H 本t: 特:制度:去的分析 = Special Zone Legislations in J apan

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper examines the legal significance of the Special Zone (tokku) legislations that have appeared in Japan since the year 2000. Specifically, this paper wi1l primarily examine five examples of these zones: 1) the Structural Reform Special Zones (2002); 2) the two Special Zones created by the Act on Special Measures for the
Promotion and Development of Okinawa (2002); 3) the Comprehensive Special Zones(2011); 4) the Earthquake Reconstruction Special Zones (2011); and 5) the National Strategic Special Zones (2013) (1 ι Each of these Special Zone Systems is limited to a specific area of Japan and is designed to confer economic benefits; these benefits fall
under the categories of tax exemptions and regulatory exemptions. ln other words, the Special Zone Systems can be divided into three categories: (a) zones that grant tax exemptions; (b) zones that grant exemptions to regulations; and (c) combinations of (a) and (b) (2.).
The legal characteristics of the Special Zones fall under either tax exemptions or regulatory exemptions. Regarding the tax exemptions, legal structures through which the nation provides economic support such as subsidies to specific local public entities or enterprises are not uncommon, but the Special Zones are distinctive in that they are
limited to specific geographic regions and are supported via reductions in and exemptions from national taxes. Regarding the regulatory exemptions, the distinctive legal characteristics of the Special Zones are not found in the fact that they enforce in a specific area regulations that differ from those enforced in other areas, but in the
legal formats and decision processes used (3.1 , 3.2). However, we can also implement such different legal regulations in certain areas through local ordinances. An approach featuring comprehensive legislation that recognized the ability to “ overwrite the law by local ordinances was an alternative to the introduction of Special Zone Systems, but such an approach was not employed. Tn other words, while the Special Zones recognizelocal individuality & distinctiveness, they are at the same time in a certain competitive relationship with the PI’omotion of decentralization through local ordinances (3.3).
Since Special Zones confer economic benefits to certain geographic regions, they pose inevitable tension with the equality principle. Some ideals that could justi한 a type of inequality that gives preferential treatment to a specific area include: 1) regional edistribution, which seeks preferential treatment for areas that face econornic disadvantages due to certain circumstances; 2) positive externalities, where preferential treatment toward a specific region can also confer benefits upon the surrounding areas or the whole of Japan; 3) various ideas or plans from local public entities grounded in “ cognitive leadership ; 4) the creation of a new space for public communication where national agencies and local public entities can hold open debates & discussions on the intemet and make decisions promptly. However, there are differences in the ideals beld the various Special Zone Systems, and even within a single system, there can be tension, even contradictions, between the various ideals at work (4.)