アメリカにおける制定法解釈と解釈原則（1）

This paper examines "canons of construction" in American jurisprudence. Canons of construction are presumptions that judges have traditionally used in interpreting the language of statutes and contracts. The reason why this paper focuses on canons of construction is related to the following recent developments in the United States. First, the U.S. Supreme Court is gradually becoming more and more oriented toward textualism, and one of the interpretive materials that textualism emphasizes is canons of construction. Second, in accordance with the abovementioned trend of the U.S. Supreme Court, legal hermeneutics since the 2000s has shown a tendency to gradually focus on the theory of canons of construction. Third, in response to the above trends in practice and research, a trend toward lectures on canons of construction has been noted in first-year law school education. Fourth, the study of canons of construction is also recognized as significant in the basic study of American administrative law. This paper will organize and examine the second research trend among the above perspectives.
Canons of construction have not received much attention in Japanese public law scholarship. However, canons of construction potentially play an important function in public law interpretation. On the other hand, the theoretical issues of canons of construction are not always well organized. This paper attempts to organize the state of debate in American law and to sketch a basic theory of canons of construction. In the process, it will also show, as a corollary, the strong influence of the faithful-agent model in statutory interpretation methodology.
This paper first reviews what canons of construction are, dividing them into linguistic canons and substantive canons, and presents an empirical analysis of canons of construction (1). Next, after reviewing the basic theories of statutory interpretation methodology (2), the theoretical justification of the canons of construction is examined by dividing them into linguistic canons (3) and substantive canons (4), and some arrangement and discussion are made to conclude the paper (5).