Japan is becoming the new France. While China, India and ASEAN seem to capture the public’s collective attention in the Asian Century, no one is ignoring Japan, which still is at the ‘big table’ in all serious global and regional conversations. Like France, Japan is a key reference point for any comparative study, particularly in respect of law reform.

Since at least Ezra Vogel’s Japan as Number 1 in 1979, it was envisioned that Japan would assume its place as a world superpower, at least in economic terms. In the past decade, however, economic and political stagnation, an ageing society and natural disasters — as well as the rise of China, India and ASEAN—have led to Japan’s retreat at home and abroad. It is now more useful to see Japan as neither a superpower nor a failed superpower, but as an important member of a small group of leading nations that presents a unique and different way of viewing the world, and whose views warrant serious consideration by all. Seen in this way, Japan can certainly be compared to France, a country with neither hubristic self-belief nor a paralysing lack of self-confidence. Seen in this way, Japan, like France, still matters to the global community and is leading from behind in quieter and more innovative ways than it might have at its zenith in the 1980s.

In law reform, Japan leads from behind because its peers acknowledge the strength of its successes in modernisation and development, as well as its emergence in setting the standard. Countries looking to modernise their legal systems naturally look to Japan, as Japan is widely known for the successful incorporation of three influences from foreign legal systems that facilitated modernity in Japan in ways that were unique to the Japanese experience. The first influence, from China’s Buddhist and Mandarin Courts, created the foundations of the modern Japanese state in the 7th century. The second influence was from Europe, when the mid-18th century model and the consideration of its legal structures laid the groundwork for Japan’s current legal framework. The third influence was from America in the immediate post-war period, which added democratising and procedural elements to the Japanese legal system. From the 1970s to the end of the 20th century, Japan’s neighbours saw the legal structures underpinning Japan’s economic success as the most relevant model to follow.

Japan rightfully has taken pride in these developments and ‘led from the front’ through Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), sponsoring law reform in places such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia and Uzbekistan. Impressively, the leaders of this ODA-funded law reform have learned to take a soft approach, using tools such as joint working groups and study committees to consider both Japan’s approach and that of the recipient’s legal tradition to social and institutional challenges.

Though the two ‘lost decades’ have taken much of the shine off the Japanese legal reform model, it would be a mistake not to take its reform history seriously, especially in the light of a fourth set of influences on Japanese law reform in the decade from 1996 to 2005.

In 1996 the so-called Big Bang of financial sector reform was implemented; in 1999 the Justice System Reform Council was formed and subsequently proposed 13 major changes to the legal system, such as introducing a quasi-jury system, reconceptualising legal education and significantly increasing the number of lawyers in the country; and in 2005 the Diet introduced the new Companies Act. As a result, Japan’s legal institutions are in a state of remarkable change—change that puts a higher priority on transparency, legal standards and global norms.

The newly reconstructed Japanese legal system is not just a poor cousin to the US model. Rather, it is a unique Japanese model that is a hybrid to various traditions from across the world. It also reflects the Japanese kaizen philosophy, which calls for ideas to be studied, tested and refined perpetually. This willingness of Japanese law reformers to honour their own traditions and strive for perfection while looking to many other systems for inspiration is a hallmark of the Japanese approach.

Resisting the inevitable calls for a rollback. The changes made at the turn of the century are just starting to yield results. For example, the financial sector looks fundamentally different, foreign investment has increased, and transparency and accountability under clear legal standards has become the norm in courtrooms and in the shadow of the law.

Despite this evidence of the earlier emergence of a new legal environment in Japan, it is difficult to ignore the magnitude of the impact of March 2011’s triple disaster in encouraging a return to the more traditional Japanese values of thrift, modesty and naturalism. These tragedies reinforced the truism that no country can exist without a sophisticated interdependence of both giving to and receiving from other countries.

It might be too early to predict the net effect of the merging of the trend to law reform that embraces adaptation and modernisation, and the predilection to return to traditional values, as seen in response to the disasters of March 2011. But Japan is moving towards a ‘French model’ that is confident in the legal structures that underpin its post-developed economy and the traditional values that make it unique and resilient.

By recognising and valuing these trends, other countries have much to learn from the Japanese experience. Honouring traditional culture without taking away from the legal framework necessary for modern society is something Japan, like France, seems to have achieved in admirable measure.

Kent Anderson is Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) and Professor of Law at the Adelaide Law School, Adelaide University.

Yoshiharu Matsuura is Professor at the Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University.

This article appeared in the most recent edition of the East Asia Forum Quarterly, ‘Japan: leading from behind’.