과학기술 리스크 대응을 위한 soft law의 법적 함의 - 동경전력 주주대표소송 제1심 판결을 소재로

Legal Implications of Soft Law in Science and Technology

This article offers a detailed legal analysis of the Tokyo District Court’s first-instance judgment in the TEPCO shareholder derivative suit arising from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. The court found that four former TEPCO executives had breached their duty of care by failing to incorporate the Japanese government’s long-term seismic risk assessment into their risk management and operational decisions, resulting in an unprecedented damages award of approximately 13 trillion yen. Notably, the judgment departed from the conventional protection afforded by the business judgment rule, holding that the extraordinary externalities and catastrophic risks inherent in nuclear power require directors to adhere to a heightened standard of care, particularly regarding authoritative scientific knowledge. A central focus of this article is the legal significance of the “principle” as a type of soft law. The court’s reasoning recognized that government-issued scientific assessments ―such as the long-term earthquake evaluation― can function as binding principles for private actors, especially in contexts where hard law is insufficient to address the unique risks and externalities of advanced technologies. Although not formally binding in the sense of hard law, such principles acquire quasi-binding force when promulgated by public authorities and directed at private entities engaged in high-risk activities. The article explores how the court’s approach elevates these principles from mere guidelines to de facto legal standards, obligating corporate directors to integrate them into their decision-making processes. Failure to do so, particularly when the principle is not manifestly unreasonable, may constitute a breach of the duty of care and result in legal liability. The article further examines the broader implications of this approach for the governance of science and technology, arguing that principles as soft law can bridge regulatory gaps in fields characterized by profound uncertainty and externalities. The Fukushima case demonstrates how principles can serve as critical normative benchmarks, shaping judicial expectations and corporate accountability in the management of complex technological risks. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for a nuanced legal framework that integrates scientific expertise, regulatory flexibility, and robust corporate responsibility, particularly in domains where the consequences of failure are irreversible. By highlighting the legal implications of principle as a form of soft law, the article provides a foundation for future legal and policy debates on the intersection of science, technology, and law.