Japan's Nationality Law
A primer and guide to other articles
By William Wetherall
First posted 1 January 2007
Last updated 20 June 2011
Introduction
This is a gateway to other articles related to nationality and related issues in Japan. Brief statements about the most important nationality topics, past and present, are followed by annotated links to more detailed articles.
Terminology
In all my writing, except where citing usage by others, "nationality" (kokuseki) is a strictly civil status denoting legal affiliation with a state (kokka). People who possess Japanese nationality constitute the "nationals" (kokumin) of Japan. In Japan, possession of "nationality" and being a "national" are legally linked through the equation of membership in Japan's territorial "national register" (kokuseki) with the status of being a "national affiliate" (kokumin) of the state.
As such, "nationality" does not embrace "race" whether in terms of biological traits (jinshu) or ethnic qualities such as language, behavior, beliefs, and feelings if not also ancestry (minzoku). The latter sense of "race" is commonly associated with "nation" or "people" as an "ethnic" rather than a "civic" entity -- hence "nationhood" or "peoplehood" as a matter of ethnic consciousness (minzoku ishiki) or its patriotic manifestation as "ethnonationalism" (minzoku shugi). Because many people "racialize" others in one or both senses of the word, terms like "nationality" and "national" and "Japanese" are likely to be racialized in popular usage.
But "race" by either definition has never been coded in Japanese law. Hence "race" has never been a qualification for acquiring or losing the "nationality" of Japan, the single legal requisite for being a "national" (kokumin) -- or (in the past also) a "subject" (shinmin) -- of Japan.
Legal advice
I regret that I am unable to respond to personal requests for legal advice. I strongly recommend that anyone who has a legal problem related to Japanese nationality, who is in Japan, consult with an official at a municipal hall or at a local Legal Affairs Bureau. If outside Japan, contact a Japanese consulate. While most officials will not be experts in nationality law, they should be able to field general questions and refer other questions to competent bureaus.
I will, however, offer the following advice regarding the quality of opinions you may hear about nationality in Japan.
-
Don't believe any claim that Japan's nationality laws are "racist". They aren't. Qualifications for Japanese nationality have mainly been based on family law, especially lineage. But family ancestry does not mean race. And there are other paths to national status at time of birth or later in life.
-
When speaking with officials, keep in mind that their understandings of Japan's laws and policies may not be correct, especially if they official lacks experience in nationality matters, but also if the official leans toward the conservative side an issue. Most officials, though, will be helpful. If unsatisfied with an official's opinion, however, then seek a second or third opinion from another official in the same or another office or agency.
-
Attorney opinions deserve similar scrutiny. When consulting an attorney, whether inside or outside Japan, be sure the attorney is familiar with the operation and administration of the Nationality Law. Consult only an attorney who is able to read and understand Japanese laws in Japanese, is familiar with the history of nationality law in Japan, understands bureaucratic legal procedure in Japan, and has experience in nationality matters.
0. De Vos and Wagatsuma 1995
As late as 1995, the introduction to a serious article in a serious book made the following statement about "citizenship" and "citizens" in the United States and Japan.
|
Definitions of American citizenship begin with awareness of diverse origins comprising its citizenry. Determination of who is a Japanese citizen starts from completely different traditional premises -- that Japanese are of a totally homogeneous origin. |
The article -- Cultural Identity and Minority Status in Japan -- carries the by-line George A. De Vos and Hiroshi Wagatsuma. It appears on pages 264-297 (Chapter 12) in Lola Romanucci-Ross and George De Vos (editors), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict, and Accommodation, Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press (Sage Publications), 1995, 400 pages, softcover, Third Edition.
The book was first published in 1975, reissued in 1982, and completely revised in 1995. Wagatsuma passed away in 1985, and De Vos passed away in 2010.
The above viewpoint was widely shared by all scholars I recall meeting in the late 1960s and during the 1970s, and most scholars I meet today on both sides of the Pacific seem to embrace the same understanding. I was not in the 1970s -- when a student of De Vos and through him an acquaintance of Wagatsuma -- prepared myself to think otherwise. By the late 1970s I was beginning to doubt -- and by the mid 1980s I was convinced -- that this common attitude toward "citizenship" and "citizens" in the two countries is extremely flawed, especially historically, but also today.
Much of my work since the 1990s has focused on pointing out that the United States began defining its "citizens" as people who were "free" and "white" and "male" and paid taxes. Racial "diversity" was definitely not in the thinking of those who penned and passed US nationality and immigration laws until after World War II. Although United States nationality is now nominally raceless, race boxes continue to proliferate in US law and legislation, and to define castes of Americans for purposes of enforcing some laws and policies.
In the meantime, Japan built its body of laws from 1868 without imposing a single racial or ethnic condition on the legal acquisition of the "standing [status] of being Japanese". While US laws were declaring immigrants of certain races ineligible for citizenship by naturalization, excluding people of certain "national origins" from immigration, and withholding citizenship from anyone who was legally an American Indian -- and while many states were enforcing anti-miscegenation laws and otherwise hardwiring "race" into their segregationist social policies -- Japan's laws were entirely raceless.
In 1873, Japan began permitting some alien women and men to acquire Japanese status through marriage. The 1890 Civil Code, promulgated but never enforced, made general provisings for gaining, losing, choosing, and recovering the national status of being Japanese. There provisions were revised and elaborated in the 1899 Nationality Law. The conditions for being Japanese, as a subject national of Japan, was defined in purely civil terms, essentially according to family law, with nary a word about race much less ethnicity.
The following articles are dedicated to my loss of innocence as a passive recipient of a highly stereotypic education -- though I remain, very genuinely, grateful to both De Vos (1922-2010) and Wagatsuma (1927-1985) for their essentially humanistic and always stimulating mentorships. It was De Vos, after all, who used to remark in seminars, with his trademark "fox" smile, that a disciple is expected to kill Buddha, and a son his father.
1. Legal terminology and bibliography
Nationality in Japan cannot be understood by naturalizing Japanese legal terms into Americanese. Americans (and other writers of English who have been strongly influenced by American idiom) like to talk about being "citizens" and having "citizenship" and are apt to reserve "nationality" for questions about someone's "national origins" with nuances of race, ethnicity, ancestry, descent, heritage, or even culture.
English translations of Japanese legal terms should reflect the meanings intended by Japanese domestic law in the context of international law, unencumbered by the idiosyncrasies of how Americans talk about "citizens" and "citizenship" -- often innocent of knowledge about the history and workings of American domestic law, much less of comparative international law. For this reason, I have endeavored to translate all key Japanese terms in a manner consistent with the metaphors of Japanese usage.
Unless otherwise indicated, "nationality" always reflects "kokuseki" in Japanese. As it turns out, "kokuseki" also reflects usage in international law where, for good reason, affiliation with a state is denoted by "nationality" and not "citizenship".
Legal terminology:
Status, affiliation, courts, and agencies
This is a guide to a number of words and expressions essential to understanding nationality and other forms of legal status in Japan since the Meiji period. The terms are shown in kanji, romaji, and English, and are introduced in order of their appearance in laws related to nationality since 1873.
General bibliography:
Views and reviews of selected books and articles
This is a guide to a few of the more reliable and less reliable sources on nationality and related topics -- the sources you want most to consult as examples of the rights and wrongs of writing about nationality issues in Japan and other countries. The sources are reviewed and graded.
2. Nationality, citizenship, and race
Nationality is what affiliates a person with a state's demographic territory or nation. It is not citizenship but merely a mark of membership in the state's sovereign society. States issue passports to certify that a bearer is an affiliate, or national, of the state's demographic territory, or nation. Most people have only one nationality. Dual or multiple nationals have two or more. Stateless people have none.
Some states divide their national population into ethnic or regional subnationalities. China defines many racioethnic "minority nationalities" within its state nationality. Japan has never defined its nationality except as a civil status meaning an affiliate of Japan as a sovereign state. Japanese nationality has always been based on membership in a household register affiliated with Japan's sovereign territory, not on race or ethnicity.
The sovereign dominion of Japan has changed many times over the centuries. The Empire of Japan that was established during the Meiji period expanded from the prefectural jurisdiction called the Interior, itself the product of territorial expansion, to embrace also Taiwan (1895), Karafuto (1905), and Korea as Chōsen (1910). All people in household registers affiliated with these four subnational territories of the sovereign empire possessed Japanese nationality as an artifact of territorial incorporation. Karafuto joined the Interior jurisdiction in 1943.
Japan lost control and jurisdiction of Taiwan and Chōsen, and of several parts of the Interior, along with its own sovereignty, under the terms of surrender signed on 2 September 1945. Thus reduced to the Interior minus a couple of prefectures and several islands that were parts of other prefectures, "Japan" was occupied under the authority of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, effective from 28 April 1952, Japan regained its sovereignty and formally lost its already abandoned claims over Taiwan and Chōsen. Effective from the same date, as an artifact of the separation of Taiwan and Chōsen from Japan's sovereign territory, Taiwanese and Chosenese were separated from Japanese nationality.
Since 1952, Japanese has been based entirely on affiliation with household registers in Japan's prefectural municipalities. As a civil status today, the quality of Japanese nationality remains essentially the same as when formally conceived during the Meiji period -- based on affiliation with territorial family registers within Japan's sovereign dominion, not race or ethnicity.
Nationality in Japan:
The legal foundations of a raceless nation
This is a quick (10,000 word) chronological introduction to nationality and related topics with hyperlinks to more detailed articles. It is the most comprehensive article I have written on nationality, and I am constantly correcting and updating it.
Citizenship is a set of rights and duties one has as a member of a community, such as a neighborhood, town, province, country, bloc of countries, or even the earth. Citizenship, which may or may not include the right to vote or hold office, varies with nationality and other affiliation statuses, including legal residence, as well as with gender, age, and other personal attributes.
"Citizenship" and "citizen" in the narrow American senses of these words are not proper synonyms for "nationality" and "national" in international law. A passport identifies the bearer's nationality, not citizenship. In compliance with international standards, the ID page of a US passport certifies that the "nationality" of the bearer is "United States of America". The page facing the ID page refers to "the citizen/national of the United States named herein" because the United States divides its nation into "citizens" and "nationals". However, this distinction has no significance in international law.
Elements of citizenship:
Social and political belonging in Japan
This feature has two parts.
Status and citizenship examines the relationship between state and local affiliation and the rights and duties that come with such legal statuses for nationals and aliens in both Japan and the United States.
Aliens and the Constitution looks at how the 1947 constitution came to differentiate between "kokumin" (nationals, "the people") and "nanbito mo" (anyone, "every person"), and at how some court cases have tested the letter and intent of this distinction with regard to the rights and duties of aliens affiliated with Japan.
Race is mostly a pigment of the imagination. Some countries, such as the United States, have long traditions of racializing their nationals with race boxes and racially discriminatory laws and quotas. In contrast, race was not a building block in Japan's legal foundation, hence Japanese laws have not been concerned with race.
There have been no race boxes in Japan, and neither race nor ethnicity has been a condition for being Japanese. Consequently, Japanese nationality is raceless and has no ethnic implications. In other words, it is legally impossible to be "pure" or "full" or "part" or "half" or "quarter" or even "ethnic" Japanese.
This does not mean that racialism (viewing people racially) and racism (treating people differently according to their putative race) are not problems in Japan, as they are in all human societies. It simply means that Japan is a relatively raceless country, in the sense that people in Japan are free of racial labeling on birth and death certificates, census forms and other documents, and otherwise enjoy a high level of racial privacy.
The racialization of Japan:
How global racialism is threatening Japan's raceless nationality
This article examines the definition of "race" in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It also reviews some of the formal exchanges between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), which mediates treaty matters for Japan, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which monitors compliance with ICERD for the United Nations.
UNCHR's misguided "Mission to Japan":
The global politics of "racialization"
This is my counter report to "Mission to Japan", a report submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene on 24 January 2006 as an addendum to "Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination".
Racialism across the Pacific
This essay dramatizes how race boxes in the United States effect people like my children, who were born and raised in Japan, where there are no race boxes and race and ethnicity are private matters.
3. Nationality laws from 1873
The term "nationality" (kokuseki) was formally introduced into Japanese law with the enforcement of the 1899 Nationality Law. Gaining or losing the nationality of Japan essentially meant the gaining or losing had been referred to as the "standing of being Japanese" in the 1873 proclamation concerning alliances of marriage and adoption between Japanese and aliens.
The 1899 Nationality Law came to be called the "old" law when replaced by 1950 Nationality Law. Though the 1950 law remains the law in effect, in comparison with its substantially revised 1985 version, it is called the "old" law, in which case the 1899 law is called the "old old" law.
Here is a tabular overview of the 1873, 1899, and 1950 laws, including major revisions to the 1899 and 1950 laws.
| 1873 proclamation on marriage and adoption alliances | |||
| Year | Proclamation | Promulgated | Enforced |
| 1873 | No. 103 | 14 March 1873 | |
|
Permits alliances of marriage and adoption between Japanese and aliens. Provides that alien wives and adopted children or husbands of Japanese will gain the status of Japanese, and that some Japanese wives of aliens will lose (but be able to recover) the standing of Japanese. |
|||
| 1890 Civil Code articles on national status | |||
| Year | Proclamation | Promulgated | Enforced |
| 1890 | Law No. 98 | 7 October 1890 | Never enforced |
|
Included general provisions for gaining, losing, choosing, and recovering "national standing [status]" defined as "standing [status] of being Japanese" -- a status based on family register membership and essentially governed by family law. These provisions were revised and expanded into the standalone 1899 Nationality Law. |
|||
| 1899 Nationality Law and major revisions | |||
| Year | Law | Promulgated | Enforced |
| 1899 | Law No. 66 | 19 May 1899 | 1 April 1899 |
|
Adopts a mix of right-of-blood, place-of-birth, and naturalization standards common to the nationality laws of most countrires. Incorporates the 1873 standards for becoming Japanese through marriage or adoption (deriviation). Makes provisions for loss and recovery of nationality but not for renunciation. Restricts rights to hold designated higher offices of persons who acquired nationality through naturalization, or through marriage or adoption. Initial determination assumed, on basis of customary law, to be members of household registers affiliated with Japan's national territory. |
|||
| 1916 | Law No. 27 | 16 March 1916 | 1 August 1916 |
|
Introduces provisions for renunciation, in response to pressure from the United States and other American states conderned about dual nationality. Japanese with an alien nationality, who are domiciled in the country of their alien nationality, permitted to renounce their Japanese status. Parents or guardians allowed to renounce on behalf of dual-national minors. |
|||
| 1924 | Law No. 19 | 22 July 1924 | 1 December 1924 |
|
Introduces nationality retention system in designated right-of-soil states, again in response to pressure from these states to minimize dual nationality. A 1924 imperial ordinance designates United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Peru, and a 1926 imperial ordiance adds Mexico. Provisions for renunciations by parents or guardians on behalf of minors dropped with introduction of this system. |
|||
| 1950 Nationality Law and major revisions | |||
| Year | Law | Promulgated | Enforced |
| 1950 | Law No. 147 | 4 May 1950 | 1 July 1950 |
|
Replaces 1899 Nationality Law. Nationality derived through marriage, adoption, or acknowledgement after birth ends. Nationality through Restrictions on office-holding rights of Japanese who obtained their nationality through naturalization or derivation end. Nationality retention system continues for qualified children born to Japanese in right-of-soil states. |
|||
| 1985 | Law No. 45 | 25 May 1984 | 1 January 1985 |
|
Provisions for ambilineality begin, with three-year window for nationality acquisition by minors born within past two decades. Provisions for nationality through legitimation restored. Provisions for declaration of choice introduced as measure to minimize dual nationality. However, multiple nationality remains possible under Japanese law. |
|||
| 2009 | Law No. 88 | 12 December 2008 | 1 January 2009 |
|
Acknowledgement after birth no longer contingent on legitimation. Transitional measures provide a three-year window for filing notifications of maternal or paternal recognition of those born as early as 1983. The provision complies with a 2008 Supreme Court ruling related to several cases filed between 2003 and 2008, that the legitimiation condition was discriminatory and unconstitutional. |
|||
4. Becoming Japanese at time of birth
Japan first defined its nationality in 1899. The present law, in effect since 1950, and significant amendments have in effect since 1985 and 2009.
Japan's nationality laws have always been on a par with the nationality laws of most other countries. Though written to comply with articles in the 1889 and 1947 constitutions, they are grounded in family law and population registration practices that go back many centuries.
Most Japanese acquire their nationality at time of birth through right-of-blood (jus sanguinis) rules. The "blood" means parental lineage, not race. Race or ethnicity have never been provisions in the acquisition or loss of Japanese nationality.
Once patrilineal for children of married parents (child is Japanese if the father is Japanese), and matrilineal for children of unmarried Japanese mothers, Japan's Nationality Law has been ambilineal since 1985. Now a child can acquire Japanese nationality at birth if either parent is Japanese. However, a Japanese father of a child born to a non-Japanese mother to whom he is not married must recognize the child in a timely manner, before or at the time of its birth.
A few children also become Japanese at time of birth because they are born in Japan to stateless or unknown parents. Such right-of-soil or place-of-birth rules are intended to make sure all children have a nationality, though a few children become stateless for other reasons.
However, no child eligible for Japanese nationality at time of birth automatically becomes Japanese. Its birth must be recorded, in a timely manner, in a family register affiliated with a city, town, or village in Japan. Failure to register within the brief periods of time stipulated in the Family Register Law can result in failure to acquire nationality. In Japan, notifications of birth must be filed within 14 days of birth. Eligible children born overseas acquire or reserve Japanese nationality only if proper notifications are filed at a Japanese embassy or consulate within three months of birth.
1890 Civil Code:
The "status of Japanese" as "national status"
Promulgated but never enforced, Japan's first Civil Code included provisions which satisfied the requirement of the 1890 Constitution that the conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject be determined by law. This article includes a translation of the national status provisions, which facilitated the gain, loss, choice, and recover of Japanese status.
1899 Nationality Law:
"The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject"
This article examines how Japan's first law of nationality defined natural (at time of birth) and other means of becoming Japanese. It also looks at amendments made to address complaints from the United States about dual nationality. The article includes the Japanese texts and English translations of the Nationality Law and selected ordinances and amendments.
1950 Nationality Law:
One step forward, two steps backward
This article introduces the legal foundations for the resolution of nationality issues that arose after World War II, when Japan lost most of the territories it had acquired after 1868. The 1950 law and some amendments are presented in Japanese and English.
1985 Nationality Law revisions:
Ambilineality, acknowledgement, and choice
This article looks at amendments, effective from 1985, which replaced former patrilineal/matrilineal principles with a ambilineal principle, and required dual nationals to "choose" a nationality. The amendments included transitional measures that gave qualified alien children, born within two decades of the enforcement of the new ambilineal standard, three years to file a notification for acquisition of nationality through their mother's Japanese nationality. This article also covers minor changes effective from 1994 and 2005.
Sugiyama v. Japan:
Nationality court cases, 1978-1988
This article discloses for the first time the particulars of the court cases in which I and my ex-wife attempted to confirm the Japanese nationality of our children, arguing that the principle of patrilineality in the 1950 law was unconstitutional. Because I had refused to register my children as aliens, in 1983 I was prosecuted and fined for violating the Alien Registration Law, which delayed my acquisition of permanent residence a couple of months. Our children became Japanese in 1987 through the transitional measures in the 1985 revsions.
2009 Nationality Law revsions:
Acknowledgement no longer conditioned by legitimacy
This article looks at the amendent to Article 3, which now allows a minor child born out of wedlock to a recognizing Japanese parent to acquire Japanese nationality whether or not the parents marry. The amendment reflected a 2008 Supreme Court decision which ruled that requiring a child's parents to be married irrationally discriminated between children of married and unmarried parents, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Filipinos v State, 2003-2008:
Legitimacy distinction is unconstitutional
This article examines the decision in the most important of several court cases involving mostly Filipino children who sought to confirm that they should be Japanese through acknowledgement of their Japanese father. Such children had failed to become Japanese because the Nationality Law had required paternal recognition before or at time of birth, or marriage of the parents if acknowledgement was made after birth. The decision prompted a simple revision in Article 3 to remove the condition of marriage (legitimation).
The "at time of birth" constraint in Article 2 -- which provides for Japanese nationality through birth, because of conditions met at time of birth -- generally means before or no latter than the period that a notification of birth is supposed to be filed. But extenuating circumstances have been recognized.
Ko v State, 1993-1997:
Child acknowledged after birth acquires nationality through birth In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a child, born to an alien woman, was able to acquire Japanese nationality through birth, though it was not acknowledged by its Japanese father until after its birth. The court recognized that the father, legally unable to acknowledge the child before its birth, had done so as soon as it became possible.
Registrars, however, expect timely compliance with the letter of the law, and an untimely filing of a notification of acknowledgement is likely to be rejected or encounter more than the usual bureaucratic barriers.
5. Becoming Japanese later in life
There have been a number of ways in which a person could become Japanese later in life, meaning not as an effect of birth but through the operation of the law or by permission in consideration of other criteria.
Derivative nationality
Nationality derived through marriage or heir adoption became possible from 1873 and continued to be possible under the 1899 Nationality Law. Nationality through adoption generally became possible under the 1899 law. All forms of such derivative nationality, however, ended with the 1950 law.
Earlier provisions for nationality through marriage or adoption conformed not only with family law in Japan, but with the nationality standards shared by most countries in the world. However, whereas most countries regarded nationality as a male preserve, hence gained by an alien woman who married a male national, Japan's laws also provided that an alien man who married a female Japanese head of household, or was adopted as a son, could acquire nationality derived from such status acts.
All forms of nationality derived through status acts other than birth or naturalization, including parental acknowledgement, were elimited from the 1950 law. By then, women in many countries, including Japan, had gained rights of suffrage, and their their nationality at the time of marriage was deemed something that should not change on account of marriage. Since 1950, alien spouses have had to petition for permission to naturalize. Being married to a Japanese usually eases naturalization conditions.
Permitted nationality
Permitted nationality, meaning naturalization, became possible from 1899. Basic conditions for naturalization remain essentially the same under the present law, though today there are more categories in which some of the conditions are relaxed or waived.
Marriage and adoption
While nationality through marriage to or adoption by a Japanese ended with the 1950 law, naturalization conditions are eased for alien spouses of Japanese, and are eased even more for adopted alien children.
Acknowledgement and legitimation
Under the 1899 law, an alien child could become Japanese through acknowledgement of either a father or a mother who was Japanese. The acknowledgement could be made after birth but had to be made before the child became an adult. Nationality acquistion was not conditioned by the marital status of the recognizing parent. That is, the child did not have to be legitimated.
The 1950 Nationality Law made no provisions for nationality through parental acknowledgement after birth. Revisions effective from 1985 made it possible for a child to acquire nationality through legitimation and acknowledgement (paternal recognition) after birth. In other words, the recognizing Japanese parent had to be married to the other recognizing (or presumptive) parent.
While the 1899 law and the 1985 revision of the 1950 law provided for either paternal or maternal recognition, most cases involved paternal recognition by a Japanese father of a child born to an alien mother to whom the father had not been married. Unlike the 1899 law, the condition of letigimation imposed by the 1985 law meant that most such children could not become Japanese because the parents were unable or unwilling to marry.
In 2008 the Supreme Court struck down the acknowledgement constraint as unconstitutional. A revision effective from 2009 allows acquisition by post-birth acknowledgement alone. The revision included transitional measures to facilitate acquisition for those who in the past had been acknowledged after birth and before turning 20, though they may have since become adults. The acknowledgement condition remains unchanged from the 1985 law.
Though legitimation was struck from the Nationality Law, it remains a controversial element in the Civil Code.
Recognition and legitimation:
The impact of marriage on parenthood
This article looks at the nationality acquisition problems faced by children of alien mothers and Japanese fathers, especially when the father has acknowledged a child after its birth but not married its mother, and when a father is unable or unwilling to acknowledge paternity.
6. Allegiance change and naturalization
Naturalization was not possible in Japan before 1899. Until then, one became affiliated with Japan through "change of allegiance" or by adoption into an affiliated population register.
Contrary to popular opinion, naturalization in Japan has always been a fairly straightforward procedure. Most settled aliens have been eligible, and conditions have been eased for many categories of applicants.
Application requires some bureaucratic legwork, but mostly it requires a desire to want to be Japanese. For some applicants, naturalization also requires a willingness to accept limitations on the forms of names in family registers, which apply to all Japanese -- or a willingness to take name limitation issues to court before or after naturalizing.
The 1899 law specified civil and military offices and ranks that naturalized subjects were not allowed to hold. Since 1950, however, there have been no distinctions between Japanese nationality acquired naturally (at time of birth or legitimation) or through naturalization (later in life). Regardless of how one became Japanese, all Japanese qualified by age and other general status qualifications can hold any office, including that of prime minister.
From 1873 until 1899, it was possible for an alien to become Japanese by notification only through marriage or adoption. The government permitted some people affiliated with newly acquired territories, such as Ogasawara, to change their allegiance. Following the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, some Chinese were allowed to migrate to Japan and change their allegiance for services rendered during the war.
There is some evidence that right-of-blood principles operated in the determination of the affiliation of children in unions between Japanese (Yamato) and Korean (Kara) men and women in early Japan and Korea (before these polities existed as we think of and name them today). Otherwise members of indigenous non-Japanese populations, and Korean and Chinese migrants from the continent, became Japanese by formally changing their allegiance to the Yamato court. This usually took the form of enrolling in household registers in settlements under the court's sovereign authority.
Naturalization in Japan:
And other ways aliens have become Japanese
This is an overview of allegiance change and naturalization in Japan with a focus on naturalization today.
Allegiance change in Yamato:
How outsiders became insiders in early Japan
The centerpiece of this article is a table called "Joining the Yamato fold: Submission and registration in early Japan". The table introduces cases of migration and change of allegiance of Koreans and Chinese in early Japan as recorded in early chronologies. The original kanbun texts are followed by a romanization of a Yamato reading of the text and two English translations, and commentary.
Before nationality:
Being Japanese from antiquity to Meiji
This article introduces and discusses ways people became Japanese from about the 6th century to the middle of the 19th century -- bearing in mind that "Japan" and "Japanese" are more recent labels for a "country" and a "nation" that did not exist as such in early times.
1873 intermarriage proclamation:
Family law and "the standing of being Japanese"
This article examines the legal arrangements made by the Meiji government to recognize marriages of Japanese to foreigners, and to permit foreigners to become Japanese through adoption and marriage in accordance with family law as reflected in the administration of the 1872 Family Register Law. The article includes the 1873 proclamation and a related ordinance in both Japanese and English.
Becoming Japanese in the Meiji period:
Adopted sons, incoming husbands, and naturalization
This article introduces the earliest recognized marriages of Japanese to foreigners, the earliest cases of foreign spouses who became Japanese through marriage, and some cases of change of allegiance permitted by official deliberation rather than by law. The article includes tables of statistics on recognized marriages of Japanese to foreigners, by year from 1873-1897, and by sex of the Japanese spouse and nationality of the foreign spouse.
International marriages, 1873-1899:
Statistics based on Koyama Noboru's 1995 study
This article consists of my analysis of Koyama Noboru's data on marriage and adoption alliances between Japanese and aliens permitted under the 1873 Great Council of State Proclomation No. 103.
Naturalization under 1899 Nationality Law:
And other unnatural means of nationality acquisition
This article focuses on articles in the 1899 Nationality Law that provided, for the first time, a procedure for naturalization. It also looks at how other means of acquiring Japanese nationality, including those adopted from the 1873 proclamation on marriage and adoption alliances with foreigners. The article includes tables of statistics on acquisition of Japanese nationality by year, means of acquisition, and original nationality.
Naturalization since 1950 Nationality Law:
Now the principle means of unnatural acquisition
This article features a table of statistics on naturalization by nationality, and figures on renounced and lost nationality, from 1952 to the present. The table highlights the impact of several events, such as the return of Okinawa to Japan and Japan's switch of recognition from ROC to PRC, both in 1972.
How to become a Japanese
citizennational
This article, though written in 1988, still reflects the fact that naturalization in Japan has never been a particularly difficult process, although the paperwork can be more difficult for some aliens than others. The article is based on an investigation of naturalization procedures in both Japan and the United States. It also reflects the experiences of friends and acquaintances who naturalized. In 1999, I myself, intending to naturalize, underwent a qualification interview at a Legal Affairs Bureau to determine required documents, and I collected these documents and completed the forms I was given, though in the end I chose not to file an application for reasons including the realization that what I really wished was to be stateless.
If Ito can be American, why can't Pak be Japanese?
The article answers the question in the affirmative: Pak, Kim, and certain other common Korean can, in fact, be Japanese names. The characters used to write these names have long been on lists of acceptable characters, and no laws have ever disallowed their use as family names. Since 1983, when the article was written, the list of acceptable characters has been expanded to include many other characters commonly used for Korean and Chinese family names. Contrary to many reports, the Family Register Law has never placed ethnic restrictions on name choice.
7. Dual nationality and statelessness
The Nationality Law provides that Japanese who voluntarily acquire the nationality of another country will lose their Japanese nationality. However, multiple nationality has never been illegal in Japan and is increasing.
Since 1985, Japanese with other nationalities have been required to either declare a choice of Japanese nationality, and abandon and agree to endeavor to renounce their other nationalities, or declare their renunciation of Japanese nationality with proof that they possess another nationality which Japan recognizes.
While Japan requires abandonment of other nationalities (a declaration to Japan), it cannot force renunciation (a declaration to the country that governs the nationality). Whether, after declaring an intention to continue to be Japanese, a Japanese with other nationalities renounces them, is up to the individual and the governing country. Some countries, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, have provisions for loss of nationality because of abandonment, while others require explicit acts of renunciation, and some discourage renunciation, make it difficult, or in some cases will not allow renunciation.
Article 22 of the 1947 Constitution provides that "Freedom of all persons to move to a foreign country and to divest themselves of their nationality shall be inviolate." While Japan's Nationality Law has had provisions for renunciation since 1916, in practice Japan will not accept a renunciation notification if renunciation would result in either de jure or de facto statelessness -- i.e., the notifer has no nationality, or claims to possess a nationality which Japan cannot confirm or does not recognize -- among other reasons.
Statelessness at time of birth in Japan is not entirely prevented, even when both parents are Japanese. A non-stateless alien in Japan may also become de jure or de facto stateless for a number of reasons. Regardless of the cause of of their statelessness, stateless people must register as aliens in order to be legally recognized in Japan. People who become stateless in Japan generally have the right to reside in Japan, and to travel abroad and return to Japan.
Dual nationality in Japan:
Not forbidden, unpreventable, and tacitly permitted
This article explores the gray zones of Japan's Nationality Law, which explicitly neither permits or prohibits dual nationality. It also looks at why dual nationality may not be the best choice for everyone who has the option of possessing more than one nationality.
Statelessness in Japan:
De jure and de facto lack of nationality
This article looks at how some people become de jure stateless in Japan while others become de facto stateless. It also considers the legal wrinkles of both kinds of statelessness, which differ in their origins but share some inconveniences. Note that, for legal purposes, including treatment under laws of laws, de fact stateless people are not categorically "stateless" (see "Affiliation and applicable law" below).
The Kawakita treason case:
The double-edges of dual nationality
During the Pacific War, a number of people in the United States and Japan faced difficulties because of their sometimes ambiguous status as nationals of both countries. Kawakita's nationality seemed to be situational. Whether he could be charged with treason for acts he was alleged to have committed in Japan during the war hinged on a determination of his nationality at the time. US courts had to consider the effects of family registration on Kawakita's nationality status.
8. Affiliation and applicable law
National affiliation -- whether formal nationality or other measures of "closeness" to a state -- is regarded somewhat differently by courts of law than by agencies that oversee, say, domicile registration, or leaving or entering a country at a national border. Concerning especially civil matters -- such as divorce, adoption, and inheritance -- courts are empowered by laws of laws, and by precedents in international private law, to determine which state's law should apply to the matter as the governing law -- whether the party's home country law or another law -- on the basis of criteria which may include, in addition to nationality if one exists, factors such as domicile, habitual residence, the individual's wishes, and past and or present behavior including travel, corrpondence, and political activities.
Some aliens in Japan are more likely than others to encounter disputes regarding applicable law in private civil matters heard before Japanese courts. The rules for determining governing law have somewhat changed over the years, and courts have also somewhat varied in how they apply conventional criteria for determining home country or governing law. Determinations of the state affiliations of a few people who are classified as nationals of "China" (Chōgoku, now meaning PRC but embracing also ROC) or of "Korea" (Kankoku/Chōsen, meaning ROK and the erstwhile (defunct) Japanese territory of Chōsen, but also DPRK), have been particularly controversial, as Japan switched its "China" recognition from ROC to PRC in 1972, has formally recognized ROK as "Korea" only since 1965, and does not yet recognize DPRK, though the two states began normalization talks in 1991.
Status and applicable law:
Governing the civil affairs of territorialized persons
This feature includes overview of the laws of laws which have determined which legal entity's laws have governed in private civil matters in Japan, in terms of both international private law (1890 Rules of Law, 1898 Rules of Law, and 2007 Common Rules Law), and interterritorial private law (1918 Common Laws). The latter law determined applicable law in private matters involving people affiliated with different legal jurisdictions of the Empire of Japan, namely the Interior, Chōsen, Taiwan, Kwantung Province, and the South Sea Islands.Cho Kyongje on "Personal law of Koreans in Japan":
How Japanese courts have treated family matters of Kankoku/Chōsenjin in Japan
This a review of Cho Kyongje's study of applicable law in private civil matters involving Koreans in Japan of Kankoku or Chōsen status, the former being the Republic of Korea (ROK), the latter being the defunct Japanese territory of Chōsen, separated from Japan provisionally in 1945 and permanently from 1952. Cho introduces and analyzes 37 cases heard before family and district courts between 1954 and 1988, in the context of discussing the various criteria that have been used to determine applicable law in private matters concerning aliens affiliated with territories having different legal jurisdictions, such as "Chōgoku" (ROC and PRC) and "Chōsen" (ROK and DPRK).
9. Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen
Historically, Japan's nationalization of Taiwan (1895), Karafuto (1905), and Korea as Chōsen (1910), and the loss of these territories as parts of its sovereign territory in 1945, created a host of nationality issues that continue to affect some people in Japan and elsewhere in Asia. The illumination of the legal aspects of these issues is somewhat darkened by ideologies of history that racialize and victimize everyone who has has been affected by Japan's imperial expansion and collapse.
Unfortunately, the cold facts of history do not favor analyses that advocate human rights for yesteryear's politically downtrodden. It is not that what Japan did or did not do, in the name of its government, should not be subjected to moral judgment, but that such judgment must take full measure of contemporary conditions and what Japan's government was actually capable of doing given the political realities.
As an legal status, Japanese nationality has been a matter of membership in a population register affiliated with Japan's sovereign territory. For this reason, people in registers affiliated with Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea as Chōsen became Japanese when these territories became parts of Japan as a result of internationally recognized treaties.
The separation of these territories from Japan's national dominion in 1952, under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, resulted in the separation of Chosenese and Taiwanese, including those domiciled in Japan as redefined in 1945, from Japanese nationality. People in Karafuto registers did not lose their Japanese status, though they would have to establish new registers in the municiaplities where they had settled, whether after their evacuation before the end of the war or after their repatriation during the Occupation of Japan.
It has become a cliche to regard the treatment of especially Chosenese in Occupied Japan as "contradictory" or "paradoxical" or "discriminatory" or "racist" -- and to contend that they were "unilaterally stripped" of their Japanese nationality after the Occupation. Some scholars regard the legal dispositions as "constructed" by racism.
Chosenese and Taiwanese were separated from Japanese nationality in 1952 under the approving (or disinterested) gaze of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), but also (and arguably most importantly) by the Allied Powers represented mainly by American officials in GHQ/SCAP. The San Francisco Peace Treaty merely confirmed that Japan had abandoned all claims to Formosa (Taiwan) and Korea (Chōsen), and immediately after its signing in 1951, GHQ/SCAP brokered normalization talks between Japan and "China" and "Korea" -- which, for the United States, meant ROC and ROK.
Neither ROC nor ROK regarded the nationality status of people in Taiwan or Chōsen registers as a matter for negotiation. What Japan as did with its nationality, as a state about to regain its sovereignty, was a matter of domestic, not international, law.
GHQ/SCAP, the principal agent in the partial alienation of Taiwanese and Chosenese domiciled in Occupied Japan, had once viewed nationality matters as a subject to be settled in treaties between Japan and the states that would be governing Formosa and Korea. Apparently, though, the Allied Powers saw no need for this when it came time to sign a peace treaty with Japan, given the standoffs which had developed in East Asia, especially the civil war which had driven ROC off the Chinese mainland and the civil war still raging in Korea.
Some GHQ/SCAP officials and Japanese government officials felt that provisions should be made for Chosenese and Taiwanese (as distinct from ROC nationals) domiciled in Occupied Japan to remain Japanese. Yet GHQ/SCAP seems to have accepted Japan's position, which is clear from its legal history, that its nationality was linked to its sovereignty over territorial registers, hence territorial separation ineviated nationality separation.
ROC and Japan agreed to a treaty, signed on the day Japan regained its sovereignty, in which no provisions were made for choice of nationality. Concurrent negotiations between ROK and Japan broke down, but not because of nationality issues, and ROK made it very clear that it had no interest in what Japan did with its own nationality. And GHQ/SCAP also seems to have sympathized with, or at least have felt that it was not in a position to object to, Japan's conclusion that there was no compelling reason to providing options other than the option of naturalization after denationization.
"Japan" and "Japanese"
The legal alienation of territories and inhabitants
This article, a collection of materials and commentary on the legal statuses of Taiwanese and Chosenese during the Allied Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952, examines the stages in which Chosenese and Taiwanese were alienated from Japanese nationality as a consequence of the territorial separations brought about by the terms under which Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers at the end of World War II.Japanese nationality after World War II:
Japan's bilateral talks with ROC and ROK
This article examines the positions taken by Japan, ROC, and ROK regarding their respective nationalities, after the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in 1951, and before it came into effect in 1952, with a focus on negotiations between Japan and ROK.Separation and choice:
Between a legal rock and a political hard place
This article examines nationality and family register dispositions concomitant with the effectuation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on 28 April 1952, and why naturalization was the only option given those who lost Japanese nationality.Alien registration and immigration:
Changing statuses during and after the Occupation of Japan
This article is a collection of materials and commentary related to the laws and treaties that have governed the statuses of people regarded as aliens under Occupation and post-Occupation registration and exit-enter-country control laws.
9. Other nationality issues
The Nationality Law evolved from, and continues to be essentially based on, Japanese family law. As family law has changed, so has the Nationality Law. The issues that have mattered most in recent nationality confirmation court cases have been related to the most controversial issues on family law. The 2008 Supreme Court decision which struck the condition of legitimation in the Nationality Law as unconstitutional may effect the affects of legitimacy in the Civil Code.
The law is also in the process of changing to accommodate two opposite needs, (1) to prevent acquisition of nationality through abuse of the law or fraud, and (2) to facilite the acquisition of nationality by children born in Japan to settled alien parents.
Adoption and surrogacy
Since the Nationality Law rests on the foundations of family law, the meanings of terms like "father" and "mother" in the Nationality Law are determined by provisions in the Civil Code which also govern the Family Register Law. A line is drawn between lineal ties and legal ties based on adoption or guardianship.
However, Japanese family law does not yet accommodate surrogacy births. Japanese couples who need to resort to surrogacy to have a child usually go overseas. Even when the wife is the donor of the ovum, however, Japanese law will view the surrogate mother as the child's mother. And unless the husband is qualified to acknowledge paternity before or at the time of the child's birth, the child will not be able to acquire Japanese nationality through birth if the surrogate mother is an alien.
Adoption and surrogacy:
Redefining the ethics of parenthood
This article examines the need to facilitate the acquisition of nationality by adopted children, and by children born through surrogacy and other reproductive methods not yet legalized in Japan.
Differentiation of "family" and "alien" registers
Because Japanese nationality evolved from, and continues to be based on, membership in a family register associated with Japan's sovereign territory, registers of aliens are administered separately, a practice that makes life cumbersome for an increasing number of families with Japanese and alien members. While years ago it may have made sense to separate Japanese and alien registers, today a host of family registration problems on both sides of the Japanese/alien ledger could be solved by merging the two registers into a single family registration system with boxes in which to record nationality.
Family and alien registers:
Why they need to be merged and how to merge them
This article argues the importance of preserving Japan's family registration system as an effective way of providing basic citizen services, from public schooling and tax and welfare administration, to voter registration and inheritance. Optimization, though, calls for integrating family and alien registers into a single population registration system.
Facilitating second-generation affiliation
Children born in Japan to settled aliens become Japanese through birth and at time of birth only if both parents are stateless. Otherwise they naturalize when older. The conditions for naturalization are considerably relaxed for various categories of settled aliens and their Japan-born descendants. However, there is now a move to provide options for acquiring nationality through notification if the parents or the child have fulfilled certain residency requirements.
Second-generation nationality:
Recognizing the attachment of settled aliens
This article reviews the movement toward attributing nationality to children born in a jus sangunis country to domiciled aliens.
Prevention of frauldent and contrived nationality
More people appear to be seeking nationalities of convenience for themselves or their children. Some states are moving to prefent or minimize the acquisition of their nationality through fraud or contrivance.
Nationality law abuse and fraud:
Exploitation of blood and soil "birthright" principles
This article examines how and why some states are tightening their nationality laws to prevent or minimize acquisition of nationality of convenience.
Prevention of frauldent and contrived nationality
Nationality generally does not extend to the next world. However, some states have granted their nationality posthumously to people who had been in the process of naturalizing at the time of their death, or who had died while serving the country in a war, among other reasons.
Nationality after death:
Honor, glory, country, and God in the next world
This article shows how some countries have dealt with movements to confer their nationality posthumously for political if not also commercial reasons. As a counterpoint, the article also reviews controversies over posthumous baptism and conversion in the service of religious interests.