Japan

CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to our external reviewers, Mikiko Otani and Masako Ichihara, for their insightful comments on a draft of this report. CRIN also sent a draft version to the State for feedback and any comments received were taken into account in finalising the report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.

This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.

All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.

I. National legal protections

A. Are environmental rights protected within the national constitution?

Under the Constitution of Japan (“the Constitution”), there is no clause that expressly stipulates “environmental rights”.¹ However, in the academic world, the concept of environmental rights is generally accepted as one of the personal rights (jinkakuken) derived from the right to pursuit of happiness (Article 13 of the Constitution), or as part of the right to live (Article 25 of the Constitution).

Unfortunately, no national courts have rendered a decision finding that “environmental rights” per se are protected by the Constitution. This is because it is generally considered that the “environment” is a concept in respect of public interest, which is not attributable to an individual.²

We are not aware of any aspects that are specific to children in the above discussions.

B. Have constitutional rights protections been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues?

No national courts have applied constitutional rights protections with regards to environmental issues.

It is worth noting that there are court precedents where claims against specific infringement of personal environmental rights were made as part of the personal rights (jinkakuken) derived from the right to pursuit of happiness (Article 13 of the Constitution), or where personal environmental rights were asserted in the context of tort.³ Personal rights (including rights to life, bodily integrity, and health) are now commonly used in civil law as a legal foundation to safeguard various aspects of individual wellbeing.⁴ For instance, the Nagoya District Court accepted personal rights as grounds for tort claims related to air pollution but rejected arguments based on environmental rights, stressing the importance of protecting human life and health.⁵ This established view of personal rights as a means to protect physical health is widely recognized by the judiciary and is often referred to as traditional or physical personal rights to distinguish them from newer concepts like the right to a peaceful life.⁶ The ‘right to a healthy and peaceful life’ (a new form of the right to a peaceful life which has increasingly been acknowledged, particularly by lower courts, in cases involving air and water pollution) and ‘the right to a stable climate’ have been invoked in climate litigation.⁷ The right to a peaceful life protects many different interests and is recognised both in academia and jurisprudence as to be derived from personal rights. But protection is given to more subjective claims, such as the fear of health risks and emotional distress.⁸ For example, there was a request for compensation related to the voluntary evacuation following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station incident and a request for an injunction or a change in the operation of certain facilities, such as waste disposal plants.⁹ No court has rendered a decision in favor of admitting a right in relation to the environment under any private law to date:

• Sendai Citizens v Sendai Power Station.¹⁰ The first climate litigation case in Japan was initiated by citizens in Sendai who sought to halt the operation of the newly built Sendai Power Station, a coal-fired plant, citing concerns over health and environmental impacts. Despite gathering nearly 48,000 signatures and forming a committee in 2016, the plant began test operations in 2017. That same year, 124 citizens filed a lawsuit based on tort law, invoking rights to life, health, bodily integrity, and a peaceful life. However, claims related to greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity were withdrawn due to lack of legal precedent (right to biodiversity was not an established right), and the remaining claims were rejected by the courts. Still, the District Court acknowledged the company's social responsibility to engage with the community.

  ---

• Citizen’s Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v Kobe Steel Ltd., et al (civil).¹¹ In Kobe, citizens opposed the construction of two planned coal-fired power plants by forming a committee with support from experts and environmental groups, aiming to prevent global warming and air pollution. Despite attempting mediation with the operator, construction began during the process. In September 2018, 40 citizens filed a civil lawsuit against the companies involved, asserting traditional tort claims related to life, health, and bodily integrity, along with newer claims concerning the rights to a peaceful, healthy life and a stable climate. However, in March 2023, the Kobe District Court rejected their request to halt the project, and the case was subsequently appealed. In April 2025, the Osaka High Court dismissed the claim, mostly upholding the lower judgement.

  ---

• Citizen’s Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v Japan and Yokosuka Climate Case.¹² Two administrative law complaints were filed against the Japanese government (one in Kobe and one in Yokosuka) challenging the approval of coal-fired power plants. Citizens argued that the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry had illegally issued a final notice to Kobe Steel for its EIA report, which did not duly consider the cumulative impact of CO2. Gaining legal standing proved difficult, as Japanese courts view climate change as a public interest issue not subject to individual claims. Both the Kobe case and the Yokosuka case ended when the Supreme Court declined to hear them.

C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied within national courts? If yes, in what circumstances?

No, there is no case in which a national court applied the concept of intergenerational equity.

As a side note, as a matter of literal interpretation of the Constitution, intergenerational equity can be protected by the Equality Principle in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 states that “[a]ll of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.”¹³ The Supreme Court clarified that social status means a position that a person occupies for a certain period.¹⁴ The word “social status” can be interpreted broadly, including age. Future generations are also included in the foreword of the Constitution.

In 2024, 16 young people from Japan filed a case in the Nagoya District Court against 10 thermal power companies claiming an injunction against CO2 emissions based on the scientific standards.¹⁵ Although the concept of “intergenerational equity” was not specifically mentioned, they argued that to ensure that young people across Japan live in the future, electric power companies must decarbonise, demanding that the defendants implement the emissions reductions set by science.¹⁶ The case is pending.

D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review in the national legislature?

The following list summarises some of the existing legislation:

1. Basic Environmental Act¹⁷
2. Air Pollution Control Act¹⁸
3. Act Concerning Special Measures against Dioxins¹⁹
4. Noise Regulation Act²⁰
5. Vibration Regulation Act²¹
6. Offensive Odor Control Act²²
7. Soil Contamination Countermeasures Act²³
8. Water Quality Pollution Control Act²⁴
9. Act for Promotion of Recycling and Related Activities for Treatment of Cyclical Food Resources²⁵
10. Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures²⁶
11. Act on Rational Use and Proper Management of Fluorocarbons²⁷
12. Act for the Recycling of Specified Kinds of Home Appliances²⁸
13. Act on the Rational Use of Energy²⁹ (also referred to as the “Energy Conservation Act”)
14. Sewerage Service Act³⁰
15. Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Act³¹
16. Act for the Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources³²
17. Act on the Promotion of Sorted Garbage Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging³³
18. Act concerning the Promotion of Procurement of Eco-Friendly Goods and Services by the State and Other Entities (also referred to as the “Act on Promoting Green Procurement”)³⁴
19. Act for Enhancing Motivation of Environmental Conservation and Promoting of Environmental Education.³⁵

    ---

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) published three exposure drafts to mandate ESG disclosures, which are currently under discussion:

The Ministry of the Environment has expressed support for the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and is encouraging its adoption domestically.³⁷ Furthermore, concerning the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Ministry of Justice's research and guidance report, focusing on how companies should respond to “business and human rights” issues, includes “human rights issues related to the environment and climate change.”³⁸

Further legislation is available on the Government of Japan’s Ministry of Environment website.³⁹

E. Is there any specific national policy addressing childhood exposure to toxic substances? If so, what is considered a safe level of exposure and what is the process for determining safe levels of exposure?

Laws, policies and related initiatives, although not all of them specifically address children exposure to toxic substances, can be classified as follows:

1 - Chemical substance regulations and environmental measures. These are laws to prevent harm to the general public, including children, by controlling emissions of harmful substances and managing their concentrations in the environment.

• Chemical Substance Control Law (CSCL)⁴⁰
• Air Pollution Control Law⁴¹
• Water Pollution Control Law⁴²
• Soil Contamination Countermeasures Law⁴³
• Response to the Minamata Convention on Mercury⁴⁴
• Act on Promotion of Support Measures for the Lives of Disaster Victims to Protect and Support Children and Other Residents Suffering Damage due to Tokyo Electric Power Company's Nuclear Accident⁴⁵

2 - Product safety regulations which control harmful substances in products children routinely come in contact with to ensure safety.

• Food Sanitation Act.⁴⁶ Sets leaching and usage standards for heavy metals and specific chemicals (e.g., phthalates) not only in food but also in toys and utensils, containers, and packaging that infants and young children come into contact with. Examples include restrictions on chemical use in specific toys designed to be put in the mouth by infants and young children.
• Household Goods Quality Labeling Act and Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).⁴⁷ Aims to prevent accidents and protect children's health by regulating the content of harmful substances in household goods and consumer products and mandating safety labeling.

3 - Measures in living environments like schools. Environmental hygiene standards are established for facilities where children spend time in groups.

• School Health and Safety Act.⁴⁸ These standards set concentration limits for specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like formaldehyde, toluene, and xylene in school classrooms and other environments. It also specifies ventilation and inspection methods to protect children's health from issues like sick building syndrome.

4 - Accumulating Findings Through Research. Large-scale surveys are also conducted to gather scientific evidence forming the basis for policy development.

• Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS).⁴⁹ This long-term birth cohort study, tracking approximately 100,000 parent-child pairs, aims to clarify the effects of environmental factors like chemical substances on children's health, both during pregnancy and childhood. The findings should inform future policies.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government has Guidelines for Children on Chemical Substances in place, acknowledging that existing policies “may not have sufficiently addressed children and the exposure routes and health effects to which they are uniquely vulnerable”.⁵⁰ The Guidelines cover paint, indoor air, plant pesticide spraying and food and were developed together with campaign initiatives targeting product manufacturers, residents and administrators of facilities.⁵¹

F. Is the country equipped with pollutant release and transfer registers? If yes, do these registers take into account child specific factors regarding the substances for which data is gathered and the type of data generated?

Japan has a Law concerning Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (“PRTR”) established under the Act on Confirmation, etc. of Release Amounts of Specific Chemical Substances in the Environment and Promotion of Improvements to the Management Thereof (also referred to as the “Chemical Substances Management Act”).⁵² Under the PRTR system, every business operator that handles any “Class I Designated Chemical Substances” is required to notify the government of the amount of such chemical substances that they have released into the environment or have transferred to certain locations contained in waste.⁵³ The system also requires the government to disclose not only a tabulation of the data of which notification was submitted by the business operators, but also the estimated amounts of chemical substances that are assumed to be released from entities other than the business operators concerned.

No child specific factors regarding the substances for which data is gathered could be identified.

G. Does the State assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues?

No, the Japanese government does not assert extra-territorial jurisdiction.

II. Accessing courts

A. How can environmental cases be brought before national courts?

Environmental cases brought before national courts can be roughly divided into two types: (i) civil cases and (ii) administrative cases. However, criminal cases are also possible.

There are two categories of claims alleged in civil cases: (i) claims for damages based on torts and (ii) civil injunctions. There is a third and a fourth category of claims made in administrative cases: actions for the judicial review of administrative dispositions (kokoku sosho) and lawsuits against local governments by citizens.⁵⁴

Actions for the judicial review of administrative dispositions (kokoku sosho) are actions to appeal against the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency, and include the following:

State redress is considered as a special regulation of civil tort.⁵⁹

B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?

Standing to sue is mainly questioned in Actions for the Judicial Review of an Administrative Disposition (kokoku sosho).

Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act (“ACLA”) provides that “[a]n action for the revocation of an original administrative disposition may be filed only by a person who has legal interest to seek the revocation of the original administrative disposition”.⁶⁰ Such “legal interest” used to be interpreted narrowly. However, an amendment to the ACLA in 2004 broadened the extent of standing to sue by adding Article 9, Paragraph 2, which provides:⁶¹

“When judging whether or not any person has the legal interest prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the court shall not rely only on the language of the provisions of the laws and regulations which give a basis for the original administrative disposition, but shall consider the purposes and objectives of the laws and regulations as well as the content and nature of the interest that should be taken into consideration in making the original administrative disposition. In this case, when considering the purposes and objectives of said laws and regulations, the court shall take into consideration the purposes and objectives of any related laws and regulations which share the objective in common with said laws and regulations, and when considering the content and nature of said interest, the court shall take into consideration the content and nature of the interest that would be harmed if the original administrative disposition was made in violation of the laws and regulations which give a basis therefor, as well as in what manner and to what extent such interest would be harmed.”

In a lawsuit brought to the court by landowners seeking to revoke an approval of an underground roadway project, the Supreme Court issued a judgment dated November 25, 1999, which affirmed standing to sue the landowners of the project site, but denied standing of nearby residents.⁶²

In contrast, in a Supreme Court judgment dated December 7, 2005, the court took the view that the standing to sue is granted to " residents living in the vicinity of the project site of the city planning project who are likely to directly suffer significant damage to their health or living environment due to noise, vibration, etc. as a result of the implementation of the project" and recognized standing to sue of residents who did not have rights to the real property on which the city planning project was situated.⁶³

Further, the Tokyo High Court’s judgment dated May 20, 2009 stated a view that (i) the purpose and objective of the Industrial Waste Disposal Law is to prevent damage to the health or living environment of residents living in the surrounding area of an industrial waste disposal facility, and to preserve a good living environment and (ii) residents living in the vicinity of the industrial waste disposal facility who are likely to directly suffer significant damage to their health or living environment due to the emission of substances harmful to the human body as a result of the establishment of the industrial waste disposal facility have a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the permission for such facility.⁶⁴ The court therefore ruled that persons who lived 3 km away and used groundwater pumped from wells for domestic use had standing to bring an action to revoke the permission for the facility.⁶⁵

Notwithstanding these decisions, however, the courts are still reluctant to grant standing to sue to residents' groups, environmental protection groups, and similar groups which represent the common interests of groups of people, in cases where the interests infringed by an administrative disposition can be broadly regarded as common interests of local residents or other broad groups.⁶⁶ Further, there is no class action system in these types of cases.

C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?

With regard to the rules of standing, there is no difference between adults and children. However, since children do not have the capacity to sue, their procedural acts are invalid unless they are represented by a statutory agent.⁶⁷

D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of toxic exposure?

In cases of a claim for damages based on a tort, in principle, the burden of asserting and proving each requirement of tort liability is on the plaintiff.⁶⁸ However, it is often difficult for victims to determine the source and the route of pollution, and to determine the connection between pollution and damage.⁶⁹ On the other hand, the company that is the source of the pollution usually has sufficient information on the matter, and it is often easy to gather evidence.⁷⁰ Thus, there is an argument for easing the burden of proof for plaintiffs (victims) in order to help victims in proving a causal relationship.⁷¹

For example, in the case of pollution, there is a legal presumption of causation. If a person releases a harmful substance in the course of business activities at a level that could, by itself, endanger public health, and people in the surrounding area face that same kind of danger, the law assumes the person caused the danger, unless the person can prove otherwise.⁷² It is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove a considerable degree of probability of the existence of a causal relationship and if the defendant fails to prove the absence of a causal relationship, the existence of the causal relationship can be recognized. However, the lower courts have ruled that "a high degree of probability" is necessary as a general theory, because the theoretical basis for why the degree of proof should be reduced to only a “considerable degree” for pollution is unclear.⁷³

On the other hand, judicial precedents have used "epidemiological causation" as a method of easing the burden of proof on the victim, while still recognizing the need for proving a "high degree of probability”. As an example, the Tsu District Court, Yokkaichi Branch, issued a judgment dated July 24, 1972, in which it held that, the following four requirements need to be fulfilled in order for a factor to be epidemiologically a cause of a certain disease: (i) the factor acts a certain period of time before the onset of the disease, (ii) the greater the degree to which the factor acts, the greater the incidence of the disease becomes, (iii) the incidence of the disease decreases when the factor is removed, and the incidence of the disease is extremely low in a population without the factor, and (iv) the mechanism by which the factor acts as a cause can be explained in a biologically consistent manner.⁷⁴

In addition, there have been cases in which the burden of proof has been reduced by shifting it to the defendant in civil injunction claim cases and actions for the revocation of an original administrative disposition. As an example, the Supreme Court issued a judgment dated October 29, 1992, in a lawsuit for revocation of a license for the establishment of a nuclear reactor.⁷⁵ In that judgment, the court held that, although the plaintiff should bear the burden of proving that there are unreasonable points, in consideration of the fact that all the materials related to the safety review of the reactor facility are held by the defendant administrative agency, the defendant administrative agency must first assert and prove that there is no unreasonable point in the decision by it based on reasonable grounds and materials.⁷⁶ The court further held that, if the defendant does not thoroughly assert and prove this, then it is de facto presumed that there is an unreasonable point in the decision made by the defendant.⁷⁷ In addition, subsequent civil court cases influenced by the Supreme Court’s ruling also state that the defendant should first prove that there is no lack of safety by showing reasonable grounds and submitting necessary materials (and, if the defendant fails to do so, the lack of safety will be presumed de facto).

There are also (i) cases which held the view that the plaintiff must first prove the concrete possibility of the occurrence of infringement to a considerable extent, and then the defendant must prove that there is no high probability of the occurrence of infringement, or (ii) cases in which the causal relationship is divided and the defendant bears the burden of proof regarding part of it.

E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?

Broadly speaking, there are different rules in cases where damages are sought and cases where the legality of an administrative disposition is challenged.

In the case of a claim for damages based on a tort or a claim for state compensation based on the State Compensation Law, the right to claim is extinguished, in principle, if (i) "the right is not exercised within three years from the time when the victim or legal representative thereof comes to know the damage and the identity of the perpetrator" or (ii) "the right is not exercised within 20 years from the time of the tortious act".⁷⁸ However, in the case of a "claim for compensation for loss or damage for death or injury to person caused by tort," the period in item (i) above is extended to "five years from the time of knowledge".⁷⁹

As for an action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition, the statute of limitations rules state that no action for the revocation of an administrative disposition may be filed “when a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person who seeks revocation became aware of the fact that the original administrative disposition or administrative disposition on appeal was made” or “when a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the original administrative disposition on appeal”.⁸⁰

F. Is legal aid available in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?

In 2004, the Comprehensive Legal Support Act was passed, which aims to establish a comprehensive legal support framework that improves access to courts and legal services, and sets out the principles and institutional structure, centered on the Japan Legal Support Center, needed to deliver that support.⁸¹

The Japan Legal Support Centre provides civil legal aid “for any and all civil cases, domestic relations cases, and administrative cases to be handled in civil procedures”, provided that the person requesting such aid meets the specified criteria: their financial ability (income and asset) cannot exceed a certain threshold, there has to be a possibility of winning the case, the case has to be compatible with the purpose of civil legal support.⁸²

III. Remedies

A. What remedies are courts empowered to impose in environmental cases?

In Japan, there are various legal measures to deal with environmental issues, including administrative lawsuits for judgments of revocation, injunction, and obligation, depending on the type of a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. In addition, as provisional remedies, it is also possible to file court actions seeking a suspension of execution, provisional injunction, and provisional obligation.

Civil legal remedies include awards of compensation and injunctions. Actual monetary damages are the most common means of remedy, aside from agreed settlements for in-kind compensation and aside from mining damages which can be indemnified by the way of restoration.⁸³ As for injunctions, it is controversial whether the courts have the power to issue an “abstract injunction”, which obligates defendants to cease infringing rights of the plaintiff in general, without specifying a particular activity that must be stopped in order to eliminate situations that can infringe on the plaintiff's rights.⁸⁴

The Pollution-related Health Damage Prevention Program is available under the Act on Compensation for Pollution-related Health Damage.⁸⁵ This program is designed to provide compensation for pollution-related health damage that should be settled via civil lawsuit, and to ensure prompt and fair protection of victims.⁸⁶

Under the program, the equivalent of the cost of compensation benefits and pollution health and welfare services is collected from those who establish smoke-generating facilities or other specified facilities and paid to the prefectures in the areas where health hazards related to pollution occur.⁸⁷

Those who are certified as patients in areas where significant air pollution occurs and diseases such as bronchial asthma occur frequently due to the effects of air pollution (Type I areas) or where diseases that are generally clearly related to pollution-causing substances such as Minamata disease and Itai-itai disease (cadmium-induced renal tubular osteomalacia) occur frequently (Type II areas) can receive compensation benefits such as medical treatment expenses and rehabilitation services from the prefectural government.⁸⁸ Forty-one areas had been designated as Type I areas, but all of these designations were lifted in 1988, and no new patients were certified. Five areas including Nigata, where Minamata disease occurred, and Toyama, where Itai-itai disease occurred, are currently designated as Type II areas.⁸⁹

The Asbestos-Related Health Damage Relief System is available under the Act on Asbestos Health Damage Relief (Act No.4 of 2006).⁹⁰ Under this system, relief benefits such as medical expenses are provided to those who are undergoing treatment for health damage caused by mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestos lung with significant respiratory function impairment, or diffuse pleural thickening with significant respiratory function impairment due to inhalation of asbestos, and to the bereaved family of those who died as a result of these diseases.⁹¹

B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?

Many administrative lawsuits have dealt with various environmental issues by seeking revocation or injunction. One of the most important injunction cases is the Tomonoura World Heritage Lawsuit, where the judge ordered the governor to stop a land reclamation project being undertaken in public waters.⁹² Also, there is a well-known case in which the court ruled that the governor was obliged to take action against a certain business that was improperly disposing of industrial waste.⁹³

As for civil lawsuits, numerous court precedents have ordered monetary compensation as tort damages.⁹⁴ In this connection, we note that the courts tend to consider claims for damages projected to occur in the future as strictly restricted.⁹⁵ With respect to abstract injunction actions, the outcome depends heavily on the nature of each litigation.⁹⁶ Such “abstract” injunctions are much rarer than injunctions regarding cessation of specific activities which have been awarded in several cases, and are the subject of some degree of legal controversy as noted above.⁹⁷

C. Are there any administrative authorities empowered to act on environmental complaints and if so, how are they empowered to respond to complaints?

In addition to judicial remedies by courts as above, the government has established an Environmental Pollution Disputes Resolution System pursuant to the Act on the Settlement of Environmental Pollution Disputes.⁹⁸

Based on this system, there are two avenues in Japan for dealing with environmental disputes – (i) the Environmental Dispute Coordination Commission established by the Japanese government, and (ii) the Prefectural Pollution Review Boards established by each prefectural government.⁹⁹ Aside from these institutions, each local government has its own Pollution Complaint Desk.¹⁰⁰

IV. Civil and political rights

Freedom of peaceful assembly

A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected in national law?

The right to freedom of assembly is guaranteed by Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution in Japan, and under such provision, there is no explicit distinction between such rights enjoyed by adults and children.¹⁰¹

B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?

There is no difference between adults and children as to the right to engage in assemblies. For example, regarding engagement in demonstration marches, the Road Traffic Act requires a permit from the government, though there is no explicit age limitation for applying for such a permit pursuant to relevant rules.¹⁰²

However, there are some limitations on children’s engagement in assemblies from a guardianship perspective. For instance, the procedures required for the use of community halls for assemblies are set forth in the local ordinances of each local government. These ordinances differ from locality to locality. For instance, there seems to be no age limit in Okegawa City,¹⁰³ while in Kawagoe City only people who are elementary school students or older can register to use the community hall (and it seems that elementary school students need to be accompanied by their parent/guardian).¹⁰⁴

C. What penalties can be imposed on children for engaging in school strikes?

No regulation could be found in Japan for imposing penalties on children for engaging in school strikes. However, we note that according to a notice from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, every school is required to provide an appropriate guidance “when a student's enthusiasm for political activities etc. is deemed to interfere with his/her or other students’ schoolwork or their life or when it is deemed to interfere with the smooth implementation of school education due to political conflicts among students”.¹⁰⁵ Thus, a student engaged in a school strike could be a target of student “guidance”, depending on the specific policies of the school, prefecture or other relevant locality.

Freedom of expression

A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Freedom of expression is expressly guaranteed by Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, there is no explicit distinction between the freedom of expression of adults and children.¹⁰⁶

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?

There is no fundamental rule or argument that restricts the freedom of expression of children in general. However, there are individual laws and case law that allow for restrictions on the freedom of expression of children in certain cases.

For instance, local governments at the prefecture level stipulate ordinances for protection of youth. These ordinances, depending on the content, may restrict freedom of expression of certain topics by youth, such as on social media or on the internet.

In respect of case law, the Kojimachi Junior High School school-report case is known as a precedent about freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of expression.¹⁰⁷ In this case, the fact that a student had conducted political activities in school was recorded on the school reports, and as a result, such student was denied admission by all of the high schools they had applied to. However, the court concluded that the fact that the teachers had recorded the student’s activities in the school report was not in violation of any of the student’s rights. This case is considered as one of the leading precedents in relation with a student’s political activities in school.

On 29 October 2015, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology issued a notice in relation to political activities conducted by high school students, in the context that the minimum age requirement for the right to vote had been lowered from 20 years old to 18 years old.¹⁰⁸ Until this notice was issued, political activities by high school students inside and outside school were not recommended. Under the new 2015 notice, it is now understood that high schools are not expected to restrict or prohibit their students’ political activities outside school unless the activities are deemed to be violent, illegal or disturbing the students’ proper learning at school. For political activities in school, schools have broad discretion in general.

Freedom of association

A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Freedom of association is explicitly guaranteed by Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, there is no explicit distinction between the freedom of association of adults and children.¹⁰⁹

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?

In relation to certain circumstances, there are individual laws and case law that allow for restrictions on the freedom of association of children.

For instance, in relation with electoral activities, children are prohibited from campaigning political candidates or parties in accordance with Article 137-2 of the Public Offices Election Act.¹¹⁰ This is because children are not eligible to vote because of immaturity, and the right to engage in campaigning is considered comparable.

In addition, under Article 6 of the Civil Code (Act No.89 of April 27, 1896),¹¹¹ children and young people under 20 years old need the consent of their legal representative to perform a juridical act, unless it is for merely acquiring a right or being released from an obligation. This means that a child has certain limitations on their choice if the right to association includes performing a juridical act, such as executing contracts which include performing any obligations by the child.

Access to information

A. How is children’s right to access information protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

The right to access information is guaranteed by Article 21 paragraph 1 of the Constitution as part of freedom of expression.

In addition, Article 3 of the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs (Act No. 42 of May 14, 1999) provides that " any person may […] request the head of an Administrative Organ […] the disclosure of Administrative Documents held by the Administrative Organ concerned" and does not exclude children from persons who have the right to request disclosure.¹¹²

The national and local governments, private bodies and corporations shall “willingly disclose information on the encouragement of willingness for environmental conservation, and other information concerning environmental conservation, to facilitate the participation of citizens and private bodies etc. in activities concerning the encouragement of willingness for environmental conservation and other environmental conservation activities”.¹¹³

Article 3 of the Comprehensive Legal Support Act requires the government to enhance and strengthen how legal information is provided.¹¹⁴ This includes not only information needed to use courts and legal procedures, but also clear information about lawyers, legal professionals, and bar associations, so that people can access the law and resolve disputes promptly and properly.¹¹⁵

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?

Regarding legal limitations, Article 15 of the Act on Establishment of Enhanced Environment for Youth's Safe and Secure Internet Use obliges internet service providers on mobile phones to implement a filtering service when the contractor of the mobile phone is a minor under 18 years old.¹¹⁶

Also, each local government (prefecture, city and district level) provides ordinances in relation to information disclosure by such local government and those can restrict the right to request disclosure to children only from a certain age, such as 15 years and above.

In relation to case law, the Gifu prefecture youth protection ordinance case (Supreme court judgement dated 19 September 1989) is a leading case in which the Gifu prefecture’s ordinance prohibiting the selling of adult books in vending machines was judged not in breach of Article 21 paragraph 1 of the Constitution on the grounds of the sound development of youth.¹¹⁷ The court considered that the right of children to access information can be restricted as compared to adults, because the full right to access information is designed to be provided to a person who has the knowledge, information and ability to filter the appropriate information for themselves.¹¹⁸

C. Does the national curriculum for schools include environmental education?

According to the Law for Enhancing Motivation on Environmental Conservation and Promoting of Environmental Education, the state “shall make efforts to formulate and implement basic and comprehensive measures for the encouragement of willingness for [...] the promotion of environmental education”, including the formulation of the basic policy to this end.¹¹⁹ This law further adds that “[t]he state, prefectures, cities, towns and villages shall take necessary measures to promote environmental education within school education and social education [...], according to their physical or mental developmental stages”.¹²⁰

The New Courses of Study (implemented from 2011) states as one of the general goals in relation to environmental education within the curriculum in elementary, middle and high schools to "cultivate morality as the basis for nurturing Japanese people who have the initiative to contribute to environmental conservation and are future oriented".¹²¹ Based on these general goals, specific educational goals are set for each grade level and subject. The relevant subjects vary and include social studies, science, life environmental studies, home economics, health and physical education and others. For example, in the high school curriculum for social studies, “learning of global environment and resource/energy issues in the context of politics and economics in the international community” is listed as one of the aims.¹²²

End notes

¹ The Constitution of Japan, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/174.

² Y. Watanabe et al., Constitution (Kenpō) I: Fundamental Rights (Kihonken) 123 (2016).

³ Gaku Nishikawa, Japanese Climate Litigation and the Development of Personal Rights, 7(2) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 214–26 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340106.

⁴ Gaku Nishikawa, Japanese Climate Litigation and the Development of Personal Rights, 7(2) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 214–26 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340106.

⁵ Id.

⁶ Id.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Miki Ishimori, Rights-Based Approach to Nuclear Damage Compensation: Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Revisited, 2 Yearbook of International Disaster Law 341, 354 (2019); Tadashi Otsuka, Heion Seikatsu Ken to Kenrihōeki Songai [平穏生活権と権利法益侵害], 30 Quarterly Jurist 106, 107–08, 112 (2019), cited in Gaku Nishikawa, Japanese Climate Litigation and the Development of Personal Rights, 7(2) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 214–26 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340106.

¹⁰ Sendai Citizens v. Sendai Power Station, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sendai-citizens-v-sendai-power-station/.

¹¹ Kobe District Court, Complaint, Sept. 14, 2018, Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd. et al. (Kobe Complaint) 4–5, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/citizens-committee-on-the-kobe-coal-fired-power-plant-v-kobe-steel-ltd-et-al_21ad.

¹² Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Japan, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/citizens-committee-on-the-kobe-coal-fired-power-plant-v-japan_4941; Yokosuka Climate Case, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/yokosuka-climate-case_2ff2.

¹³ Supra note 1.

¹⁴ Supreme Court of Japan, Grand Bench, May 27, 1964, Minshū Vol. 18, No. 4, at 676 (Case No. 1310).

¹⁵ Youth Climate Case Japan for Tomorrow, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-climate-case-japan-for-tomorrow/.

¹⁶ Id.

¹⁷ Act No. 91 of 1993, https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/2633.

¹⁸ Act No. 97 of 1968, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3561/en.

¹⁹ Act No. 105 of 1999, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2566/en.

²⁰ Act No. 85 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/air/noise/ch.html.

²¹ Act No. 86 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/air/vibration/ch.html.

²² Act No. 84 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/air/odor/ch.html.

²³ Act No. 53 of 2002, https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452902.pdf.

²⁴ Act No. 138 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/water/wlaw/index.html.

²⁵ Act No. 116 of 2000 (Japanese), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/1461.

²⁶ Act No. 117 of 1998, https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/APGWC.pdf.

²⁷ Act No. 64 of 2001, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3236/en.

²⁸ Act No. 117 of 1973, https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452888.pdf.

²⁹ Act No. 49 of 1979, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/71.

³⁰ Act No. 79 of 1958, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2810/en.

³¹ Act No. 137 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/basel_conv/files/Waste_Management_and_Public_Cleansing.pdf.

³² Act No. 85 of 1999, https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452886.pdf.

³³ Act No. 112 of 1995, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3828/en.

³⁴ Act No. 100 of 2000, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2719/en.

³⁵ Act No. 130 of 2003, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2626/en.

³⁶ SSBJ Issues Exposure Drafts of Sustainability Disclosure Standards to Be Applied in Japan, SSBJ (Mar. 29, 2024), https://www.ssb-j.jp/en/exposure_drafts/y2024/2024-0329.html.

³⁷ About TCFD, TCFD Consortium, https://tcfd-consortium.jp/en/about.

³⁸ Ministry of Justice (Japan), Detailed Version of Responses to “Business and Human Rights” (Oct. 20, 2025) (in Japanese), p. 47, https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001417137.pdf.

³⁹ Environmental Laws and Regulations (Ministry of the Environment, Japan), https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/. See also Otsuka, Naoki, Yoshinobu Kitamura, Yukari Takamura & Ken Shimamura, eds., Basic Environmental Law Compendium (11th ed. 2024) (Japan) (ISBN: 978-4-474-09433-8), which selects 99 laws, for a more extensive list (in Japanese), https://www.daiichihoki.co.jp/store/products/detail/104856.html.

⁴⁰ Chemical Substances Control Law Page (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan), https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical_management/english/cscl/.

⁴¹ Act No. 97 of 1968, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3561/en.

⁴² Act No. 138 of 1970, https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/water/wlaw/index.html.

⁴³ Act No. 53 of 2002, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2038/en.

⁴⁴ Ministry of the Environment (Japan), Lessons from Minamata Disease and Mercury Management in Japan (Sept. 2015), https://www.env.go.jp/content/900415048.pdf.

⁴⁵ Act No. 48 of 2012, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2435/en.

⁴⁶ Act No. 233 of 1947, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3687/en.

⁴⁷ Act No. 104 of 1962, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3935/en; Act No. 31 of 1973, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2804/en.

⁴⁸ Act No. 56 of 1958, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4851/en.

⁴⁹ Ministry of the Environment (Japan), About the Japan Environment and Children’s Study, Japan Environment and Children’s Study, https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/ceh/en/about/index.html.

⁵⁰ Toxic Chemical Substance Countermeasures Section, Environmental Improvement Division, Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of the Environment, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Guidelines for Children on Chemical Substances (International Symposium on Children’s Environmental Health), https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/hs/health03/04.pdf.

⁵¹ Id.

⁵² Act No. 86 of 1999, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/jap47162.pdf.

⁵³ Ministry of the Environment (Japan), Overview of the PRTR System, https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/prtr/about/overview.html.

⁵⁴ Administrative Case Litigation Act（Act No. 139 of 1962), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3781/en.

⁵⁵ Id., Article 3, Paragraph 2.

⁵⁶ Id., Article 3, Paragraph 7.

⁵⁷ Id., Article 3, Paragraph 5.

⁵⁸ Id., Article 3, Paragraph 6, Item1.

⁵⁹ Yoshio Shiomi, Kihon Kōgi Saiken Kakuron II: Fuhō Kōi-hō [Basic Lecture on Obligations Law II: Tort Law] 156 (Shinseisha 2021) (orig. pub. 2005).

⁶⁰ Supra note 54.

⁶¹ Supra note 54.

⁶² Sup. Ct. of Japan, Statute of Limitations Interruption — Construction Contract Price Claim (62804) (Judgment), https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-62804.pdf.

⁶³ ECOLEX, Case to Revoke Project Approval of Consecutive Grade Separation for the Odakyu Line, and Seek Revocation of Other Related Project Approvals, https://www.ecolex.org/details/court-decision/case-to-revoke-project-approval-of-consecutive-grade-separation-for-the-odakyu-line-and-seek-revocation-of-other-related-project-approvals-e947b152-611d-4ed4-8395-621c6f597702/.

⁶⁴ Residents v. Chiba Prefecture, Tokyo High Ct., May 20, 2009 (Japan) (revocation action challenging permit for Ecotech Co.’s industrial waste disposal facility).

⁶⁵ Id.

⁶⁶ Tadashi Otsuka, Environmental Law 75–76 (Yuhikaku 2022) (orig. pub. 2020).

⁶⁷ Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996) art. 31 (Japan), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2834/en.

⁶⁸ Yoshio Shiomi, Fuhō Kōi-hō [Tort Law] 375–76 (Shinzansha 2022) (orig. pub. 1999).

⁶⁹ Id.

⁷⁰ Id.

⁷¹ Id.

⁷² Act on Punishment of Crime to Cause Pollution Harmful for Human Health (Act No. 142 of 1970) (in Japanese), Article 5, https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/345AC0000000142/.

⁷³ Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Oct. 24, 1975, 29 Minshū 9, 1417 (Japan); Shiomi, supra 68, at 378–80 (discussing judicial insistence on kōdo no gaizen-sei and theoretical difficulties in justifying a reduced proof standard for pollution).

⁷⁴ Eri Osaka, Reevaluating the Role of the Tort Liability System in Japan, 26 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law (2015), http://arizonajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Osaka.pdf.

⁷⁵ Supreme Court of Japan, Oct. 29, 1992, 46 Minshū 7, at 1174 (Ikata Supreme Court decision), https://www.courts.go.jp/english/Judgments/search/1399/index.html.

⁷⁶ Id.

⁷⁷ Id.

⁷⁸ Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896), Article 724(1) and Article 724, Item 1 (Japan), https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/CC1.pdf.

⁷⁹ Id., Article 724-2.

⁸⁰ Supra note 54, Article 14, Paragraph 1 and 2.

⁸¹ Act No. 74 of 2004, Article 1, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3233/en.

⁸² Civil Legal Aid (Houterasu), https://www.houterasu.or.jp/site/english/civillegalaid.html.

⁸³ Tadashi Otsuka, Kankyoho 679 (3rd ed: 2010); Article 111, Paragraph 2 of Mining Act (Act No. 289 of 1950), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2441/en.

⁸⁴ Id., Tadashi Otsuka.

⁸⁵ Act No. 111 of 1973, https://www.erca.go.jp/fukakin/seido/gaiyo.html.

⁸⁶ Id.

⁸⁷ Id.

⁸⁸ Id.

⁸⁹ Id.

⁹⁰ Asbestos Relief System — Relief for Asbestos-Related Health Damage (Expert Relief System for Asbestos-Related Health Damage, Japan), https://www.erca.go.jp/asbestos/relief/.

⁹¹ Id.

⁹² Supra note 83.

⁹³ Certified NPO Organisation Setouchi Olive Foundation, About the Teshima Case (English Version Brochure), https://www.teshima-school.jp/_spii/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250110EnglishVersionBrochure.pdf.

⁹⁴ Supra note 83, at 16.

⁹⁵ Supra note 83, at 16.

⁹⁶ Supra note 83, at 16.

⁹⁷ Supra note 83, at 16.

⁹⁸ Act No. 108 of 1970, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3897/en.

⁹⁹ English Portal for Government Services (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan), https://www.soumu.go.jp/kouchoi/english/.

¹⁰⁰ English Portal for Government Services (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan), https://www.soumu.go.jp/kouchoi/english/complaint.html.

¹⁰¹ Supra note 1.

¹⁰² Act No. 105 of 1960, Article77, Paragraph 1(i), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2962; Article10 of Regulations for Enforcement of the Road Traffic Act.

¹⁰³ Okegawa City Website — Public Meetings (in Japanese) (Okegawa City), https://www.city.okegawa.lg.jp/shiminkatsudo/koumin_shukai/index.html.

¹⁰⁴ Kawagoe City Website — Public Facility Information (in Japanese) (Kawagoe City), https://www.city.kawagoe.saitama.jp/shisei/shisetsu/index.html.

¹⁰⁵ Website of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (in Japanese) (MEXT, Japan), https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/seitoshidou/1366767.htm.

¹⁰⁶ Supra note 1.

¹⁰⁷ Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench, July 15, 1988, Hanrei Times No. 675, at 59.

¹⁰⁸ Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Shōtō Gakkō Hakusho [White Paper on Elementary Schools] (in Japanese), archived at https://warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11373293/www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/1363082.htm.

¹⁰⁹ Supra note 1.

¹¹⁰ Public Offices Election Act (Act No. 100 of 1950) (Japan), https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=325AC1000000100.

¹¹¹ Supra note 78.

¹¹² Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs (Act No. 42 of 1999) (Japan), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3765/en.

¹¹³ Article 23.1, Law for Enhancing Motivation on Environmental Conservation and Promoting Environmental Education (Act No. 130 of 2003) (Japan), https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452874.pdf.

¹¹⁴ Act No. 74 of 2004, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3233/en.

¹¹⁵ Id.

¹¹⁶ Act No. 79 of 2008 (Japanese), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/1712.

¹¹⁷ Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Sept. 19, 1989, Sho 62 (A) no. 1462, 43 SAIKŌ SAIBANSHO KEIJI HANREISHŪ [KEISHŪ] 785 (3d petty bench).

¹¹⁸ Id.

¹¹⁹ Act No. 130 of 2003, Articles 5.2 and 7.1, https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452874.pdf.

¹²⁰ Id., Article 9.1, https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452874.pdf.

¹²¹ Website of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (in Japanese) (MEXT, Japan), https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shisetu/013/003/shiryo/attach/1299713.htm.

¹²² Id.

< Back to country reports