Japanese Law, Administrative Law and Regulation Policy

This report explores the authority of the Japanese government in relation to the decision of businesses shutdown for preventing the spread of corona virus. It discusses the authority of the Tokyo Metropolitan government, the obligation of Pachinko and F&B to adhere to the government's orders, the penalties they may face for non-compliance, and the absence of compensation rights for loss of business. The report emphasizes the importance of adhering to government instructions in the current pandemic situation.

Japanese Law, Administrative
Law and Regulation Policy

Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
1. Authority have by Tokyo Metropolitan of releasing an order to shut down the businesses of
Pachinko parlours and F&B outlets.............................................................................................1
2. Does Pachinko and F&B needed to adhere the order..............................................................2
3. Penalties facing by Pachinko and F&B in case of not adhering the orders of government....3
4. Does Pachinko and F&B have right of asking compensation for loss of business..................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Government is the prime authority that have power of decision making and changing of the
existing laws along with formulation of new ones in beneficence of a nation or society. They
work under the obligation of regular development and safeguarding the interest of society
individuals. In this regard, they also have the right to take such decisions that will restrict to
perform duties which basically falls under their common rights (Huang and Law, 2016). The
nation’s government has prime role regarding development of legislations and regulations that
govern the different activities of individuals and institutions with the aim of restraining such
activities that have significant level of harmful impact over health and weal of individuals. The
main aim of this report is also to ascertain the authority of Japanese government in relation to
decision of businesses shutdown for preventing the spread of corona virus.
The aspects cover in this report includes authority have by Tokyo Metropolitan of releasing
an order to shut down the businesses of Pachinko parlours and F&B outlets, does Pachinko and
F&B needed to adhere the order, penalties facing by Pachinko and F&B in case of not adhering
the orders of government and does Pachinko and F&B have right of asking compensation for
loss of business.
MAIN BODY
1. Authority have by Tokyo Metropolitan of releasing an order to shut down the businesses of
Pachinko parlours and F&B outlets
The outbreak of corona virus is unexpected and faster in nature that increasing rapidly all round
the world. The intensity of such cases is so wide that if no action can be taken by a nation then
they have to suffer the worst situation which takes the society towards the path of decrement. In
such case, not possible for any nation to recover from the such situation in earlier possible
manner. The final impact of such outbreak is so negative that the whole economy will
diminished from where not possible to regain the same situation within next 20 years
(Schumacher, 2019).
All the different nations are facing the impact of corona virus spreading including Japan.
Here, in japan, major influence is ascertained by its capital Tokyo. In this regard, the governor of
Tokyo, Yuriko Koike took the decision on April 10 that some businesses ranging from movie
theatres to pachinko parlours will be closed in capital from next day to prevent the further spread
1

of corona virus. There were some businesses not restricted to open after having the fight with
Abe administration such as barber shops and beauty salons, as well as sales floors. The main
reason behind their non-cessation was offering of daily necessities products. Yet, the decision of
closing also included the name of such other businesses such as bars, internet cafes and
swimming pools.
The Tokyo Metropolitan government has the right to take the decisions which are in favour
of nation and society irrespective to their harsh impact over lives of other individuals. This was
the reason that decision of shutting down businesses on temporary basis for preventing the
spread of corona virus is correct in nature. The core aspect behind the decision was the
safeguarding the lives of individual and providing the environment where they will live normal
life in future. Also, all the decisions taken by Metropolitan government has been approved by the
Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. This is the only way when their decision makings come into the
existence. This was the reason that this assembly is recognised as the form decision making
organ of Metropolitan government. This assembly has the right to enact, amend and repeal the
ordinances of Metropolitan government. The decision of shutting down businesses within the
capital was not repealed by assembly that clearly depicts the power held by government in their
hands while working in the direction of safety and interest of society. The assembly defined
above is setting up of the support of 127 members that are directly elected by Tokyo citizens for
serving of the time period of four years. Support of those all in government decision was clearly
depicted the validity of same along with the powers have by government for working in the
welfare of society and nation (Ohnesorge, 2019).
One of the characteristic processes of the administrative operations within Japan is an
approach by the government guidance, which practically plays a really significant role. For that
reason, the Administrative Procedure Act gives for the managerial direction by a government
organ in detail.291. Along with this, Administrative supervision is defined within the APA as
follows: recommendations, advice, guidance or other acts through which an executive organ may
seek, in the scope of their duties or affairs in its jurisdiction, several action or inaction lying on
the part of particular people in order to understand administrative aims, anywhere this acts are
not administrative dispositions. Therefore, an act of announcement for public relation that is
made toward common public is not an administrative supervision. These are main authority that
have by Tokyo Metropolitan and support in releasing an order to shut down the businesses of
2

Pachinko parlours and F&B outlets. Each minister, the chairman of each commission, as well as
the directors of every agency exercise common control on the business of that organ, and manage
the duties of the staff.
2. Does Pachinko and F&B needed to adhere the order
It is an obligation over the all in nation that they adhere the orders of government. The
main reason behind the setting up of government is to build the regulations that will govern the
activities of individuals and other institutions. The main purpose behind doing such is
safeguarding the interest all individuals in society so nothing bad will happen with them and if
something occurs then they have right to blow voice against the same and ask for legal actions.
This is clear from the above description that the role of government is to run a nation with
maintaining high level of harmony, equality, morality and legality. If anyone not adhering the
regulations of government and suppressing the rights of other, the person has the right to take
legal action. Also, government has the power to penalise the person according to the nature of
their action and provide the justice to another who was actually suffered in overall situation
(Cairney and Yamazaki, 2018).
Similarly, the decision was taken by the governor of Tokyo that following businesses will
not have allowed from the date to continue their businesses on temporary basis for preventing the
spread of corona virus along with safeguarding the lives of all individuals living in society. In
this order, pachinko parlour and F&B outlets also had their names. This brings an obligation
upon both including the all who were named by government that do not operate their businesses
till the next order of government and provide support in the activity of stopping corona virus
spread in local areas of city. This order of government has same power as other laws have and
exist in nation. This means if anyone not adhering the same, then government has the power to
take action against the same and penalise for their actions. This action will vary on the nature of
disagreement and negative result upon society. In this regard, government has the power to
detain the person and cancel the license of conducting business activities that resulted into
discontinuation from the effective date of cancellation. So, it is clear from the above description
that it is necessary for all in nation and society to adhere the orders of government specially in
the situation when fighiting against the pandemic that will have worsen impact over economy
and society if cannot be controlled on time. The same was applied over pachinko parlours and
F&B outlets that they focus over adherence of government instructions instead of ignoring and
3

support in the fight against of corona virus spread. The teamwork is the only way that currently
help a nation to get over from the situation through adhering of the all instructions suggested by
government along with those which are compulsory in nature (Ginsburg, 2017).
3. Penalties facing by Pachinko and F&B in case of not adhering the orders of government
It is an obligation upon all to adhere the instructions of government otherwise have to face
the negative consequences. This is not specifically for some persons or institutions. All have to
adhere the instructions as they were opposed by the government authorities.
After announcing the shut down of some particular businesses, some owners of the
pachinko parlour not adhered the decision and open their parlours. This was the direct ignorance
of government instructions and avoiding the measures that will help in prevention of corona
virus spread in local community. Similarly, if some F&B outlets will be identified that ignoring
the instructions of government and not adhering the orders, then both Pachinko and F&B going
to face the negative consequences due to the charge of ignoring government orders and spreading
the corona virus in local community (Ogden and et al., 2017.).
Here, government decided to send the owner of business or the one who violate the
instructions, in imprisonment or charge the fine and in some special case will announce both.
Here, the time period of imprisonment and amount of fine depends over the nature and impact of
activity. The another negative impact they have to face from the government side will be
discontinuation of their business activities in association with all the charges defined above.
So, it is clearly suggested to all along with the owners of pachinko and F&B outlets that adhere
the instructions and order of government and never perform any act that will have negative
impact over their business or personality. Currently, this is the time when everyone has to come
together and fight against the outbreak of corona virus. This is the only one option that will help
all of us to come back from the negative impact of pandemic and further living healthy normal
life (Lin, Liou and Chou, 2020).
4. Does Pachinko and F&B have right of asking compensation for loss of business
No, pachinko and F&B are do not having any right to ask for the compensation of loss in
business. This is so because government already made the arrangement regarding providence of
fund to those who close their business up to the amount of million yen. Here, 1 million yen was
provided to those who close down their two or more outlets and those who just shutting down the
4

one getting the amount of 500000 yen. So, in such case Pachinko and F&B have not right to ask
for the compensation from the government.
Also, the shutdown was done by government for the benefit of society because if the virus
start spreading in local community the situation will go out of control and from where not
possible for anybody to recover. In this situation, the consequences become more worsen where
both kind of losses will be faced health and wealth. So, shutting down with financial aid from
government was the best option that government can do from their side in direction of preventing
and maintaining the lives of individuals in society (Fitriasari and Kawahara, 2018).
CONCLUSION
It has been concluded from the above report that there is huge need regarding adherence of
government instructions because they have the main work related to regulation of nation and
society. Government of a nation has the duty to formulate the laws and regulations for governing
the activities of individuals and institutions with the aim of safeguarding the interest of all. They
work with the aim of dispersing humanity and equality in all over the society. Similarly, in the
current situation of pandemic, instructions and order of government are equivalent to the
regulations which are needed to adhere by everyone irrespective to the negative influence over
business or daily routine activities. This obligatory in nature because this was doing by all for the
safeguard of life of all in nation and society. In case, anyone not adhering the orders then they
have face the negative consequences in form of penalties and imprisonment.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Huang, C. Y. and Law, D. S., 2016. Proportionality review of administrative action in Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, and China. In Comparative Law and Regulation. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Schumacher, K., 2019. Approval procedures for large-scale renewable energy installations:
Comparison of national legal frameworks in Japan, New Zealand, the EU and the
US. Energy Policy. 129. pp.139-152.
Ohnesorge, J. K., 2019. Western Administrative Law in Northeast Asia: A Comparativist's
History. Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper, (1518).
Cairney, P. and Yamazaki, M., 2018. A comparison of tobacco policy in the UK and Japan: if the
scientific evidence is identical, why is there a major difference in policy?. Journal of
Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 20(3). pp.253-268.
Ginsburg, T., 2017. Written constitutions and the administrative state: on the constitutional
character of administrative law. In Comparative administrative law. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Ogden, B. E. and et al., 2017. Laboratory animal laws, regulations, guidelines and standards in
China Mainland, Japan, and Korea. ILAR journal. 57(3). pp.301-311.
Lin, M. X., Liou, H. M. and Chou, K. T., 2020. National Energy Transition Framework toward
SDG7 with Legal Reforms and Policy Bundles: The Case of Taiwan and Its Comparison
with Japan. Energies. 13(6). p.1387.
Fitriasari, D. and Kawahara, N., 2018. Japan investment and Indonesia sustainability reporting:
an isomorphism perspective. Social Responsibility Journal.
6