Contenu du sommaire

By virtue of its power to manage the public penitentiary service, the administration has, so to speak, exclusive competence for the conditions of detention. From this observation stems our interest in the control of administrative decisions relating to the adaptation of the enforcement regime to the characteristics of the subject of the act of punishment. Devoted to the guarantees available to convicted persons in the prison section of the process of individualization of the sentence, this study highlights the insufficient protection of the litigants during their prison care, resulting from the lack of apprehension of the specificity of the object of the decisions participating in the differentiation of the act of punishing.

Since 1951-1952 Japan and the United States are linked by the US-Japan Security Treaty and a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), both of which were revised in 1960. These agreements define not only the terms of the strategic cooperation between the two countries, but also the status of the American forces in the archipelago. The existence of these military bases raised a lot of difficulties and issues related to the cohabitation with local communitees, especially in Okinawa where the american military contingent is mostly deployed. The argument of the criminogenic essence of the bases is currently advocated whenever any heinous crime – rape, murder – is committed by a member of the military component, legitimizing claims for bases relocation and the revision of the SOFA as well. Consequently, this article questions the relevance of the extraterritoriality principle underlined by the anti-bases movement, by analysing the legal rules governing the organization and functionning of the criminal liability system applied to foreign militaries, and takes stock of the mixed outcomes of the bilateral negociations for the consolidation and extension of the Japanese jurisdiction over penal cases.