Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan

Japan: Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) was 3 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
3 DB17-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
96th
of 191 countries
All-time high
3 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
All-time low
3 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan, 2015–2019

01232015201720192015: 3 DB17-20 methodology2016: 3 DB17-20 methodology2017: 3 DB17-20 methodology2018: 3 DB17-20 methodology2019: 3 DB17-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.

Analysis

In 2019, enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan stood at 3 DB17-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over five years.

That places Japan 96th out of 191 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan, year by year

Year DB17-20 methodology Change
2015 3 DB17-20 methodology —
2016 3 DB17-20 methodology +0.0%
2017 3 DB17-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 3 DB17-20 methodology +0.0%
2019 3 DB17-20 methodology +0.0%

Japan compared with similar countries

  • Japan's 3 DB17-20 methodology is below the median for high income countries, which is 3.5 DB17-20 methodology, 86% of the median. (62 countries reporting)
  • Japan's 3 DB17-20 methodology is above the median for East Asia & Pacific, which is 3 DB17-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (28 countries reporting)

Countries ranked near Japan

  1. 96 Bangladesh 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  2. 96 Indonesia 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  3. 96 Russia 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  4. 96 Algeria 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  5. 96 Bahrain 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  6. 96 Barbados 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  7. 96 Benin 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  8. 96 Brunei 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  9. 96 Burundi 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  10. 96 Central African Republic 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  11. 96 Chile 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  12. 96 Comoros 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  13. 96 Costa Rica 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  14. 96 Cyprus 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  15. 96 Djibouti 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  16. 96 El Salvador 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  17. 96 Eswatini 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  18. 96 Fiji 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  19. 96 Ghana 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  20. 96 Greece 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  21. 96 Guatemala 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  22. 96 Honduras 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  23. 96 Hungary 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  24. 96 Israel 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  25. 96 Italy 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  26. 96 Kiribati 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  27. 96 Latvia 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  28. 96 Malta 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  29. 96 Marshall Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  30. 96 Nepal 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  31. 96 Netherlands 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  32. 96 New Zealand 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  33. 96 Paraguay 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  34. 96 Puerto Rico 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  35. 96 Senegal 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  36. 96 Seychelles 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  37. 96 Solomon Islands 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  38. 96 Tanzania 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  39. 96 Thailand 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  40. 96 Togo 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  41. 96 Trinidad and Tobago 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  42. 96 Vanuatu 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  43. 96 Vietnam 3 DB17-20 methodology compare
  44. 96 Zimbabwe 3 DB17-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 191 places →

More reference data data for Japan

All data for Japan →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan?
Enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan was 3 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Japan?
The highest recorded value was 3 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Japan?
The lowest recorded value was 3 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Japan rank for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5)?
Japan ranks 96th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Japan data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan. Statizoid. Retrieved 29 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-court-structure-and-proceedings-0-5-db17-20-methodology/japan/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-court-structure-and-proceedings-0-5-db17-20-methodology/japan/">Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Japan</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets is available; (iv) whether new cases are assigned randomly and through an automated system to judges; and (v) whether a woman’s testimony in court carries the same evidentiary weight as that of a man's. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.