防衛人事審議会と自衛隊員の不服申立  [in Japanese] Self-Defense Forces Council for Personnel Affairs and Legal Appeal by Self-Defense Forces Personnel  [in Japanese]

The purpose of this article is to state the difference between the procedures of the Reviewing Committee for Appeal of Self-Defense Forces or Kousei Shinsakai in 1962 and the Self-Defense Forces Council for Personnel Affairs or Bouei Jinji Shingikai in 19

The purpose of this article is to state the difference between the procedures of the Reviewing Committee for Appeal of Self-Defense Forces or Kousei Shinsakai in 1962 and the Self-Defense Forces Council for Personnel Affairs or Bouei Jinji Shingikai in 1999. The original function of the former was adopted following after the Reviewing Committee for Legal Appeal of the Police Reserve Troop or Keisatsu Yobitai in 1951 and of the National Security Force or Hoantai in 1952. Such a system was followed by the Self-Defense Forces or Jieitai in 1995. The basic construction of legal appeal for injured persons by actions of the Self-Defense Forces has been dealt with by the Reviewing Committee for Appeal of Self-Defense Forces. The Government in 1999, however, has changed its system. The new name of such a committee is the Self-Defense Forces Council for Personnel Affairs or Bouei Jinji Shingikai. The most important difference of the two systems is whether or not the committee member may properly use its reviewing power to the case before him without any legal endorsement for his status as a member of the self Defense Forces. The present writer is to indicate that the legal process for a remedy of the new system by the Self-Defense Forces Council for Personnel Affairs is not enough to use its power, because of lack of the legal endorsement for his status. The writer also indicates that the legal character of the reviewing committee has been changed from the Reviewing Committee for Appeal of Self-Defense Forces or Kousei Shinsakai to the Self-Defnse Forces Council for Personnel Affairs or Bouei Jinji Shingikai. Namely the former had character as an administrative agency to review legally the case, while the latter has character as a mere committee, to discuss and to state the matter before him.