[ADRN Working Paper] Direct Democracy’s History and Trends in Mongolia
編集者ノート
In this ADRN Direct Democracy Research group’s working paper, Tamir Chultemsuren, co-founder and Chairman of the Board of the Independent Research Institute of Mongolia, finds that direct democracy in Mongolia is highly limited; mechanisms for direct voting are narrow in scope and unused. However, if one interprets “direct democracy” more broadly as direct public participation, Mongolia has implemented several direct democratic mechanisms, including deliberative polling, protections on the right to information, and pathways?like petitions?allowing citizens to voice concerns. Chultemsuren summarizes the history and shortcomings of these mechanisms, providing specific recommendations for their improvement. Finally, Chultemsuren introduces the ongoing debate over democracy and direct democracy in Mongolia. Though the environment in Mongolia is favorable to direct democracy, he argues, Mongolian democracy has regressed in recent years due in part to external factors, including COVID-19 and economic dependence on China, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and declining support for democratic values from Western organizations.
Although hailed as a democratic outlier in Central Asia, if we consider the essence of direct democracy to be ‘direct voting,’ Mongolia remains a country with limited space for direct democracy.[1] Since Mongolia’s democratic transition in the 1990s, no referendums have been held, citizens’ initiatives are rarely considered, and demands for recalls are disregarded. Institutional mechanisms of direct voting are lacking. Therefore, this working paper examines the institutional mechanisms of direct democracy defined more broadly as public participation, rather than solely direct voting.
Institutional Mechanisms of Direct Democracy
Mongolia has been making progress in institutionalizing mechanisms of direct democracy since its democratic transition in 1990. The first democratic Constitution of 1992 includes three articles that have bearing on direct democracy. Since then, legal reforms have been undertaken to establish and strengthen democracy in Mongolia. During the early stages of reform in the 1990s, foundational laws such as the Law on People’s Referendums of Mongolia (1995) and the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (1997) were ratified. The 2010s saw another surge in direct democracy initiatives through the ratification of laws promoting government transparency, citizen participation, and participatory budgeting. Notable legislation includes the Law on Information Transparency and Right to Information (2011); the Integrated Budget Law, which allows direct citizen participation in local development funds (2013); the Glass Account Law (2014), which requires transparency of the state budget; the Law on Citizens Halls; and the Law on Deliberative Democracy (2017), which allows Mongolia to exercise various direct democracy mechanisms. This section elaborates on the current implementation of these mechanisms, challenges faced, and changes and reforms needed.
Right to Information
The 2011 Law on Information Transparency and Right to Information (Law on RTI) requires all government organizations (judiciary, parliamentary, executive, and sub-national) to maintain transparency in operations, human resources, budgets, and procurement. The law specifies methods, timelines, and standards of information transparency to facilitate citizens’ access to information and ability to provide feedback and comments to the government. The Independent Research Institute of Mongolia (IRIM) has engaged in regular monitoring of the implementation of the law and documented the gradual improvement of transparency across organizations. Yet, the lack of timeliness, availability and relevance, and user-friendly information persist[2] (IRIM 2021). The 2016 Law on State and Official Secrets has constrained the progress that can be made through the RTI Law and, according to a CIVICUS analysis, “allows virtually all information to be classified as a state or official secret, leading in some cases to the prosecution of journalists exposing corruption” (CIVICUS 2020).
In 2021, laws on public information transparency and the protection of personal information were approved by the Parliament. The laws allow for establishing and using open data and improved mechanisms of information transparency and access to information, but only for information that is not classified as secret. However, as mentioned in the 2022 BTI index, “the new law allows the government to define the scope of state secrets.” Per The Globe International, the number of documents or portions of documents classified as a ‘state secrets’ in Mongolia increased from 60 in 2017 to 565 in 2019, indicating a serious setback for the right to access information (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2022).
Petitions, Comments, and Complaint Mechanisms
The 1995 Law on Resolving Petitions and Complaints of Citizens to State Organizations and Public Officials was a significant step forward in formalizing the political participation of citizens. The law aimed to ensure the right of every citizen to receive a response and proposed solution to their problems, offering four mechanisms for participation: petitions, proposals, notices, and complaints. The law has been revised several times. In 2003, improvements in registering and tracking the status of citizen complaints were introduced, and in 2009, articles were added to guarantee that those who lodged a petition or complaint would receive a final response and resolution. In 2016, additional clarifications were issued regarding how to handle cases of disagreement with the government response and how to address higher-level organizations and officials.
Despite these updates to the law, several further changes and reforms are needed. First, the period to respond to a petition or complaint should be shortened to meet the needs of the public in the digital information era. The current law specifies that “a petition or a complaint shall be resolved within 30 days of its receipt,” “this period may be extended for up to 30 days,” and “a response to a petition with the nature of a proposal shall be provided within 90 days.” Second, there should be clarity and criteria about the meaning of “resolve.” Current practice considers a problem “resolved” when a written response has been provided (Myagmartsooj 2013). Third, the distinction between the four types of feedback–petitions, proposals, notices, and complaints—should be revised to meet international standards, and the process for resolving them should be clearly mapped out. The lack of clarity surrounding the definition of these main concepts has resulted in a poor registration and reporting system nationwide, which in turn has affected the ability to engage in adequate planning.
In 2012, the Parliament[3] established a Standing Committee on Resolving Petitions and Complaints for the first time. In 2016, the Committee received upwards of 3,000 petitions and complaints. In 2018, 1,233 complaints/petitions were received from 7,231 citizens, of which 9.2% reflected issues pertaining to the public interest (State Great Khural Committee on Petition 2018).
The Standing Committee is an important mechanism of direct democracy and accountability, as it can form working groups, initiate public hearings, appoint analysts to conduct further investigation, or submit an inquiry from government officials and organizations. However, the current Parliament does not have a dedicated Standing Committee on Petitions and Complaints (State Great Khural 2020).
Referendums
Article 24 of the Constitution of Mongolia (1992) specifies regulations surrounding people’s referendums, and the Law on People’s Referendums of Mongolia (1995) specifies that only the president, government, or parliament (with at least one third of members voting in favor) have the right to initiate national referendums. This law has several drawbacks. First, it restricts the right of citizens to initiate a referendum. Second, it lacks clarity on what preconditions must be met to initiate a referendum. Third, there are strict limitations on repeating referendums if needed, making it difficult to use the national referendums due to their irreversible nature. For example, a resolution of a referendum can only be amended if at least three quarters of the Parliament vote in favor, and within to five years for a referendum that had a clear majority and two years for a referendum that did not have a clear majority. Fourth, the cost of organizing a referendum is equivalent to that of a general election (Chultemsuren 2007). As a result, following its adoption, the law was amended just once (in 2016), and not a single referendum has been held thus far.[4]. Although no substantial changes were introduced in 2016, the Law on People’s Referendums was amended to make it consistent with the Law on General Elections, which uses automated election systems. The Constitutional Amendment in 2019 introduced a clause relating to referendums, stating, “Mongolia shall not allow any attempt to negate its independence and territorial integrity and prohibits a referendum for this purpose.”
Deliberative Polling
The Mongolian Law on Deliberative Polling was ratified in 2017 based on Professor James Fishkin’s (Stanford University) theory of deliberative polling. The law stipulates that executive and legislative organizations at all levels can hold a deliberative poll to identify issues and consult with citizens on policy priorities. A deliberative poll should select a random and representative sample of the population to engage in dialogue with competing experts using carefully balanced briefing materials and questionnaires. This deliberative polling process is required for projects to be funded by the local development fund, for planning of cities and green facilities in public space, and prior to a constitutional amendment (Naran 2019). The organizational cost is covered by the state budget.
Using this law, the first deliberative poll was conducted in Mongolia in April 2017 as part of an effort to amend the Constitution. The quantitative results were used as the basis for recommendations to the Parliament about which proposals had sufficient support to merit consideration (Naran 2019). In total, 1,570 citizens were polled on six topics related to constitutional amendments and received a written explana¬tion and oral consultation with experts (Lundeejantsan 2017). As constitutional researcher Odonkhuu observed, “It was an innovative experiment not only in Mongolia but also around the world” (Odonkhuu 2021). In 2018, deliberative polling was organized on various topics including illegal coal extraction, and in 2020 on rangeland protection.
Public Hearings
The Law on Public Hearing (2015) provides that public hearings shall be held before the approval of administrative legal acts and the approval of administrative decisions concerning the public interest. The law provides mechanisms for direct democracy by allowing government organizations and officials to consult, monitor, evaluate, and obtain expert views on nine types of issues.[5] The initiative to hold a public hearing can be initiated by a citizen, a local government, or a legal entity.
Citizens Halls were established in 2009 under President Elbegdorj Tsakhia as a permanent venue for public hearings on draft laws, the first of which would be the draft Press Law (Benequista and H 2011). In 2012, the Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights organized the first public hearing on the protest event of July 1, 2008[6]. Since then, dozens of public hearings have been organized concerning both national and local level issues.[7]
Public hearings are regularly employed by a wide range of stakeholders at different levels regarding a variety of topics. The law has been amended and improved in a timely manner. However, efforts should be made to increase public knowledge about the public hearing mechanism and its potential for use, and monitoring of the implementation of the results of hearings should be increased..
Digital and E-governance
E-governance has become a major focus of the Mongolian government. The e-Mongolia national program was first approved in 2005 with the aim of increasing the number of internet users and improving digital infrastructure in the country.[8] Between 2008 and 2012, the National Data Center was established,[9] and between 2012 and 2016, the e-governance program introduced 25 types of e-services.[10] Since 2013, the call center ”11-11” has provided a platform for citizens to give direct feedback. This was expanded in 2019 to the Government Public Communication Center, which accepts feedback, transfers callers to the relevant government organization, and monitors the implementation of the program. According to the 2018 Index on E-Participation, Mongolia ranked 65th with a rating of 0.736. However, the country slid to 87th place with a rating of 0.607 in 2020 (UN 2020).
Although digital transformation is making services easily accessible to citizens and providing more opportunities to participate in governance, as some studies note, Mongolia’s preparedness remains insufficient, with one in five citizens living with limited access to electricity (L.Galbaatar 2020). The digital divide is real, especially among older people and people with disabilities (IRIM and UNDP 2021). Capacity building to improve the digital skills of marginalized groups, increased support for e-participation, actual implementation of initiatives, and monitoring of and accountability for said implementation, are needed. Furthermore, digital platforms are primarily used to regulate the state-to-citizen relationship rather than to support citizen-to-state relationships and other feedback relationships. The enabling environment within which citizens can use digital methods to directly participate in governance and vote on issues pertaining to their needs remains inadequate.
Other mechanisms of public participation have been created as part of the State Decentralization Policy, such as citizen participation in setting local budget priorities and voting for Local Development Fund investments. However, the scale of these local budgets is relatively small and such participation is not a standard element of general state budget processes.
Prevailing Claims about Democracy and Direct Democracy
Popular Claims in Support of Implementing Direct Democracy Mechanisms
Major claims in support of implementing direct democratic mechanisms relate to Mongolia’s independence and identity as a free and democratic country, the small population (which facilitates participation in decision-making), opportunities for budget efficiency, and the need to ensure accountability. Groups supporting or advancing these views include civil society organizations, media representatives, pro-democracy activists, and politicians.
Table 1: Claims Supporting Democracy and Direct Democracy
f2e34dd1a320d063
f2e34dd1a320d063
f2e34dd1a320d063
| Popular Claims Supporting Direct Democracy | Which Groups | Reasons/Rationale |
| Mongolia is a democratic country, and the principle of citizen participation is enshrined in the Constitution | Opposition parties (e.g. Democratic Party), journalists, activists, and CSOs | Depending on which party wins elections, the leadership of presidents, prime ministers and the parliament is critical to support efforts to advance direct democracy |
| The opportunity to directly influence decision making should be made available to marginalized and vulnerable groups | Marginalized and vulnerable groups (youth, older persons, people with disabilities), CSOs | Limited access to other lengthy participatory processes (e.g. writing official petitions and complaints), limited ability to use digital tools, etc. |
| The process of facilitating direct democracy mechanisms has been simplified and the cost has decreased thanks to digitalization. Therefore, direct democracy mechanisms should be used more often. | Media, IT, Ministry of Communications | Tools, including e-tools, are expanding direct democracy.Digital development/progress is improving access to tools and refining regulations. COVID-19 lockdowns emphasized the need for enhanced direct democracy |
| There is a need for direct participation - Parliamentarians and local representative councils have been ineffective in reflecting and acting on the voices of the public. | General public | Expressed through demonstrations and social media movements demanding direct participation. Provides opportunities and signals for the population to participate in politics. Reinforced by media and social media. |
| Citizens and businesses should not/cannot afford to wait for the bureaucracy and government to solve social problems. Hence, direct action and implementation are needed | CSOs, communities, activists | Citizen cooperation and support – citizen groups and NGOs taking initiative to solve social problems |
| There is a need for direct oversight of budget, contracting, and procurement. Accountability should be demanded from politicians | Micro, small and medium-sized business owners | MSMEs bore the economic costs of the pandemic and suffered from the embezzlement of public funds. This pushed MSME owners and employees to support democracy |
Popular Claims against Implementing Direct Democracy Mechanisms
Table 2 Claims against (Direct) Democracy
f2e34dd1a320d063
f2e34dd1a320d063
f2e34dd1a320d063
| Popular Claims Against Direct Democracy | Which Groups | Reasons/Rationale |
| Nationalist claims – anti-democratic claims and attacking so-called Pro-American “liberals” | Nationalist groups | Extremist and discriminatory/far-right views have spread via social media |
| National security concerns should limit opportunities for the intervention of foreign agents and interference in government operations[11] | National security, justice and defense sector members | Mongolia’s independence from and fear of external actors. For example, over-dependence on Russia and China could hinder Mongolia’s development. A friendly relationship with the two neighbors is needed |
| Unity and need to support each other. There is no need for debate or arguments during emergencies/crisis situations | Government, politicians, opposition | Prioritizing unity takes precedence over the notion of plurality and democracy |
| CSOs should be restricted and controlled in terms of registration, funding, and operations to avoid money laundering and misuse by political powers[12] | Leaders and members of national defense, security, and justice systems | Increased risk of money laundering, terrorism, and disobedience |
| Inequality - democracy only enriches the rich and their large-scale businesses. Ordinary citizens are not able to benefit from democracy. | Media, journalists, and politicians | Declining trust in representative democracy, increased corruption, and unethical behavior of politicians. Increasing poverty and inequality—disappointment with democracy over the last 30 years and unfulfilled expectations. |
| Mongolia should prioritize friendly relationships above all and avoid adopting values that are too “Western” and “liberal” | Nationalist movements | Unfavorable international environment and disinformation/propaganda from Russia and China |
| Lingering emergency situations justify quick, direct decisions making rather than a lengthy consultative process | Government, parliament and some academics | Increasing restrictions on demonstrations and protests in public spaces to defend the ruling party’s interests |
| Rather than direct and regular criticisms that risk stalling progress, direct support is needed for the country’s achievement of its long-term vision and prosperity | Government/cabinet, politicians | Due to several changes in government and instability of civil services, calls for government stability have been increasing.[13] 停滞する経済成長と不確実な時代 |
| 「大衆」は本質的に無教育であり、情報に基づいた合理的な意思決定を行う能力がないため、統治に参加すべきではない[14] | ジャーナリスト、インフルエンサー、政治家 | エリート主義的な議論 |
モンゴルには、直接民主主義に有利な技術的、立法的、文化的な環境、そして政治家や非国家主体によるリーダーシップが存在する。それにもかかわらず、近年は検閲の増加、表現や言論の自由の制限、そしてCOVID-19の封鎖下でのデモや抗議活動の発生など、加速的な後退が見られる。これは、不利な外部環境や、カザフスタンでの大規模な抗議活動/出来事、モンゴルの中国への経済的依存（COVID-19危機中の国境閉鎖中に強く感じられた）、そしてロシアのウクライナ侵攻といった一連の出来事によって悪化している。さらに、民主的価値を推進する西側の二国間および多国間組織の支持の低下が強く感じられている。■
参考文献
Benequista, Nick, and Andy H. 2011. “Mongolia's Citizens' Hall.” Participedia. 2022年3月26日アクセス。https://participedia.net/case/1150。
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2022. Mongolia Country Report 2022. 2022年3月9日アクセス。https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/MNG#pos4。
Castagna, Craig. 2022. “Despite Civil Society’s Contributions to Democracy, Mongolia’s NGOs Are Now at Risk.” International Republican Institute. 2022年3月2日。2022年3月19日アクセス。https://www.iri.org/news/despite-civil-societys-contributions-to-democracy-mongolias-ngos-are-now-at-risk/?fbclid=IwAR0YwhbhixIkXeJaivQRfNHSrjesdYclhCQJjwktPCw7FHwkh9t9n3-SFzg。
Chultemsuren, Tamir. 2007. アルド・ニイティイン・サナル・アスールギイン・フウリイグ・オロル・トゥハイ（国民投票法改正について）。9月27日。2022年3月15日アクセス。http://www.forum.mn/index.php?sel=article&menu_id=107&obj_id=4342?a.
CIVICUS. 2020. PROGRESS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER’S BILL IN MONGOLIA BUT DEFAMATION LAWS PUT MEDIA AT RISK. 6月17日。2022年3月18日アクセス。https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/06/17/progress-human-rights-defenders-bill-mongolia-defamation-laws-put-media-risk/。
IRIM and UNDP. 2021. Digital Skills Assessment: The first building block of the “Digital Nation.” ウランバートル：UNDPアクセラレーターラボ・モンゴル。https://www.mn.undp.org/content/mongolia/en/home/blog/2021/ALabDigitalSkillsAssessment.html。
IRIM. 2021. Digital Transperency Index: Monitoring of Transparency in Government Operations.https://www.irim.mn/news/1479。
L.Galbaatar. 2020. 「統治のデジタル移行：政府活動への市民のデジタル参加」『モンゴルにおける民主主義と市民社会の現状に関する社会政治的研究。研究結果と政策提言』。ウランバートル：Selenge Press。
Lundeejantsan, D. 2017. 審議型世論調査は6つのテーマで実施される。4月12日。http://itoim.mn/article
Naran, Amarzaya. 2019. 直接的な市民参加の設計のための洞察：モンゴルを事例研究として。IDEA、メルボルン憲法構築・憲法変革ネットワークフォーラム。https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3224463/MF19-Mongoliaa-paper.pdf。
Odonkhuu, Munkhsaikhan. 2021. 「2017年のモンゴル憲法改正草案に関する審議型世論調査」『困難な時代の民主主義闘争：モンゴルと世界からの洞察』、Christian Suter、Stephen Brown、Dolgion Aldar、Tamir Chultemsuren編、47-74頁。ウランバートル：IRIMおよびWSF。
State Great Khural Committee on Petition . 2018. 2018年春期通常会期中に請願常任委員会が実施した業務報告番組 - 請願常任委員会（parliament.mn）。8月16日。2022年3月21日アクセス。http://urgudul.parliament.mn/index.php/content?id=289&fbclid=IwAR08LXg8DWxAiD6vF3h0qUQ0WDnsiwpW9bYaf86e4ba4d9NC0VbTuap_N1c#.YkFidYVBxD8。
State Great Khural. 1995. 法令「国家機関および公務員に対する市民の請願および苦情の解決に関する法律」。https://old.legalinfo.mn/law/details/16594。
—. 2016. 法令「国家機密および公務秘密に関する法律」。ウランバートル。https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail/15787。
—. 1992. モンゴル国憲法。https://www.conscourt.gov.mn/?page_id=842&lang=en。
State Great Khural. 1992年1月13日、2019年11月14日改正。「モンゴル国憲法」。https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/9694/file/MONG_constitution.pdf。
State Great Khural. 2019. 「審議型世論調査に関する法律」。https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail/12492。
—. 2020. モンゴル国会議員 - 常任委員会。2022年3月11日アクセス。http://parliament.mn/cv?tid=2&did=4。
UN. 2020. UN E-Government Knowledgebase. 2022年3月26日アクセス。https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data/Country-Information/id/113-Mongolia/dataYear/2020。
N.Myagmarzhozh. 2013. 「市民参加の法的環境の一般的分析」『市民参加と法的環境と評価』。World Movement for Democracy。
2021. 電子開発関連法案が最終的に可決された。12月17日。2022年3月14日アクセス。https://mojha.gov.mn/newmojha/?p=6881。
[1] 第3条は、「モンゴル国民は国家の事柄に直接参加し、選挙によって設立された国家権力の代表機関を通じてその権利を行使するものとする」と規定している。第16条第12項は、「国家機関および公務員に請願または苦情を提出し、それらの国家機関によって解決される権利」を規定している。第16条第16項は、「思想、意見および表現、言論、報道、平和的な集会の自由」を規定している。第25条の国民投票に関する条項は、国家最高会議が「国民投票を実施し、選挙権を有する市民の過半数が参加した国民投票の有効性を検証し、過半数の票を得た問題を決定されたものとみなす」と規定している。第16条は、「国家機関および公務員に請願または苦情を提出し、それらの国家機関によって解決される権利」を規定している。第16条第16項は、「思想、意見および表現、言論、報道、平和的な集会の自由」を規定している。第16条は、「思想、意見および表現、言論、報道、平和的な集会の自由」を規定している。第25条の国民投票に関する条項は、国家最高会議が「国民投票を実施し、選挙権を有する市民の過半数が参加した国民投票の有効性を検証し、過半数の票を得た問題を決定されたものとみなす」と規定している。第25条の国民投票に関する条項は、国家最高会議が「国民投票を実施し、選挙権を有する市民の過半数が参加した国民投票の有効性を検証し、過半数の票を得た問題を決定されたものとみなす」と規定している。
[2]2021年現在、IRIMの監視によると、政府のデジタル透明性指数は1.0点中0.602であった。
[3]モンゴル国会
[4]モンゴル国会は、2000年にモンゴル国憲法を改正した際に国民投票を実施しなかった。2019年に憲法改正が2度目に行われた際には、審議型世論調査（本稿で後述）が用いられた。
[5]すなわち、立法、一般監督、予算監督、人事、行政事項、地方計画、協議に関する公聴会、人権と自由の監督である。
[6]約220人の市民と108人の軍人が負傷し、700人の抗議者が拘束され、5人が射殺された大規模抗議デモ。https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mongolia-idUSSP3149220080702
[7]汚職防止庁長官の任命、ウランバートル市バヤンズルフ区の地方予算編成、土地利用計画、障害のある子供たちの教育へのアクセスと権利、バヤンズルフ区における社会経済開発計画、および総選挙法改正に関する協議などが例として挙げられる。IRIやOpen Society Forumを含む様々な国際機関が、これらのプロセスにおいて研修や技術支援を提供していた。
[8]モンゴル政府決議第216号、2005年
[9]モンゴル政府決議第78号、付属書1、2008年
[10]モンゴル政府決議第101号、付属書1、2012年
[11] https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/06/17/progress-human-rights-defenders-bill-mongolia-defamation-laws-put-media-risk/
[12] https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/06/17/progress-human-rights-defenders-bill-mongolia-defamation-laws-put-media-risk/
[14]著名な政治家たちは、「一般市民」が法律問題の議論に参加することに対し、専門家パネルのみが法案に対するコメントを許可されるべきだと主張して非難した。https://participedia.net/case/1150
■ タミル・チュルテムスレンは、モンゴル国立大学社会科学・人文科学部副学部長であり、モンゴル国立大学で社会学の学位を取得している。チュルテムスレンは、モンゴル独立研究所（IRIM）の共同設立者の一人であり、2011年からIRIMの理事長を務めている。1999年以来、コンサルティングおよび学術分野で活動してきたチュルテムスレンは、民主主義研究とモンゴル政治に精通している。米国、アイルランド、ハンガリー、ポルトガル、トルコ、フィンランド、カザフスタン、オーストリア、英国、韓国など、様々な学術セミナーや行事に参加し、異文化環境でパートナーと関わる上で多様かつ深い経験を有している。彼の専門分野は、社会調査—市民参加、大衆抗議、世論；政策研究—教育政策と制度強化、監視、評価；プロジェクト管理；およびコンサルティングである。
■ 編集担当：ペク・ジンギョン研究部長・上級研究員
お問い合わせ：02 2277 1683 (内線209) | j.baek@eai.or.kr
*この本文は韓国語で書かれた原文を AI で翻訳したものです。一部の翻訳やニュアンスに誤りがある場合があります。