに比較法的な視野を広げた比較法研究を行った。「多元主義」「刻む担保」に特徴を有するフランス法における法改革と、フランス法圏のベルギー法、ケベック法、ルクセンブルク法そして日本法との比較研究である。すなわち、ベルギー法、ケベック法は、「一元主義」「まとめる担保」の方向で法改革を遂行している。これに対して、ルクセンブルク法では、フランス法の「多元主義」を採用しつつ、民法典自体の改正を行わず、特別法による対応を行っている。このように、フランス法圏の立法例を比較法的視角から分析検討し、その上で、わが国における法改正への提言を行うこととした。 具体的には、フランスから、担保法研究の第一人者であるミシェル・グリマルディ教授、ジャン＝ジャック・アンソー教授、オーギュスタン・エネス教授等を招聘し、2022年12月17日に慶應義塾大学において、日仏共同シンポを実施し、2021年のフランス担保法改正に関する比較研究を行った。次いで、2023年2月17日には、オンラインで、フランス法、ベルギー法、ルクセンブルク法から見て、わが国の法改正作業をどのような評価するかという点から、12月に公表された法制審担保法制部会の「中間試案」を素材とした国際シンポを、３カ国からそれぞれ担保法の専門家（フランスからシャルル・ジズベール教授、ベルギーからミッシェル・グレゴワール教授、ルクセンブルクからハネス・ヴェシュテンドルフ教授）を招聘してシンポジウムを開催した。 以上の２つのシンポジウムを通じて、フランス法圏における担保法制の展開の比較法的な分析を「財の集合的把握」、「支配による排他的担保」という２つの視角から行う方向性を見出すことができた。 In Japan, in April 2021, the Securing Law Subcommittee of the Legislative Council began discussions on the revision of the movable-claims security law, and in December 2022, an interim draft was released. Katayama and Hirano have already conducted joint research on the revision of the Securing Law of 2006 in France, reported at the French-Japanese Law Society and the Comparative Law Society, and have led research on the Securing Law in Japan. This time, on the basis of this research, we conducted a comparative law study that further broadened the scope of comparative law. This is a comparative study of legal reform in French law, which is characterized by "pluralism" and "engraving security," and Belgian, Quebec, Luxembourg and Japanese law in the French legal sphere. In other words, Belgian and Quebec law pursue legal reform in the direction of "monism" and "collating security.". In contrast, the Luxembourg law, while adopting the "pluralism" of French law, does not amend the Civil Code itself, but uses a special law to deal with the situation. In this way, it was decided to analyze and examine the legislative examples in the French legal zone from a comparative legal perspective, and then make recommendations for legal reform in Japan. More specifically, it invited leading scholars of collateral law from France, such as Professor Michel Grimaldi, Professor Jean-Jacques Ansau, and Professor Augustin Aynes, to conduct a joint Japanese-French symposium at Keio University on December 17, 2022 to conduct a comparative study on the revision of the French collateral law in 2021. Next, on February 17, 2023, an international symposium was held online on the subject of how to evaluate Japan's legal reform work in terms of French, Belgian, and Luxembourg law, using the "interim draft" of the Legislative Council's Secured Legislation Committee, which was published in December, and experts in collateral law (Professor Charles Gjisbert from France, Professor Michele Gregoire from Belgium and Professor Hannes Westendorf from Luxembourg) were invited from each of the 3 countries. Through these two symposiums, we were able to find a direction for conducting a comparative legal analysis of the development of collateral legislation in the French legal zone from two perspectives: a collective grasp of goods and exclusive collateral by control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".