iriaiken

Iriaiken, the Japanese right of common. It reaches back to the periods before Meiji (wiki ). 'Iriai' literally means “to enter collectively”. 'Iriaiken' is therefore “the right to enter collectively.”

Iriaiken refers to the collective ownership of non-arable areas: mountains, forests, marshes, bamboo groves, riverbeds, offshore fisheries. Villagers had to observe rigid regulations, but were allowed to collect wood, edible plants, medical herbs, mushrooms, and more.

The extent of an iriaiken was linked to the existence of several villages, not an individual one! This "federation of villages" was considered as an (one) entity for ejecuting and enjoying this right of common, which was jealously guarded. An iriaiken could not be divided up among villages.

There were various types of iriaiken, according to different types of ownership. The most common type (collective ownership of an area by the inhabitants of several neighbouring villages) was called mura-mura-iriai.

Another customary right of similar socio-economic importance was the right to use hot springs (onsen-ken). In comparison with the iriaiken, awareness of the economic importance of this right was slow to develop (springs as health spas and tourist attractions). However, in 1948 a Hot Spring Law was passed, recognizing as onsen only those hot springs that could comply with certain standards (temperature, mineral composition), fixed by the government.

During the Edo Period (wiki ) there had been different forms of collective ownership (sòyù), joint right (gòyù) and joint ownership. In the late 19th century, the New Legal Code adopted the principles of the Roman Law and at the same time acknowledged as a rule of custom the right of common. The iriaiken was recognized as having the nature of joint ownership in modern japanese law.

Scholars attribute this legal respect for customs to the fact, that "the iriaiken itself did not represent a homo-geneous institution, applicable all over Japan. There were several types of iriaiken, depending on regional difference, which were too difficult and diverse to be unified in one or even several binding provisions." (Marutschke)

Even today there are special commissions and complex decision making processes to deal with problems of iriaiken; i.e. standards have not yet been unified

However, conflict between a customary law system and a modern property law introduced through the Meiji Restoration wiki , was foreseeable. Especially with the recognition of private ownership of land and the conferring of land titles to protect the properties of legitimate title holders.

An example is the impact iriaiken-philosophy had on the context of matsutake production. In villages with joint ownership complex "Whole Bidding Systems" for the benefit of the community were in place. Documents from around 1900, when the village bidding systems were first developed state, that those who don’t have matsutake-yama should still enjoy the profit from the matsutake - underlying philosophy of iriai seems to permeate the traditional bidding process.

Now, in every bidding process there is a winner, who usually...:

The clash of conceptions led to the preferential treatment of those holding any form of legal documentation, and consequently the rejection of the approved customary rights of the iriaiken, with problematic results. The WHOLE Bidding System was turned into a Partial Bidding System, undermining irikaien philosophy. In cases such as Kanegawachi, the increased emphasis on private ownership rights to matsutake didn’t contribute to the promotion of habitat improvement - which was one of the main arguments used.

Today, much iriai land has been converted to suburbs, golf courses, and the like.