Comparative Study on the Method of Dealing with Administrative Litigation in Cambodia and Japan

Abstract

The Cambodian Constitution states that the court system is responsible for administrative litigation settlement and compensation claims. When the complaint mechanism requires plaintiffs to file the complaint to the territorial authority, the interest parties or plaintiffs will proceed to the responsible ministries if they cannot resolve the complaint. Plaintiffs then can file a complaint to the court. Judicial review of administrative litigation is still challenging. The problem happens when a judicial system in Cambodia might need to provide complete judicial remedies in dealing with administrative cases in court. Cambodia still needs to consider the issue of the limitation of laws in administrative litigation for fairness and impartial procedure when dealing with administrative litigation. A comparative study of Japanese administration and legal development can be helpful as it justifies the Japanese administrative litigation process, especially regarding remedies. Examining the Japanese system in comparison can provide insights into the effectiveness and fairness of the administrative litigation process and broaden solutions. This comparative approach allows for a better understanding and evaluation of the Japanese model, which can lead to potential improvement or lessons learned for Cambodia. From a comparative perspective, this research explores how Cambodia deals with administrative law remedies, as an incomplete reform could eventually be problematic and delay judicial access. This thesis argues legal reforms incorporating the Japanese approach would benefit Cambodia by enhancing the efficiency of procedure resolution.