Abstract: This article explores the significance of a transjudicial dialogue on human rights by examining a recent benchmark decision by the Supreme Court of Japan, which held that a provision of the Civil Code allowing for unequal allocation of inheritance between a child born in wedlock and one born out of wedlock was unconstitutional. The Court for the first time consulted the legal reforms of foreign countries concerning the legal status of the child born out of wedlock, which were realized because of the European Convention on Human Rights. At the same time the Court also referred to views and recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning said child’s legal status. The article describes the situation before the 2013 Decision and scrutinizes the reasoning behind this decision, and finally elaborates on two cases where transjudicial dialogue occurs. The Supreme Court’s reference to foreign law and international human rights treaties provides a new sphere where foreign law (comparative constitutional law) and international human rights treaties are hybridized. However, some problems remain before true transjudicial dialogue is possible.
