雑記帳

■[Book Report]The New Chicago School

Journal of Legal Studiesの1998年6月号、p661-691に収録されているLawrence Lessigの"The New Chicago School"のまとめ。2002年12月14日作成の読書録のリサイクル。なお、lessig.orgにPDF版がある。Lessigら新シカゴ学派の考え方がコンパクトにまとまった論文。

Both the old school and new share an approach to regulation that focuses on regulator other than law. Both, that is, aim to understand structures of regulation outside law's direct effect.(p661)

The moral of the old school is that the state should do less. The hope of the new is that the state can do more.(p661)

政府の関与について、旧学派だと否定的で、新学派が肯定的。

Lessigは制約条件(constraints)は四つあると指摘。(p664, figure 1)

1. 法律(Law)
2. 市場(Market)
3. 規範(Norm)
4. アーキテクチャ(Architecture)

law and norms, for example, typically regulate after the fact, while the market or architecture regulates more directly.(p664)

後者の危険性が日本では認識されていないような気がする。規制、と言うと直ぐに法律だけに目が行ってしまっている嫌いがある。

(The old school) argues that law is, relative to these other constraints, a less effective constraint: Its regulators, crude; its response, slow; its interventions, clumsy; and its effect self-defeating. Hence law, the argument goes, would better let these regulators regulate.(p665)

これが旧学派の主張。市場、規範、アーキテクチャはそれぞれ独立に制約条件を課す。

All three (the old school's) departments thus argue a common line. All three argue against the dominance or centrality of law. …… Law should understand, within these separate domains, its own insignificance and, old school implies, should step out of the way.(p666)

(U)nlike the old school, the new school does not see these alternatives as displacing law. Rather, the new school views them as each subject to law - not perfectly, not completely, and not in any obvious way, but nonetheless, each itself an object to law's regulation. …… Thus, rather than diminishing the role of law, these alternatives suggest a wider range of regulatory means for any particular state regulation. Thus, in the view of the new school, law not only regulates behavior directly, but law also regulates behavior indirectly, by regulating these other modalities of regulation directly.(p666)

Regulation, in this view, always has two aspects - a direct and an indirect. …… Modern regulation is a mix of the two aspects. Thus, the question of what regulation is possible is always the question of how this mix can bring about the state's regulatory end; and the aim of any understanding of regulation must be reckon the effect of any particular mix.(p667)

ここでLessigは、喫煙、シートベルト、障害者への差別、麻薬、避妊を例に挙げ、法の間接的な規制方法について論じている。この例は『CODE―インターネットの合法・違法・プライバシー』にも載っている。

These techniques of direct and indirect regulation are the tools of any modern regulatory regime. The aim of the New Chicago School is to speak comprehensively about these tools- about how they function together, about how they interact, and about how law might affect their influence. The alternative constraints beyond law do not exist independent of the law; they are in part the product of the law. Thus the question is never "law or something else". The question instead is always to what extent is a particular constraint a function of the law, and more importantly, to what extent can the law effectively change that constraint.(p672)

Lessigは法律が単なるregulatorとしてだけではなく、meta-regulatorとして機能することを研究する必要性を論じている。(p672)

　First-generation norm theory established the relative autonomy of norms from law. …… Norms were relatively fixed, essentially immovable, unyielding to the influences of law - they were in this sense nonplastic.

　Second-generation work is skeptical about this antiactivist conclusion. For just because law cannot directly or simply control norms, it does not follow that there is not an influence in both ways (norms influencing law or law influencing norms) or that one cannot be used to change the other.(p673)

Of course within architecture proper - the study of building and community design - this has been the attention of this century's work.(p675)

Lessigは上記の例として、『アメリカ大都市の死と生 (SD選書 118)』を挙げている。これにはちょっと驚いた。確かに都市計画というものは、その都市に住むであろう人たちの生活を左右するものだから、そこから学べるものは多いだろう。インターネット上のアーキテクチャというと、話が抽象的になりがちで理解が難しいけれども、比喩として都市計画を題材にすれば理解が早いかもしれない。

　First-generation work here spoke of the architectures of cyberspace as given; they treated the relative unregulability of the space as a necessary feature of the space, and they reveled in the libertarianism that this architecture would yield.

　Second-generation work, however, is more critical of this relationship between architecture and regulability. …… The lesson of second-generation work is to look beyond the simple direct regulation that it might effect, toward the more complex mix of indirect regulation that it might yield. It might be possible directly to order the architecture of cyberspace in one way, but might nonetheless be possible, through a mix of direct and indirect regulation, to achieve the same end indirectly.(p675-676)

第一世代の例として挙げられているのが、バーロウ。彼のサイバースペース独立宣言はその特徴を良く表している。第二世代の例としては、Joel Reidenbergの"Lex Informatica"。

A constraint is subjective when a subject, whether or not consciously, recognizes it as a constraint. It is objective when, whether or not subjectively recognized, it actually functions as a constraint.(p677)

Lessigは制約条件(constraint)をsubjectiveなものと、objectiveなものに分けて考えている。

And likewise, much of a child's education is about teaching the child to internalize the constraints of real space architecture, where those constraints do not in this sense take care of themselves.(p678)

なるほど。

For in evaluating the relative strength of one regulatory strategy over another, the questions will always be to what extent the strategy relies on internalization (an efficiency question), and second, to what extent it should.(p680)

My focus is on objective meaning, for only objective meaning is realistically manageable ……. In principle, that is, one might say that subjective meaning could be manipulated (think about "brainwashing"); but it is easier, and more consistent with liberalism, to speak about techniques for manipulating objective meaning.(p681)

subjective meaningは個々人によって違うから研究の対象には成り難い。

My claim is only that the law changes (in the sense of ambiguating) the objective meaning, whether or not the subjective meaning has been changed.(p682)

例え対象の事象の持つsubjective meaningが個々人によって違っていたとしても、objective meaningが共有されていればそれで十分。

Lessigはsocial meaning（社会的意味）を2種類定義している。両者とも暗黙のうちに了解(taken for granted)されているのだが、その範囲が違う。

type A : 特定のグループの中で暗黙のうちに了解されている事項。(meaning that is contestable)

type B : 一般に無意識で暗黙のうちに了解されている事項。(meaning that is not contestable)

この二つの社会的意味を分けて検討するためのtoolが必要だとLessigは主張している。(p685)

Constitutional law in America is uncertain about the relationship between indirect regulation and constitutional constraints.(p688)

日本の場合はどうなのだろう？

Our constitution was written with direct regulation in mind - not because the framers did not understand indirect regulation, but rather because its significance was not great enough systematically to account. To simplify brutally: Theirs was a world where most state regulation was direct regulation; they wrote a constitution to deal with that world. But what then of a world where most regulation is indirect? How are constitutional values preserved here?(p688)

日本でもこういった議論は絶対に必要だ。

The point is not that we must imagine a single theory of indirect regulation in constitutional law; rather it is that we do not yet have a body of learning that deals systematically with the range of constitutional questions raised by indirect regulation.(p688)

　For many, the problem of constitutional development in postcommunist Europe was simple - draft a constitution modeled on Western constitutions, ratify it, and apply it. Constitutionalism, in this model, was a text; the solution to the absence of constitutionalism was likewise a text.

　But a New Chicago School perspective suggests something important about why that advice is so hopelessly incomplete. For what makes a constitutional text function in Western constitutional democracies is as much the development of a strong legal culture as it is any grammatical structure in a document called "the constitution."(p689)

ここでLessigは日本の日本国憲法を例に挙げて、条文だけでは民主主義を形作れないことを論じている。

日本にこそ、Lessigの言うNew Chicago Schoolのようなアプローチが必要なのではないだろうか。Lessigが単にサイバー法の権威として日本では知られているのはとても残念なこと。彼にとって、インターネットはindirect regulationを可能にする場の「ひとつ」でしかない。それを理解した上で、彼の著書は読む必要がある。

Lessigがやろうとしているのは、当たり前だと思われていること(a phenomenon which is taken for granted)が、実は当たり前ではないのだということを明らかにすること、なのだろう。

なんだか、ヴェブレンの制度学派のアプローチにも似ているな、という印象を受ける。全ての社会制度は、人間がその必要性に迫られて今まで構築してきたものだ。人間がそれを作った以上、それは絶対に完璧ではない。どこかに欠陥はあって然るべきで、だからこそ常に現状を批判的に論じていく必要がある。

Permalink | コメント(0) | トラックバック(1) | 00:05