This paper analyzes the Japanese legal responses to COVID-19. Japan did not declare the state of emergency on the constitutional level. In addition, it did not enact a new law and instead amended existing statutes several times to cope with the situation. The paper first introduces provisions of the Novel Influenza Act and Infectious Diseases Acts provisions before and after the February 2021 amendments. The remarkable feature of the Japanese countermeasures was the focus on non-coercive measures. There is no compulsory scheme to ensure “staying at home” for general residents. Regarding the facility managers, the NIA provided for the public announcement of non-compliance of the “recommendation” to ensure effectiveness. The legal nature of such public announcements is disputed in Japanese administrative law. The February 2021 amendments added the possibility of issuing an order whose effectiveness was guaranteed by administrative fines. This paper analyzes the traditional emphasis of “administrative guidance” in Japan and proposes hypotheses as to why open non-compliance cases of facility managers are observed. Concerning patients, prior to the February 2021 amendment, the IDA provided for the problematic legal figures of “recommendation” and “immediate execution”. The Feb. 2021 amendment, which added administrative fines, made the legal figure more complex. COVID-19 countermeasures have highlighted the difficulty of legal control when public behavior change is a policy goal. We must proceed by trial and error and accumulate knowledge regarding legal regulations or governmental messages that effectively affect public behavior. In the process, we should embrace the basic principles of constitutional democracy, such as the democratic legitimacy and accountability of government decisions and the principle of the rule of law. Simultaneously, we must remember that infectious disease control is a matter of human rights and discrimination, especially considering the unfortunate history of infectious disease control in Japan.

本文分析了日本对 COVID-19 的法律反应。日本没有在宪法层面宣布紧急状态。此外，它没有制定新的法律，而是多次修改现有法规以应对这种情况。论文首先介绍了 2021 年 2 月修订前后的《新型流感法》和《传染病法》的规定。日本反制措施的显着特点是注重非强制措施。没有强制性计划来确保普通居民“待在家里”。对于设施管理人员，NIA 规定了不遵守“建议”的公告，以确保其有效性。这种公告的法律性质在日本行政法中存在争议。2021 年 2 月的修正案增加了发布命令的可能性，该命令的有效性由行政罚款保证。本文分析了日本传统上对“行政指导”的重视，并提出了为什么会观察到设施管理人员公开违规案例的假设。关于患者，在 2021 年 2 月的修正案之前，IDA 规定了“推荐”和“立即执行”的有问题的法律数字。2021 年 2 月的修正案增加了行政罚款，使法律数字更加复杂。当公共行为改变是政策目标时，COVID-19 对策凸显了法律控制的难度。我们必须通过反复试验，积累有关有效影响公众行为的法律法规或政府信息的知识。进行中，我们应该拥护宪政民主的基本原则，例如政府决策的民主合法性和问责制以及法治原则。同时，我们必须记住，传染病控制是一个人权和歧视问题，特别是考虑到日本传染病控制的不幸历史。