本研究は、人の移動に伴う人権の問題を、特に外国人移住労働者とその家族の人権に焦点をあてつつ、人の越境移動をめぐる国際法上の問題、日本の法制度とその運用の問題、地方公共団体の受入れの実情と課題の3分野に分けて、検討することを目的としている。研究期間は3年間で、2019年度は初年度にあたり、また、代表者及び分担者が、法学、社会学など異なる領域の研究者で構成されていることを踏まえて、まず、3分野でどのような課題が存在しているのかについて共通の認識をもつことを初年度の課題とし、各分野から問題の現状と課題について順次報告をしてもらうことにした。2020年度は各領域の中で検討を深める問題を明確にして個別研究を深化させるとともに、国際シンポジウム等を開催して、日本の移住労働者受入れの進展状況とそれに伴い生じてきている国際人権法上の課題を送出国及び受入国の双方の側から分析し、これらをふまえて最終年度に研究成果を著書にまとめるための原稿準備を終えることを計画した。
この基本計画に基づいて、2019年度は、代表者及び分担者が上記3つの領域の中で担当するテーマを割り当てるとともに、各領域において生じている基本的な問題について順次報告を行った。代表者及び分担者が地域的にも関東、中部及び関西在住の研究者により構成されているので、研究は科研費の使用ができる7月以降原則月1回の定例研究会を行うとともに、報告、資料等は共通に利用できる情報基盤を整備するとともに、成果等を公表できるWEBサイトの基盤構築を行った。その上で、3つの領域につき、総計で9回の研究会を開催し、外部から招請した報告者の報告も含めて17本の報告を検討した。完全とはいえないが，これらの基礎的研究報告を受けて、次年度以降の研究の基礎作業を終えることができたと考える。

Authorship：Principal investigator 

Grant amount：\2860000 （ Direct Cost: \2200000 、 Indirect Cost：\660000 ）

This research aims to analyze the legality and legitimacy of the mandates of the UN human rights treaty bodies, in conjunction with the effectiveness of procedures provided by the UN human rights treaties, from broad and multifaced perspectives such as domestic implementation of the treaties, institutional design of the procedures and so forth.
Discussions at the UN General Assembly or UN Human Rights Council are relatively inactive since the Covid-19 pandemic, but it is to be noted that the Meetings of the Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies have taken the initiative for discussion on possible new modality of State reporting procedure from the effectiveness and strengthening of human rights treaty bodies.

Authorship：Collaborating Investigator(s) (not designated on Grant-in-Aid) 

The research focuses on the interface of "internationalization of constitutional law" and "constitutionalization of international law” in the sphere of human rights implementation in order to establish a new theory on human rights protection system which is more effective and efficient. The research observes positive interactions between comparative constitutional law and international human rights law at the interface, where dynamics of two phenomena ( "internationalization of constitutional law" and "constitutionalization of international law”) has a potential to build a more effective and efficient system for human rights protection. The useful features of the system are pluralistic, circulatory and non-hierarchical.

Authorship：Collaborating Investigator(s) (not designated on Grant-in-Aid) 

In this study, we tried to draw an overall picture of the situations in the UN Human Rights Council. The mechanism of thematic mandates falls into inflationary situations. Partly because various and numerous thematic items make the discussion out of focus, NGOs’ participation in the meetings of the Council decreases compared with those of the predecessor Commission on Human Rights. The media and NGOs are paying little attention to the Council, and thus it does not occupy a prestigious status in political sense.
Although some progress is found in the Universal Periodic Review, which is highly inter-governmental process, such elements in the Council mainly contribute to curbing initiatives by NGOs and individual experts. We should observe, however, possible future evolution of intergovernmentalism.

アジアでは、東南アジア諸国連合(ASEAN)が2012年にアセアン人権宣言を採択したものの、地域的人権条約の締結が早期に実現する目処は立っていない。そのため、アジアにおいて国際人権保障を実現するためには、第一に、国際人権規約など普遍的人権条約の履行がアジア諸国において適切に行われるよう確保することが最も重要な課題となる。また、第二に、国連改革の一環として2006年に創設された国連人権理事会が実施する普遍的定期審査(UPR : Universal Periodic Review)が、アジア諸国における人権状況の改善に貢献するよう確保することも、同様に重要な課題である。
そこで、本研究では、アジアにおける上記の課題に対応する形で、第一に、各委員会の活動に関する調査を通して、国別に国際人権条約の履行状況に関する調査を行い、各国の人権水準と課題を分析した。最終年度にあたる2016年度は、自由権規約委員会の第114会期・115会期・116会期・117会期・118会期における活動の成果と課題について検討を行った。さらに、韓国とネパールの最新の政府報告書審査をとりあげ、各国における自由権規約の履行状況を検討した。この他、モンゴル(社会権規約委員会)、韓国(女子差別撤廃委員会)、ブルネイとイラン(児童の権利委員会)の最新の政府報告書審査を取り上げて分析を行った。
また、第二に、作業部会報告書をはじめとするUPR関連文書の調査を通して、アジア諸国が抱える国際人権保障一般に関する課題を明らかにし、多様なアジア諸国に共通する国際人権保障上の課題を分析した。2016年度は、トルコ、ベトナム、マレーシアの3ヵ国(1月末時点)の審査についての報告と分析を行った。
この他、国連人権高等弁務官事務所より実務家を招聘して、国連人権理事会の状況及び実務的な課題について議論を行った。

Authorship：Principal investigator 

Grant amount：\4160000 （ Direct Cost: \3200000 、 Indirect Cost：\960000 ）

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties (article 46(1)). Alongside, the provision articulates supervision of execution of judgments by the Parties concerned (article 46(2)-(5)). This reinforcement consists of judicial and political aspects. The question remains, however, what is legal basis of the obligation to execute of judgments “with the specified measures”. The obligation has been developed with the biding of judgments and the existence of supervisory functions. Some Parties have difficulties in executing judgments, and it may lead to spoil credibility to the machinery for implementation under the ECHR.

Authorship：Collaborating Investigator(s) (not designated on Grant-in-Aid) 

In Europe, the Human Rights Convention, European Union (EU) and national legal order constitute a “constitution” with sense of sharing a common set of values and strong institutional connection. In this “constitution”, no hierarchical structure exists since neither Convention nor EU occupies the top of the order.
Internally, the Human Rights Court seeks to exercise control over national orders in a value-neutral way, for tensions between European standards and national constitutional tradition. The principle of proportionality is thus generalized. On the other hand, strong integrity in European standards is rather emphasized toward “outside”. “Absolute” nature of freedom from torture is secured in the context of non-refoulement principle.

Authorship：Coinvestigator(s) 

In terms of "juridictionalisation" of international law, this research focused on the international courts and tribunals, which are now expanding in international society in its number and quality. As a result, the following points have been clarified; (1) realisation of international law through litigation, (2) evolutive interpretation of treaties in litigation, (3) dispute settlement and realisation of interests by litigation, (4) creation of case law by a lot of cases and the expansion of foreseeability of law. Furthermore, by analysing the Whaling case between Australia and Japan, it has been clarified that the litigation theory is needed to be combined with the litigation strategy and diplomatic policy.

Authorship：Collaborating Investigator(s) (not designated on Grant-in-Aid) 

In the fields where the relevant domestic law system already exists, some inovative interpretation would be indispensable to adjust the existing structure of law system. In general, Japanese courts tend to avoid such efforts, simply to declare non-applicabilty of international legal norms. Nevertheless, hard tension with the existing system of law leads some of judges to adopt rather evoltive interpretation, and such judicial precedents are, to some extent, relevant to recent reforms for effective imprementation of international law through legislative measures. In sum, we cannot attribute main responsibility to judges for ineffective implementation of international law. we should pay more attention to behavors of Cabinet and Diet at the time of adhesion to international treaties

Authorship：Principal investigator 

Grant amount：\1690000 （ Direct Cost: \1300000 、 Indirect Cost：\390000 ）

In the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system, the High Contracting Parties have made efforts to implement the judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to secure general measures of remedies for the sake of victims. It seems, however, that the States Obligation to secure such general remedies has not been based on any decisive legal grounds. This research concludes, for the present, the obligation has been developed with the binding of judgments and the existence of supervising functions on implementation of them (e.g., the Committee of Minister of the Council of Europe and the ECtHR), rather than with the principles and norms of stateresponsibility.

The Human Rights Council, established in 2006 as a reform to improve the UN systemfor promotion and protection of human rights, introduced the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR would monitor human rights situations of all UN Member States in four-year cycle in order to enhance the universality and the objectivity of human rights protection. This research has focused on examining the effectiveness of the UPR. In addition, considering that one of the aims of the UPR is to help to increase the ability of each Member State for implementing international human rights standards, this research alsoanalyzes specific ways of improving such ability.

Authorship：Collaborating Investigator(s) (not designated on Grant-in-Aid) 

Harmonization of the Human Rights Norms in Europe is developed in a multi-layered structure. The norms and instances coexist on the level of Europe and in each country. The European instances are somehow authoritative but not appellate bodies for those of the states, while both of them are not perfectly autonomous. The multi-layered structure may and does provide flexible solutions to the various issues connected with the current globalized world and multi-cultural societies. Such structure is and tried to be preserved by various measures such as the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and regime and its reforms relating to the execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.