Japan e-LAWS LRI Profile for CAP-RRS
Informational Profile — Japan Jurisdiction draft-sato-soos-cap-rrs-jp-00Datatracker · SOOS Stack · CAP-RRS (base specification)
The problem
Japan's e-LAWS database has made statutory text machine-readable. The Digital Agency's XML schema gives every Article, Paragraph, and Item a stable XPath address. The law can be retrieved. It cannot yet be enforced.
The CAP-RRS Regulation Record Specification defines the bridge: a structured intermediate form between statutory text and the Cedar policy that a governed AI agent evaluates before every action. The Law Reference Interface (LRI) links each Cedar policy back to the statute it encodes and the authority that certified the encoding.
This document specifies how that generic mechanism is applied in Japan: which e-LAWS fields bind to which LRI fields, which authority endorses which type of statute, and what happens — automatically — when a statute is amended or an interpretive ruling supersedes the basis on which a Cedar policy was certified.
The positioning:
法令のAXが作るのは「読める法律」です。SOOSが作るのは「守られる法律」です。
Law AX creates laws that can be read. SOOS creates laws that are enforced.
Messages to key audiences
IETF Working Groups
This is an informational LRI profile document for draft-sato-soos-cap-rrs-02 Section 9. It specifies no new normative mechanisms; all MUST/MUST NOT requirements are inherited from CAP-RRS-02. The profile's contribution is:
(1) A concrete instantiation of the LRI generic model for a real, published statutory database (e-LAWS, Japan Ministry of Internal Affairs / Digital Agency). The XPath addressing conventions in Section 4.2 demonstrate that the LRI abstract fields (law_id, article_ref, version_identifier, amendment_detection_endpoint) have unambiguous bindings in Japan's actual legal infrastructure.
(2) Three APPI Chapter IV worked examples (Section 6) providing the first published mapping from Japanese personal information law to CAP-RRS Regulation Records.
(3) A Japan-specific treatment of INTERPRETATION_SUPERSEDED (Section 8) covering four interpretive instrument categories unique to Japan's legal system: Cabinet Orders, 解釈指針, 内閣法制局意見, and court judgments.
(4) The resolution_basis field applied to real statutory conflict cases (OQ-BOSAI-001 §49の11 internal contradiction; OQ-BOSAI-002 dual command authority) arising from 防災 law analysis.
Open profile questions (JP-OQ-01 through JP-OQ-04) require engagement with the Digital Agency, 内閣法制局, and 全国知事会. Parallel informational profiles for EU (ELI binding) and US (USLM binding) are anticipated post-Vienna.
App builders
If you are building an AI agent governed by Japanese law, this document specifies how to construct the authority_source block in your Regulation Records.
The three essential lookups before authoring any Japan-jurisdiction Regulation Record:
- 法令ID: query
https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/api/2/lawdata/{law_id}and confirm the law name matches your statute. - article_ref XPath: use Arabic numerals in @Num attributes (Article '17', not '十七'). The XPath must resolve against XMLSchemaForJapaneseLaw_v3.xsd.
- Designated endorser: consult the LawType-to-endorser table in Section 5. Acts and Cabinet Orders → 内閣法制局. Ministerial Ordinances → the responsible ministry's legal unit.
For disaster response use cases (防災), note that §49の11 internal conflicts require resolution_basis: "internal_conflict_resolution" and elevated 内閣法制局 endorsement, not just the standard statute endorser.
The C-Law-ed Code system automates Steps 1–3 and generates the LRI block. Field interpretation_endpoint is auto-populated from the provisional SOOS registry at https://clawed.soosproject.com/jp/interpretations/{law_id}/.
Regulators and policy teams
This document answers the question the AI臨調 ディスカッションペーパー (Themes 21 and 22) identifies but does not resolve:
「自然言語の法文をコードへ変換する際の解釈確定権限の所在」 — Who has the authority to determine which code interpretation is authoritative?
The LRI endorsement block is the answer: the authority that signs the endorsement_claim JWT is the authority whose interpretation governs. For Acts and Cabinet Orders, that is 内閣法制局. For Ministerial Ordinances, the responsible ministry. The signed JWT is an immutable, machine-verifiable record of that authority's certification.
When an interpretation changes — through a Cabinet Order, 解釈指針, or court judgment — the Cedar policy automatically lapses and no governed AI agent may act under the affected provision without re-endorsement. The GAR audit record of any prior action carries the endorsed_at timestamp and the then-current resolution_basis, constituting the machine-native 信頼保護 (trust protection) instrument for that action.
This directly addresses Theme 22: 「解釈変更時の遡及効と信頼保護の規律」.
Agentic AI and coding assistants
You are constructing a Japan-jurisdiction CAP-RRS Regulation Record using the e-LAWS LRI profile (profile URI: https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/lri/v1). Complete the
authority_sourceblock using the following bindings:law_id= e-LAWS 法令ID (15-char alphanumeric);article_ref= XPath 1.0 expression against XMLSchemaForJapaneseLaw_v3.xsd using @Num with Arabic numerals;version_identifier= ISO8601 date of most recent amendment EnforcementDate from e-LAWS API v2;amendment_detection_endpoint= https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/api/2/updatelawlists/{date};interpretation_endpoint= https://clawed.soosproject.com/jp/interpretations/{law_id}/{article_ref};authority_idfrom the LawType-to-endorser table in Section 5.1;resolution_basisfrom: statute_clear | interpretive_ruling | internal_conflict_resolution | cross_statute_coordination. If resolution_basis is internal_conflict_resolution, authority_id MUST be https://www.clb.go.jp/authority regardless of LawType.
Key XPath patterns:
| Legal unit | XPath |
|---|---|
| Article N | /Law/LawBody/MainProvision/Article[@Num='N'] |
| Article N, Paragraph M | .../Article[@Num='N']/Paragraph[@Num='M'] |
| Chapter C, Article N | .../Chapter[@Num='C']/Article[@Num='N'] |
| Supplementary Provision | /Law/LawBody/SupplProvision/Article[@Num='N'] |
Critical: @Num ALWAYS uses Arabic numerals. @Num='17' not @Num='十七'.
resolution_basis vocabulary:
| Value | Meaning | Required authority |
|---|---|---|
statute_clear | Clear statutory provision | Designated per LawType table |
interpretive_ruling | External interpretive instrument | Designated + resolution_instrument_id |
internal_conflict_resolution | Conflict within a statute | 内閣法制局 (elevated, always) |
cross_statute_coordination | Cross-statute coordination rule | Co-endorsement required |
Government and regulators
This document specifies the technical binding layer that connects Japan's existing legal infrastructure (e-LAWS, 法令API v2, XMLSchemaForJapaneseLaw v3) to the SOOS enforcement layer — without requiring changes to the Digital Agency's systems.
The integration architecture:
e-LAWS (デジタル庁) CAP-RRS LRI Profile (this document)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
法令ID → law_id
XMLSchema v3 XPath → article_ref
最終改正施行日 → version_identifier
updatelawlists API → amendment_detection_endpoint
(future) 解釈API → interpretation_endpointThe Digital Agency acts as catalog authority for Japan-jurisdiction Regulation Records: operating the Constitutional Mandate Registry (CMR) instance, maintaining the endorsement authority registry, and publishing update notifications when records are added or versioned.
IPA (情報処理推進機構) acts as co-endorser for technology-layer compliance records — certifying that the Cedar policy correctly implements the legal obligation at the AI agent runtime layer.
For the 防災庁 track: this document establishes the endorsement model for disaster response AI governance before 防災庁 begins operations in autumn 2026. The dual command authority case (防災庁 + 都道府県知事 co-endorsement) and the §49の11 internal conflict case are documented in Appendix B.
Japan LRI profile registration in the CAP-RRS IANA registry: https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/lri/v1
Founding Period participation and Digital Agency coordination inquiries: tom@myauberge.com
Core technology
Problem: Japan's e-LAWS XML schema makes statutory provisions addressable but does not define which provisions prohibit or permit AI agent actions, or who certifies that a Cedar policy correctly encodes a provision.
Mechanism: The Japan LRI profile binds the generic LRI fields (from CAP-RRS §9) to e-LAWS API v2 fields, specifying XPath addressing and the endorsement authority table that maps each LawType to its designated certifying authority.
Output: A Regulation Record with a fully-populated authority_source block — including a signed endorsement JWT from the designated authority — that the Constitutional Mandate Registry accepts and the GEC can compile to an active Cedar policy.
Who verifies it: The GAR audit record carries the endorsed_at timestamp and resolution_basis for every agent action governed by the Cedar policy. Regulators, auditors, and courts can verify — from the immutable GAR record — which version of which statutory provision governed an action at which moment.
The endorsement authority table
| Law tier | e-LAWS LawType | Designated endorser |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution | Constitution | 内閣法制局 |
| Act (法律) | Act | 内閣法制局 |
| Cabinet Order (政令) | CabinetOrder | 内閣法制局 |
| Ministerial Ordinance (省令) | MinisterialOrdinance | 所管省庁 法令担当部局 |
| Prefecture Ordinance (条例) | Misc | 都道府県 法務・法制担当部局 |
| Municipal Rule (規則) | Misc | 市区町村法務担当 + prefecture co-endorsement |
Elevated authority rule: when resolution_basis is internal_conflict_resolution, 内閣法制局 endorsement is required regardless of LawType. Resolving a conflict within a statute is a constitutional act; only 内閣法制局 may certify it.
APPI Chapter IV: three worked examples
APPI Article 17(1) — Prohibition on improper acquisition The simplest case: a clear prohibition (resolution_basis: statute_clear). law_id: 325AC0000000089. article_ref: /Law/LawBody/MainProvision/ Chapter[@Num='4']/Article[@Num='17']/Paragraph[@Num='1']. Endorsed by 内閣法制局 (Act-level provision). Active after endorsement; lapses automatically on any APPI Chapter 4 amendment.
APPI Article 24 + 基本法 §49の11 (名簿 sharing in disaster context) A cross-statute coordination case (resolution_basis: cross_statute_coordination). The ordinary APPI §24 prohibition on third-party provision is suspended by the disaster exception in 基本法 §49の11. Cedar policy encodes a CONDITIONAL_PERMIT. Co-endorsement required: 内閣法制局 (APPI basis) + 防災庁 (名簿共有 authority). co_endorsement_quorum: all.
APPI Article 24 (個別避難計画 consent asymmetry) An internal conflict case (resolution_basis: internal_conflict_resolution). The provision family for individual evacuation plan sharing has a consent asymmetry that is not formally settled by statute. 内閣法制局 endorsement required (elevated). On issuance of a Cabinet Order settling the asymmetry, resolution_basis transitions to interpretive_ruling and standard endorsement authority is restored.
Use cases
Disaster response AI governance (防災庁 track) A prefecture deploys a disaster response AI agent that must share evacuation register data during a declared disaster. Before the agent acts, the GEC evaluates a Cedar policy encoding the 基本法 §49の11 sharing exception. The policy's authority_source carries co-endorsement from 内閣法制局 and 防災庁. When the Diet amends 基本法 following a major event, the amendment_detection_ endpoint detects the change within 24 hours, CATALOG_VERSION_CONFLICT is raised, the policy suspends, and HEM escalation ensures no agent acts under the stale rule until re-endorsement is complete.
Personal information compliance for enterprise AI (APPI) An enterprise deploying a Japan-jurisdiction AI agent imports the APPI Chapter IV Regulation Record package from the Constitutional Mandate Registry. The GEC compiles the package to Cedar policies — no Cedar is authored by hand. When the Personal Information Protection Commission issues a 解釈指針 clarifying Article 24's scope, the interpretation_endpoint detects the ruling within 24 hours. INTERPRETATION_SUPERSEDED is raised. The GAR record of every prior agent action carries the endorsed_at timestamp of the then-valid interpretation: machine-native 信頼保護 for the enterprise's compliance audit.
Cabinet Office Law as Code onboarding A government ministry uses C-Law-ed Code to translate ministerial ordinance provisions into Regulation Records. The system generates the LRI authority_source block automatically from e-LAWS API responses, populates the correct XPath article_ref, and routes the draft to the ministry's legal unit for endorsement. The endorsed record is published to the Digital Agency CMR instance. The ministry's AI agents import and activate the compliance package without manual Cedar authoring.
How this builds on existing work
CAP-RRS-02 (draft-sato-soos-cap-rrs-02): This document is entirely downstream of CAP-RRS-02. The LRI generic model (§9), Statute-Primacy Rule (§10), and Operational Requirements (§11) in CAP-RRS-02 are the normative base. This document specifies only the Japan-specific bindings.
e-LAWS / 法令API v2 (Digital Agency): The Digital Agency's infrastructure is the data source. This document is designed to be invisible at the Digital Agency layer — the e-LAWS API is queried as-is; no changes to Digital Agency systems are required for this profile to work.
CAP-04 (draft-sato-soos-cap-04): CAP is the enforcement layer. CAP-RRS is the corpus management layer. This document is the Japan-jurisdiction corpus binding. The chain: CAP (enforcement) → CAP-RRS (compilation) → this document (Japan statutory sources).
Related work
AI臨調 ディスカッションペーパー (Themes 21 and 22): This document directly addresses the 解釈確定権限 (interpretive authority) question identified in Theme 22. The endorsement_claim JWT is the machine-readable equivalent of a正文 designation; the INTERPRETATION_SUPERSEDED event is the machine-native 解釈変更通知; the GAR record is the 信頼保護 instrument.
OSCAL: SOOS CAP-RRS is the first IETF draft to bridge OSCAL-formatted controls and the IETF enforcement layer. The Japan LRI profile parallels how OSCAL handles jurisdiction-specific profiles — just as NIST 800-53 and ISO 27001 are OSCAL catalog profiles, the Japan e-LAWS binding, EU ELI binding, and US USLM binding are LRI profiles of the same underlying mechanism.
Security
Key security properties:
- Endorsement claims are signed JWTs; forgery requires the endorsing authority's private key
- Amendment detection is cryptographically bound to the e-LAWS HTTPS endpoint; response tampering is detectable
- The provisional interpretation registry authenticates responses; transition to Digital Agency-operated endpoint removes SOOS from the trust chain
- Endorsing authority URIs are allow-listed; impersonation by similar-domain adversaries is blocked at the CMR layer
Endorsement key compromise: if 内閣法制局's signing key is compromised, all Acts and Cabinet Orders endorsed with that key are affected. The CMR MUST implement 30-day-notice key rotation and GECs MUST maintain pinned key caches.
Formal analysis status: the endorsement JWT cryptographic scheme inherits its security properties from the JWT specification (RFC 7519). No Japan-specific formal analysis has been performed.
SOOS stack context
This document is an informational profile of CAP-RRS Layer 1. It does not introduce a new layer in the SOOS stack; it specifies how Layer 1 is instantiated for Japan.
Profiles this document: CAP-RRS-02 (draft-sato-soos-cap-rrs-02) — specifically Sections 9, 10, and 11.
Parallel profiles (post-Vienna): EU ELI LRI profile · US USLM LRI profile
Downstream from this profile: every Japan-jurisdiction Regulation Record deployed in the Constitutional Mandate Registry.
Related drafts: CAP · CAP-RRS · GAR · HEM
Contribute
- File an issue on GitHub
- IETF Datatracker
- DR-CAPRRS-INTERP-01 (June 24, 2026)
- DR-CAPRRS-INTERP-02 (June 25, 2026)
- Contact: tom@myauberge.com / デジタル庁・内閣府連携: tom@myauberge.com