ABSTRACT
This chapter explores a particular quasi-Constitutional rule of Japanese law in light of some general reflections about the nature and utility of quasi-Constitutionality. It argues that quasi-Constitutionality is a meaningful descriptor only in jurisdictions containing a formal mastertext Constitution, but that within such jurisdictions it applies with equal force to legal rules created by statute and those arising in other ways. As a case-study of non-statutory quasi-Constitutional law, this chapter analyses a rule of adjudication that equips the Japanese executive to give legally authoritative interpretations of the Constitution, notwithstanding the written Constitution’s provision for judicial supremacy and conventional Constitutionality review. It draws on Japanese political and institutional history to explain how this legal rule emerged with quasi-Constitutional status, and also to deduce its precise parameters.
