Terminology related to nationality, status, courts, and agencies
By William Wetherall    First posted 8 January 2007    Last updated 10 June 2021

Linguistic and factual discrepancies Nationality and citizenship • Subjects, nationals, and citizens • Japan and Japanese • Chōsen(ese) and Korea(ns)
Translation standards Early examples of mistranslation • Law translation committees • Standard Bilingual Dictionary • Japanese Law Translation (JLT) database • JLT dictionary search • JLT context search
Periodic glossary Words with no legal currency • Words having currency before Meiji > since Meiji > imperial era > after World War II
Topical glossary Registration • Japanese and aliens • Affiliation • Subnationality • Naturalization • Suffrage • Race and ethnicity
Sinific nationality terminology JPN nationals • ROC nationals • PRC citizens • ROK nationals • DPRK citizens • VIET citizens
European nationality terminology British Nationality Act • Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act • European Constitution
Japanese legal terminology Government actions • Government-General actions • Court actions • Treaty actions • Other actions • Basic family register notifications • Name change notifications • Nationality notifications
Japanese government organizations Great Council of State • Ministry of Justice • Ministry of Interior • Immigration Bureau • Immigration Control Chronology
Meiji volumes of Hōrei zensho National Diet Library Dajōkan database • Selected terms from "Yomigana jisho"

Linguistic and factual discrepancies

It occurred to me during the late 1990s and early 2000s, while writing a comprehensive article on nationality in Japan, that something was seriously wrong about the way primary Japanese materials are represented in English.

I had long before this realized that a lot of translation for public consumption distorts original texts, with the result that some "information" about Japan in English is highly misleading. This time, though, I confronted how technical distinctions in earlier sources have been distorted.

Translations distort original texts for a number of reasons. The following situations are most likely to effect the literal accuracy of English versions of, say, official Japanese texts such as laws, court decisions, Diet and related committee proceedings, and government reports.

For the above and other reasons, writers, translators, and editors -- when rendering, say, a Japanese text into English -- are inclined to impose usage criteria that reduce, corrupt, or subvert the meanings of the original words and phrases. Such criteria are usually imposed by slaving the original to American or other "English" conventions of usage and clarity, to create the illusion of smoothness and familiarity. But they are also imposed because freer, looser, interpretative translations are commonly regarded as both easier to produce and more marketable than closer, more faithful renderings.

Here I will argue why it is important to stress metaphorical if not phrasal fidelity, and not be tempted to shift the semantic coordinates of a Japanese text into that of an external American or other English-world coordinate system.

Good Japanese-to-English translation -- meaning an English translation that faithfully conveys the meaning of a Japanese text, on its own terms, in English -- requires that English be slaved to the world of Japanese. When conventional English fails to convey the meanings of the Japanese, then English conventions are Japanized in order to make readers of English familiar with things Japanese.

Top  

Nationality and citizenship

Japanese are defined, legally, as those who possess Japan's nationality (kokuseki 国籍). Aliens are those who do not possess Japan's nationality, and are stateless aliens if they have no nationality.

Japan does not define "citizenship", and Japanese are "nationals" (kokumin 国民) rather than "citizens" of Japan. The term "shimin" (市民) is used in Japanese as a collective term for "kushichōson-min" (区市町村民), which conflates "kumin" (区民), "shimin" (市民), "chōmin" (町民), and "sonmin" (村民), referring to legal (registered) residents or "affiliates" (min 民) of a municipality -- a ward (ku 区), city (shi 市), town (chō, machi 町), or village (son, mura 村). Municipally registered aliens are also "shimin". And by extension, all municipal citizens are "prefectural citizens" (todōfuken-min 都道府県県民) of the prefecture having jurisdiction over their municipality -- tomin (都民) of Tōkyō-to, dōmin (道民) of Hokkaidō, fumin (府民) of Kyōto-fu or Ōsaka-fu, and kenmin (県民) of all other prefectures, which are denoted by "ken" (県).

Expanding the "min = affiliate = citzen" to the national level, Japan's "kokumin" could be construed as meaning "national citizen". However, this does not give license to translate "Nihon kokumin" (日本国民) as "Japanese citizen".

If "kokumin" is translated "national citizen", then "Nihon kokumin" would translate "Japan national-citizen" (which includes only Japanese) as opposed to, say, "Nihon shimin" (日本市民) or "Japan municipal-citizen" (which includes both Japanese and alien residents).

"Japanese citizens" is vague in English because one doesn't know if it means "citizens of Japan" limited to Japanese, or "citizens of Japan" including aliens.

"Nihon kokumin" = "Japan nationals" as "Japanese citizens" implies that alien residents of Japan are not "Japanese citizens". Yet aliens who legally reside in Japan are "Nihon shimin" -- in the sense that "shimin" is used to refer to all residents of Japan's municialities, whether wards (ku), cities (shi), towns (chō), or villages (mura). I prefer to use English terms that reflect the metaphorical sense of Japanese usage -- and not mix metaphors. And so I won't speak of "national citizens" only in discussions of national citizenship, which is not defined in Japanese law. Otherwise, I will refer to people politically affiliated with the state -- as well as with a municipality of Japan (and by extension a prefecture) -- as "Japanese nationals" (Nihon kokumin).

Nationality as a cause

I'm curious about people but generally don't invade someone's privacy without an inroad or cause. But I have lots of causes for occasions when I can't find an inroad.

One of my favorite causes is nationality. If I find myself in the company of a stranger, and I am the first to speak, I open in Japanese regardless of visual or other clues that the person might not be Japanese. I say "might not be" because -- if there's one thing I've learned about the racialist impulses I grew up with -- it's not possible to actually "see" or "hear" nationality. The fact is, I can't really tell what anyone is unless I see their passport or ask. So I irritate many strangers by assuming that, because I am meeting them in Japan, they are Japanese unless they say otherwise.

In conversations with people I don't know I sometimes find an opportunity to ask -- "Kokuseki wa doko desu ka?" Or, if we end up speaking English, I ask -- "What is your nationality?" These are not exactly the same sort of question -- since "doko" signifies "where" rather than "what" -- but the effects are similar.

Japanese will typically reply "Nihon" -- or write "Japan" in a nationality box. "Nihonjin" or "Japanese" would be an answer to a different question -- like "Nanijin desu ka?" or "What are you?"

But "Kokuseki wa doko desu ka?" is likely to amuse if not confuse someone in Japan who is Japanese, and assumes that everyone should be able to plainly see that he or she is Japanese -- especially since they are in Japan and are speaking native Japanese. So why is someone who looks like me, and speaks non-native Japanese, asking such a dumb question?

An airline official, eying my passport, told me "You don't look Japanese." No city, election, passport, hospital, police, or exit-entry port official in Japan has ever blinked -- though I would guess that most, off duty, would have been more curious. I would be. I don't normally ask people their nationality, but at times I feel like having fun.

You could be Korean, I say, or Canadian. Which Naruhodo, they may say, and playing the Which will amuse the

Racialist assumptions can be wrong. You really can't "see" or "hear" nationality. And this is part of the game. The person will come back with the same question -- "What is your nationality?" And I will say "Japanese" because, afterall, I am Japanese.

Racialist assumptions about people who appear to be

Top  

Subjects, nationals, and citizens

Top  

Japan and Japanese

Top  

Chōsen(ese) and Korea(ns)

Top  

Many writers about Japanese law in English, including journalists and academics, adopt popular rather than legal standards of translation. At times the distinction doesn't matter. At times a lot is lost when translating legal terms in Japanese into familiar or popular -- rather than legally accurate -- English terms.

"nationality" and "citizenship"

People who write in English, whether as a native or second language, tend to share educations and reading experiences that that strongly American, British, and other historical and social experiences. Japanese students of law in English are apt to acquire habits of writing about "nationality" as something tantamount to "citizenship" -- simply because Americans have always talked about being U.S. "citizens" because they have U.S. "citizenship" -- are apt to associate "nationality" with "ethnicity" or racialized "national origin". And decades ago, in British Commonwealth states, "subjects" became "citizens" who today also talk about "citizenship" more than "nationality".

"kokuseki" and "kokumin"

My favorite example of what frequently happens in Japanese-English translation is the treatment in English of terms like "kokuseki" (国籍) and "kokumin" (国民). Translators familiar mainly with conventions of writing in English, which reflect mostly American and British usage, are apt to write "citizenship" and "citizen" -- unaware that Japanese law does not have national equivalents of "citizenship" or "citizen" in the sense that these terms are commonly used in America and Great Britain.

Japanese "kokuseki" refers to "nationality" in international private law -- where it signifies a non-racial, non-ethnic, civil status acquired through belonging to a state as a legal entity. Possessing "nationality" is an either/or proposition -- one either has, or does not have, a state's nationality. And if one has no nationality, then on is stateless. This has been the cornerstone of Japanese national status laws since the Meiji period.

In international law, there are no "degrees" of nationality. Nationality has a purely binary quality -- 0 or 1 -- you have it or you don't. You might think you have it, and challenge a state's contention that you don't have it. But as a legal artifact, you have it or you don't. And whether you have a state's nationality it is at the mercy of its laws and its recognition.

There are no gradations in nationality as a status. Which is not to say that, under a state's domestic laws, whether one has its nationality, and how one acquired its nationality, might effect the quality of its nationality-based citizenship. In Japan today, a national of Japan can become Japan's prime minister, even if his or her nationality was acquired through naturalization. In the United States, naturalized citizens are constitutionally barred from holding the office of presidency.

"status" versus "rights and duties"

In fundamental contrast with nationality as a legal status, "citizenship" is a set of rights and duties that are likely to vary among individuals according to their age, sex, legal competency, marital status, occupation, religion, nationality, naturalization status, regionality, residency, and incarceration status or criminal record -- among other traits that differ among individuals.

An alien's rights and duties of citizenship may actually exceed those of a person who possesses the state's nationality. Many people who qualify as a state's citizen or national are unable to vote or run for public office because they are too young. Whereas if the state provides certain classes of aliens rights of full or partial suffrage, then the quality of their citizenship exceeds that of, say, incarcerated citizens or nationals whose rights and duties have been curtailed. And even without rights of suffrage, non-citizen or non-national adults have greater citizenship rights than citizen or national minors unable to, say, marry or sign a contract without the permission of a legal guardian.

In any event, international law is concerned with "nationality" and not "citizenship". And measure "citizenship" by the same ruler.

"citizen" versus "national"

American passports stipulate on their personal identity page that the bearer possesses the "nationality" of the United States. This is precisely what "kokuseki" means in Japanese. The diplomatic page of a U.S. passport requests that a foreign government extend to "the citizen/national of the United States named herein" treatment normally accorded alien passport bearers. Japan's passport reads "国籍 / Nationality" on the identity page, and "日本国民である本旅券の所持人 / "the bearer, a Japanese national" on the diplomatic page.

America differentiates "citizens" and "nationals" as statuses of belonging to the United States on account of possessing U.S. "nationality". Most Americans are "citizens" but some are only "nationals" of the United States. "Citizens" but not "nationals" have federal political rights.

Japan regards those who posses its "nationality" as its "nationals". Socialist republics like the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea define the quality of national belonging as "nationality" under international law. But as a matter of domestic law, they refer to those who possess their nationality with metaphors that translate "citizen" (公民) and not "national" (国民) -- for the simple reason that, in socialist thinking, the "people" (jinmin 人民) are sovereign unto themselves.

"nationality" versus "ethnicity"

In the United States in particular, but also in some other countries domestically hooked on "citizen" and "citizenship" metaphors, "nationality" may more commonly allude to something that is better understood as "ethnicity" if not "race". Think of the sense in which "national origin" continues to be used in especially the United States, where it has a legal history of signifying "race" or "ethnicity" in exclusionary immigration and naturalization laws.

Choices when writing

"Nationality" is a purely civil status under international law. Statuses like "subject" or "national" or "citizen" and the like are matters of domestic laws. Translating Japanese status laws according to popular English usage, based on American, British, and other status laws, defeats the whole purpose of translation.

Why, then, do so many journalists, scholars, and others who write about Japan in English, confuse Japanese metaphors with popular English metaphors? Mostly -- in my experience from talking with other writers, editors, and translators -- out of ignorance, to put it bluntly. Some who know the difference protest that their editors and/or readers wouldn't appreciate the difference, or that it is not important -- hence their decision to cater to status quo usage, rather than leaving readers puzzled or challenging them to learn something they they hadn't thought about. Practically all Americans I have talked to in Japan -- who have passports -- believe their passports are evidence of their citizenship -- and are surprised to read that, no, their passports prove only their nationality -- which makes them either a citizen or a national of the United States.

Japanese-English writers, editors, and translators have the choice of morphing Japanese laws into the sort of English that serves the purposes of say American law, or broadening English usage to embrace the conventions of Japanese legal terminology.

Top  

Factual versus non-factual description

I have talked about representing "kokuseki" in Japanese status laws as "citizenship" when writing in English, as a problem of imposing popular conventions of English usage on the understanding of "nationality" in Japan -- mostly out of lack of knowledge or interest. Some writers on Japan in English who appear to understand the nomenclature issue, however, prefer to speak of "citizens" and "citizenship" for publicist reasons.

Some publicist writers believe that Japan's "right-of-blood" Nationality Law has deprived born-in-Japan alien minorities of suffrage and other rights that would have been theirs if Japan's Nationality Law were a place-of-birth law like America's -- or if it had provisions for 2nd-generation nationality. Most but not all alien residents of Japan were were born in Japan, are descendants of Japanese subjects of Chōsen and Taiwan when these territories were parts of Japan. Their alien status goes back to their own loss of Japanese nationality, or to an ancestor who lost Japanese nationality in 1952 when Chōsen and Taiwan were formally separated from Japan's soveriegn dominion.

Publicists for the rights of such "Zainichi" regard them as aliens who ought to and would be "Japanese" if they or a lineal ancestor had not lost Japanese nationality -- or if Japan's Nationality Law had been a place-of-birth law when they were born -- or had a 2nd-generation nationality provision, which would broken the chain of successive foreign nationality.

Aliens born in Japan, if they want to be Japanese, have to naturalize. And there are quite a few 3rd and even 4th generation aliens in Japan -- i.e., foreigners whose alien status goes back to an alien grandfather or great grandfather who settled in Japan, and lineal male descendants thereof in a succession of marriages in which patrilineal nationality laws conspired to produce 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation alien families in Japan.

The generational succession of alien status in Japan has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, which do not matter in Japanese law. Nor does the phenomenon of generational succession of alien nationality have anything to do with colonial policy or post-colonial settlements. It arises only because, until fairly recently, most nationality laws in the world have been patrilineal and have lacked provisions for 2nd-generation right-of-soil nationality.

This is clear from the case of Marianne Wilson Kuroda, a 4th generation Swedish and American citizen in Japan whose great grandparents include Swedish and German men who settled in Japan and married Japanese women. See Marianne's custody dispute, 1956-1958 for details.

No one in Marianne's line of descent in Japan would have been born an alien in Japan if Japan's Nationality Law had been a jus soli law. And a jus sanguinis law with a 2nd-generation jus-soli provision would have allowed her alien grandfather, who was born in Japan to an alien man married to a Japanese woman, to acquire Japanese nationality as a birth right when he came of age -- rather than have to naturalize in order to become Japanese.

Marianne's 2nd generation Swedish grandfather could have naturalized had he wanted to. And even her Swedish and German great grandparents could probably have contrived ways to become Japanese through their marriages if they had really wanted do. But all remained aliens.

The same is the case for most other 3rd- and 4th-generation aliens in Japan, including those of Chosenese or Taiwanese descent whose Special Permanent Residence status is legally linked to historical loss of Japanese nationality -- i.e., one or both of their Japan-born parents or grandparents -- and they themselves -- have chosen not to naturalize.

Japan's adoption in 1984 of an ambilineal principle in its 1950 Nationality Law, effective from 1985, has all but eliminated 2nd-generation aliens among offspring of married parents one of whom is Japanese. But 2nd-, 3rd-, and subsequent generation aliens continue to be non-stateless alien parents in Japan.

"Chosenese" and "Koreans"

"Japan" and "Japanese"

In the above digression, I have spoken of "Chosenese" and "Koreans" rather than just Koreans. And I have spoken of both "Chosenese" and "Taiwanese" was having been "Japanese" during the decades that Taiwan (1895-1945/1952) and Chōsen (1910-1945/1952) were parts of Japan's sovereign dominion.

Pracically no other writer in English precisely describes historical facts in this manner. It is impossible to write about the legal realities of Imperial Japan, and the legacies of those realities in matters concerning nationality and alien status in Japan today, if one conflates, say, Chōsen (朝鮮) and Kankoku (韓国) as "Korea" and Cōsenjin (朝鮮人) and Kankokujin (韓国人) as "Korean" in English.

Some journalists and academics write "ethnic Koreans" in reference to "Koreans in Japan" -- sometimes including Japanese of Chosenese or Korean descent. However, the status of being either a Chosenese or Korean in Japan has nothing to do with ethnicity -- which reflects the urge of some writers to racialize people. in any event is irrelevant -- since their status has nothing to do with "ethnicity" by any definition of the term, and "ethnic" " "KoreaKorea" or "Chosenese" and "Koreans" in Englishin Japan todayI have also spoken of "ChoseneseThe most telling examples of how writers prefer to ignBut there are more interesting and telling examples of how writers prefer to ignore Japanese metaphors out of nationalistic sentiments interests as much as ignorance.

Forthcoming.

Internal viewpoints

Forthcoming.

External viewpoints

Forthcoming.

Top  

Translation standards

The Japanese language, like most languages, is very flexible within its rigid conventions. In the mouths of its masters, it is capable of practically any degree of precision or clarity.

Legal expression in Japanese can be as slippery and opaque as the bold print in political manifestos and the fine print in life insurance policies. The basic laws of the land, though, have been as concise and transparent as they need to be to ensure smooth and trouble-free enforcement and compliance. Laws governing civil matters such as birth, death, marriage, and divorce, and matters like nationality, family and alien registration, and leaving and entering the country, have been particularly straight forward and lucid.

Phrasing and metaphors

The structures of any language are its words and the ways they are put together in phrases that carry the potential (static, general) meanings of the words in isolation, and give these meanings their actual (dynamic, specific) significance in particular contexts.

Take, for example, Japanese metaphors -- putting their English equivalents first -- like "Japan" (日本 Nihon), "nationality" (国籍 kokuseki), and "renunciation" (離脱 ridatsu). Alone they can mean so many things that, alone, they are practically meaningless.

Now put these three terms together in a phrase like "I wish to renounce the nationality of Japan" (日本の国籍を離脱したい Nihon no kokuseki o ridatsu shitai). If made to a friend over dinner, this statement has only conversational consequences. If made on a "Nationality renunciation notice" (国籍離脱届 Kokuseki ridatsu todoke), submitted to the Ministry of Justice of Japan in accordance with provisions of Japan's Nationality Law and related laws, it has serious legal consequences.

As a statement made on petition for renunciation of nationality, "I wish to renounce the nationality of Japan" means nothing less than "I no longer desire to be affiliated with Japan as a member of its nation, and I understand that, upon the minister's approval, and after subsequent procedural formalities, I will lose the nationality of Japan, and therefore no longer be affiliated with the nation of Japan, and therefore no longer be a "national of Japan" (日本の国民 Nihon no kokumin), aka a "Japanese national" (日本国民 Nihon kokumin), aka a "Japanese" (日本人 Nihonjin), and therefore will no longer have any of the rights or duties that are limited to Japanese, but rather will be an alien in the eyes of Japanese law, and as such will have only the rights and duties that either are limited to aliens, or are not limited to Japanese."

Metaphorical threads

One might argue that "nationality of Japan" means "citizenship of Japan". However, the metaphorical thread of "nation" (国 kuni) and "nationality" (国籍 kokuseki) and "national" (国民 kokumin) does not involve any notion of "citizenship" or "citizen".

Equivalents of "citizenship" and "citizen" are rarely used in Japanese law, and only in reference to aliens. The term 市民権 (shiminken) is used to represent "citizenship" in a phrase which translates "nationality or citizenship" -- used in reference to aliens in two articles in the 1951 Immigration Control Order that survive in the 1982 Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law.

Specifying "nationality or citizenship" assures that, regardless of whether the domestic law of an alien's country of nationality refers to affiliation with the country as "nationality" or "citizenship", the said person is an "alien" under Japanese domestic law. This is not to say that the notions of "citizenship" and "citizen" do not exist in Japan, but simply that these are not labels for affiliation.

All polities in Japan, from the "nation" (国 kuni) to its "prefectures" (都道府県 todōfuken) and their "municipalities" (市区町村 shikuchōson), define affiliation in terms of both primary (national) and residence (municipal) registration. And they accord residents and non-residents various rights and duties according to these two statuses.

Metaphors of affiliation

One is a "national" (国民 kokumin) if one is metaphorically "one of the people" or "an affiliate" (民 min) of the "nation" (国 kuni). One is an affiliate of the nation if one possesses its "nationality" (国籍 kokuseki).

Under Japanese law, only Japanese are "national affiliates" or "nationals".

One is similarly an affiliate of a municipality (区民 kumin, 市民 shimin, 町民 chōmin, 村民 sonmin), and consequently also of the prefecture (都民 tomin, 道民 domin, 府民 fumin, 県民 kenmin) having jurisdiction over the municipality, if one is recognized as a registered resident of the municipality polity in which one resides.

Under Japanese law, Japanese and aliens are equally "municipal affiliates" or "municipalites".

Metaphors of residence status

All Japanese, by legal definition, are principally domiciled in Japan through their affiliation with the municipality which has jurisdiction over their principal register. But only those who are registered with a municipality as residing at an address within a city, ward, town, or village in Japan are regarded as residents of Japan. Japanese who have registered as residing overseas continue to be affiliated with Japan through the principal register, but they are treated somewhat differently in terms of rights and duties than Japanese who are residing in Japan.

Aliens, too, are treated differently according to whether or not they are registered as residents of a municipality in Japan. Resident aliens are further treated differently according to their status of residence. Even the status of "permanent resident" is divided into types which are treated somewhat differently in terms of rights and duties. Even non-resident aliens will be treated differently according to their nationality and all manner of other attributes that have no relationship to nationality or residence status.

While only Japanese are affiliates of the state of Japan, all legal residents of a Japanese municipality -- Japanese and aliens alike -- are affiliates of the municipality, and by extension affiliates of the prefecture to which the municipality belongs.

Object of legal translation

The primary object of all translation is to render a story told in one language into an equivalent story in another. How this is done, and what standards are used to determine the equivalency of the original and the translation, will vary according to secondary conditions that may be imposed on the translation -- such as a need to simplify the diction or shorten the length of the original story, or censor objectionable elements from the story, or assimilate the world of the original story into the world of the translation.

Since the purpose of translating a law written in one language, is to make it accessible to readers of other langauges with minimum distortion of equivalency, all elements of the original law need to be mapped into the translation according to the same standard that governs court testimony: the translator endeavors to map the elemenets, all the elements, and nothing but the elements.

In otherwords, nothing of legal substance should be simplified, shortened, censored, or assimilated.

Mixing metaphors

The object of translating a Japanese law into another language, say English, is to represent the internal precision and clarity of Japanese legal expression in English. While translators also need to worry about whether their linguistic transformations will be understandable to readers of English, the object of translation is to draw the reader of English into the world of Japanese law, not to assimilate Japanese law to the reader's world.

Distorting metaphors

English, like Japanese, is also capable of accommodating practically any conceptual or expressive need. Japanese and English accommodate the needs of their native speakers, neither population of which is homogeneous linguistically or otherwise. The successful translation is one which makes a concept peculiar to Japanese law understandable to a reader of English, whose legal mind may have been shaped by concepts of American law, without distoring the legal sense of the Japanese law.

Unfortunately, translations of Japanese laws into English are increasingly affected by the biases of American legal expression. Americanisms in English translations of Japanese law may not result in life-threatening misunderstandings in how Japanese laws operate -- as far as lay or "common sense" understandings of law are concerned. For most people who will read such translations, including Japanese, will not have a sufficient understanding of the nuances of, say, US and Japanese nationality laws, to recognize what has been distorted because of poor translation, including dependency on faulty bilingual guides.

Students of comparative law who take the "translation standards" now being promoted in Japan at face value risk being misled by "Americanizations" that seriously distort and mix the metaphors and therefore the meanings of some Japanese legal expressions. This is particularly true with terms related to nationality.

Legal and social terrains

It is very important, when translating laws, to differentiate legal and social terrains. Even though it may be fashionable in the highly Americanized quarters of Japan's "English" society to speak of "citizens" and "citizenship" in accordance with popular American usage, Japan's legal terrain is about "nationals" and "nationality".

A more complex example would be the various terrains of the words like 日本人 (Nihonjin) in Japanese and "Japanese" in English. It is not only fashionable but practically reflexive, both in Japanese and American society, to use these terms with racial implications. And because race boxes in the United States continue to have legal standing, federal and state race-box practices encourage the racialization of terms like "Japanese" and "Chinese".

Japanese law, however, has been raceless. Even though 日本人 (Nihonjin) may be highly racialized in the social arena, it has been only a legal status, not a racial label, in Japan's legal terrain.

The position of "Nihonjin" on Japan's legal map can be precisely triangulated from synonyms that serve as semantic landmarks. Such triangulation establishes that, as a legal term, 日本人 (Nihonjin) has been not only raceless, but it has been free of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or other such qualities. Only when the implications of this are fully appreciated can the authority of Japan's raceless laws be invoked to persuade against racialism and racism on its various social terrains.

To be continued.

Top  

Older examples of mistranslation

Effects of non-structural translation

Here are two examples of how non-structural translations distort Japanese texts. The first is an example of what I term "unnecessary angliciation" resulting from insisting on introducing English conventions for their own sake -- in this case, gendered pronouns. The second is an example of "gross mistranslation" resulting from not taking the precision of the Japanese phrasing seriously.

Unnecessary Anglicization

This example of unnecessary genderization comes from Joseph Ernest De Becker's translation of the 1899 Nationality Law.

While practically all Japanese texts can be translated without genderizing, most translators prefer to expand the English version with "his or her" and other forms of genderization.

Gross mistranslation

This example of total misrepresentation of the grammatical subject or actor comes from the received translation of the 1924 Enforcement Regulation (Ordinance No. 26), relating to the 1899, which the US Embassy in Tokyo rushed to the State Department in Washington, D.C. in a diplomatic pouch on 1 December 1924, the day that revisions to the 1899 law and their enforcement regulations came into effect.

The received translation totally misrepresents how the nationality retention revision in the nationality law is to operate in conjunction with the family registration law. The infant whose nationality is being retained cannot possibly file notifications on its own behalf. Its father, or its mother, or another qualified person, is required to file notification of intent to retain its nationality when filing a notification of its birth.

Top  

Law translation committees

In 1999, a government council was set up to study Japan's legal needs in the 20th century. This gave birth to a task force, which bred a series of study groups and work groups to promote the translation of Japanese laws and regulations into "foreign languages" -- meaning English.

The committees culminated in the publication, in 2006, of a "Standard Bilingual Dictionary" -- meaning a Japanese-English dictionary. The annually revised dictionary is being used to uniformly translate a growing list of Japanese laws and regulations.

This effort to standardize legal translation in Japan is intended to facilitate the translation of more Japanese laws and regulations in a uniform manner that would, in theory, improve the quality of understanding of Japanese law in, say, English. While this is certainly a worthy goal, already there are signs that standards of the "Standard Bilingual Dictionary" are lowering, rather than raising, the bar of translation standards.

The website of the Cabinet Secretariat of the Japanese government has a section devoted to what is called the "Liaison council of relevant ministries and agencies concerning infrastructure for the promotion of foreign language translations of laws" (法令外国語訳推進のための基盤整備に関する関係省庁連絡会議) or simply "Liaison council" (連絡会議).

The council was established "in order to plan smooth implementation of policy, while assuring coordination between relevant ministries, regarding the infrastructure required to promote foreign language translation of the laws and regulations of our country, pursuant to 'On the promotion of future reform of the legal system' (Judicial system reform promotion task force decision, 26 November 2004)" (my translation).

Liaison council

The Liaison council met a total of eight times, for 30 minutes, between 27 January 2005 and 23 March 2007. It was chaired by the Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary, assisted by a Cabinet Secretariat Councillor. Members included 15 ministerial secretariats. They were assisted by 16 ministerial secretaries. One of the meetings involved only the secretaries.

Deliberation council

A sub-council called the "Council for deliberation of promotion and implementation of the foreign language translation of laws and regulations" (法令外国語訳・実施推進検討会議) met a total of nine times, for two hours, between 2 February 2005 and 17 March 2006.

The non-government members of the Deliberation council included the following individuals (listed in gojuon order of first appearing name).

Specialists council

The deliberation council passed the baton to the "Council of specialists of foreign langauge translation" (法令外国語訳専門家会議), which as of this writing has met a total of eight times, between 27 June 2006 and 31 August 2007, for two hours each time.

The Specialists council involved only 15 non-government representatives, all of whom are attornies or professors of law (listed in gojuon order of first appearing name).

Matsushita joined the group from 24 August 2006. Suzuka joined from 1 April 2007.

Note that Kashiwagi was the chair of both the Deliberation council and the Specialists council. In addition to him, only Kakinuki appears to have been involved in both of these councils (based on information posted on Cabinet Secretariat website, retrieved 4 September 2007).

John C. Kakinuki was a partner of Baker & McKenzie / Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Law Office at the time he began serving on the two councils. In the fall of 2006, however, he ended 22 years of private practice to become general legal counsel in Tokyo for General Electric Consumer Finance. It was announced that he intended to remain active in the International Trademark Association (INTA) and the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ). He had chaired the intellectual property committee of ACCJ for six years, then two years each as a ACCJ governor and as a vice president (Managing Intellectual Property website).

Kakinuki graduated from the Social Science Division of ICU in Tokyo in 1979, obtained a law degree from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and joined Baker & McKenzie in 1984 after entering the bar in California. He had been studying electrical engineering at UCB before coming to Japan, but he changed to social sciences after becoming interested in "juvenile delinquency and its relation with racial discrimination against Korean-Japanese and burakumin" (The IUC, No. 13, December 2004, page 10).

In 2004, Kakinuki was joined on the Executive Committee of ACCJ by Allan D. Smith, the Regional Vice President of Legal and Government Affairs, and Legal Counsel, for AIG Companies (Japan and Korea). Back in 1984, at the height of the US-Japan trade war, Smith, who graduated from Harvard College in 1980, was writing articles like "The Japanese Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law and Administrative Guidance: The Labyrinth and the Castle" (Law and Policy in International Business, Vol. 16, pages 417-476).

As of this writing [circa 2007], Smith is still a vice-president of ACCJ, and John C. Kakinuki is a governor.

Judicial system reform task force

It appears that Smith was on the committee because he had had at least one opportunity to speak before a Japanese government cabinet committee. The name of the cabinet committee was "Internalization committee" (国際化検討会). This was one of several committees set up under the "Task force for the promotion of judicial system reform" (司法制度改革推進本部), which disbanded on 30 November 2004.

Judicial system reform council

The task force formed in response to the findings of the Justice System Reform Council [Judicial system reform council] (司法制度改革審議会), which was established under the Cabinet in July 1999 to study Japan's legal needs for the 21st century. By June 2001, when the council issued its final report and recommendations, it had held 63 meetings.

Smith (as Aran Sumisu) was invited to speak at the third of the Internationalization committee in March 2002. Though introduced as the chairman of ACCJ'S Financial Services Committee, he quickly removed that hat and spoke mostly about the need for internationalization in the insurance and securities industries, from his vantage point as an officer and legal counsel of AIG Companies in Japan.

The cabinet committee was chaired by Kawashiwagi Noboru. John Kakinuki (as Kakinuki Jon) was also at this meeting, like Smith as an "explainer" (説明者).

The Internationalization committee, which began convening in January 2002, had the last two of its 18 meetings in June and November 2002. However, between July and October, a related committee convened four sessions of what was called a "Working Group Concerning foreign language translation of laws and regulations" (法令外国語訳に関するワーキンググループ). Neither Kakinuki nor Smith were members of this committee.

The only member of the Working group that was also on the Internationalization committee was Kashiwanagi. The only other member of the Working group that was also on the Specialists group was Matsuura Yoshiharu of Nagoya University.

Keith Suzuka, another American, graduated from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco in 1984, after getting a BA in pscyhology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, in Honolulu, in 1979. He was admitted to the bar in Hawaii in 1979, and qualified as a Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi in Japan (GJBJ) in 2000, when he rejoined the law firm of Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu in Tokyo. As of this writing (October 2007), Suzuka is one of 12 foreign attorneys with NO&T, which is one of Japan's largest law firms, specializing in corporate and business law, M&A, finance, intellectual property, IT, entertainment, taxes, dispute resolution, and China -- everything but matters related to nationality and family registration.

PDF (portable document format) versions of the Standard Bilingual Dictionary can be downloaded from 連絡会議 (Liaison council) section of the Cabinet Secretariat website. CSV (comma separated value) versions, which can easily be opened in any spreadsheet or imported into any database, can be downloaded from the 日本法令英訳プロジェクト (Japan law and regulation English translation project) section of the Toyama Group website at Nagoya University. The two sections are linked to each another.

The Toyama Group, under Toyama Katsuhiko, at the Graduate School of Information Science at Nagoya University, is dedicated to language and information processing. The English translation projects provides downloadable TXT files of Japanese, English, and Japanese/English versions of a number of Japanese laws. The English versions are translated and edited in accordance with the dictionary standards.

Matsuura Yoshiharu, a member with Kashiwagi of both the Working Group and the Specialists group, is a member of the Toyama Group. My impression is that he was umbilical cord between the government committees and the university group. I would also guess that the group has been funded by the government.

The translation project is outlined in a 2004 report by Matsuura called "Law and regulation translation project based on management of information about law and regulation data" (法令データ情報の管理に基づく法令翻訳プロジェクト). The report is downloadable from the 首相官邸 (Prime Minister's Residence) ["Prime Minister and his Cabinet"] site. More about the project is described in "Conception of system for translation of laws and regulations of Japan" (日本法令翻訳システムの構想), an article which Toyama Katsuhiko, Ogawa Yasuhiro, and Matsura published in Jurisuto (15 December 2004, No. 1281).

Top  

Standard Bilingual Dictionary

The first version of the Standard Bilingual Dictionary appeared in 2005. It was in its third edition as of 2009.

The following information is based on a csv (comma separated values) file of Legal Terms, Version 2, which has 4896 records including the field definition record. Record 1 defines nine (9) fields (categories) as follows.

Parsed as a list, the record looks like this (the numbers and translations are mine).

Here are some examples. Most entries make use of only the first few fields.

Top  

Japanese Law Translation Database System

Called "Japanese Law Translation" in short, the following website, has been hosted on a Japanese government server since the spring of 2009.

The movement to standardize translations of Japanese laws began with a government task force in 2004. The first edition of the so-called "Standard Bilingual Dictionary" appeared in 2005.

Government agencies began cooperating in the development of a foundation for promoting standardization of foreign language translations in 2006. The Ministry of Justice took over the project from 1 April 2009.

The Ministry of Justice is now responsible for continuing to develop the so-called Standard Bilingual Dictionary, and for overseeing the translation of Japanese laws in accordance with this dictionary. The purpose of all this continues to be to improve the quality of the information about Japanese laws that the government globally disseminates in other languages.

The Nationality Law, as revised in 2008 effective from 2009, was translated in accordance with version 3.0 of the Standard Bilingual Dictionary in May 2009 and posted on the Japanese Law Translation website in July.

JLT website disclaimers

The JLT website appropriately reminds users that its translations are not official, and that only the Japanese-language versions of the laws have legal effect. Yet it also makes the following dislaimers -- "disclaimers" because the Japanese and English versions are significantly different (bold emphasis added).

So much for government's pretense of wanting to improve quality and understanding through the "standardization" of legal translation.

The Government of Japan, represented here by the Ministry of Justice, will spend tax money developing its elaborate standard dictionaries and databases -- and crank out translations as fast as its technocrats can run the software -- yet baldly refuse to be accountable for "the accuracy, reliability, or currency" of its work?

The Japanese version says 一切の責任を負いかねます (issai no sekinin o oikanemasu" -- which means "is unable to bear any responsiblity" -- for, in context, "problems that arise with the use of this page [these webpages, this website]".

Since the the disclaimer is a legal statement, and because only Japanese versions of laws are authoritative, it would appear that the user could, in fact, hold the government accountable for the lack of accuracy, reliability, and currency of the English version.

Top  

Dictionary search

The JLT website has a 辞書検索 (jisho kensaku) or "dictionary search" function ("Dictionary Search" in English) which allows a user to find whatever the current version of the Standard Bilingual Dictionary has to say about a word or phrase. Returned information includes list of laws in which the expression can be found in both the Japanese text and the JLT version of the law.

The dictionary search function returns the following information about 国民 (kokumin).

・国民［ この用語を使用している法令 ］
1. citizen 国民［ この用語を使用している法令 ］
2. national 国民［ この用語を使用している法令 ］

Clicking on the highlighted この用語を使用している法令 [Laws which use this term] link to the right of either 国民 or the two English candidates "1. citizen" or "2. national" will show a list of laws in which the terms are supposed to be found in association.

Pursuing the examples in some of the laws, however, suggests that the listed words are not necessarily associated or have been poorly translated.

Kokumin as "citizen"

The list of laws in which 国民 is supposed to mean "citizen" includes the Nationality Law.

Kokumin in Nationality Law

JLT's translation of the Nationality Law renders Paragraph 1 of Article 4, which introduces several articles on naturalization, like this.

Kokumin as "national"

The list of laws in which 国民 (kokumin) is supposed to mean "national" include both the law related to Ainu Culture Law and the Exit-enter-country Control Law (so-called "Immigration Control Law").

Kokumin in Ainu Culture Law

国民 (kokumin) appears only once in the Ainu Culture Law, in Article 1, which stipulates its purpose.

Kokumin in Exit-entry-country Control Law

Top  

Context search

The JLT website has a function called 文脈検索 (bunmyaku kensaku) which means "context search". Called "Keyword in Context search" in English, the function permits one to search the JLTDS database for how submitted keywords are translated.

Here are the results for several Japanese words, and the English words returned for the Japanese words. The numbers refer to the number of times the expression following the number was associated with the submitted word. The survey was done on 9 June 2009.

Words related to 国民 (kokumin)

国民 (kokumin) is arguably the most important word in the 1947 Constitution. It refers to an "affiliate of the state/country/nation" and hence means "national". Qualifications for being a "national of Japan" at time of birth and through birth, or later in life through other measures, are determined by the Nationality Law.

国民 203 citizen, 2055 national
citizen 485 国民
national 485 国民

Words related to 国籍 (kokuseki)

A "national of Japan" (日本国民 Nihon kokumin) is essentially a person who possesses the 国籍 (kokuseki) or "nationality" of Japan.

国籍 93 nationality
nationality 87 国籍

Words related to 市民 (shimin)

The term 市民 (shimin) is a legal term in Japanese for an affiliation of a 市 (shi) or "city". It is also a buzzword for "citizen" in the sense of a resident or member of a local or other such "community".

In the database 市民 is associated with the following two phrases.

Words related to 人種 (jinshu)

人種 (jinshu), the Japanese term for "[biological] race", appears in the 1947 Constitution merely as part of a list of reasons for which a person is not to be discriminated against under law. 人種 and "race" are associated while "racial" got zero hits.

Words related to 民族 (minzoku)

民族 (minzoku), the Japanese term for "[ethnonational] race", appears only in laws related to Ainu affairs, but not in reference to individuals. In other words, such laws do not racialize individuals who may, as a private matter, consider themselves of Ainu descent within Japan's raceless nationality.

民族 (minzoku) got a few hits as "ethnic" or "ethnic group" in relation to "Ainu people" -- in which "people" is used in the sense of "ethnic group" or "ethnonation" or otherwise racialized population. 民族性 (minzokusei), meaning "ethnicity", got zero hits. English "ethnic" was associated with 民族 while "ethnicity" got zero hits.

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

1. その人の生れた国。その人の国籍がある国。
   Country where a person is born.
   Country where a person's nationality exists.
   [ Country in which a person has nationality. ]

2. 先祖の出た国。
   Country from which [a person's] ancestors came.

3. ふるさと。故郷。
   Old village.  Old village.
   [ both in sense of "old country" ]

4. 植民地でない、本来の国土。
   Not colony, original national territory.

Top  

Top  

市民団体  shimin dantai    citizens group [organization]
市民階級  shimin kaikyuu   bourgeoisie
市民革命  shimin kakumei   bourgeois revolution
市民活動  shimin katsudou  citizen activities
市民ケーン Shimin Keen    "Citizen Kane"
市民権　  shimin-ken       droit de cité
                             droit du citoyen
                             citizenship
市民教育  shimin kyouiku   citizenship education
市民農園  shimin nouen     Kleingarten [small garden]
                             small rural plots of land
                             used on weekends by city people
                             to grow vegetables and fruit
市民参加  shimin sanka     citizen participation
市民生活  shimin seikatsu  civic life
市民戦争  shimin sensou    civil war
                             内戦 naisen "internal war"
                             内乱 nairan "internal conflict"
市民社会  shimin shakai    civic society
市民大会  shimin taikai    citizens rally
市民運動  shimin undou     citizens [civic］movement

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Top  

Sinific terms for state affiliation

All Asian states that share Sinific terms for state affiliation use local versions of the term for "nationality" that originated, apparently, in Japan. Socialist and non-socialist Asian states, however, differ as to what they call their affiliates -- meaning people who possess their nationality. Socialist states use the equivalent of 公民 meaning "public [civic] affiliate [person]" while non-socialist states use 国民 meaning "people" nation [country, state] affiliate [person]".

The term 人民 meaning "people" tends to be more by socialist countries to refer to their state affiliates as a political collectivity -- hence "people's" in their names.

Top  

"Nationals" of Japan

Since the Meiji period, Japan has referred to its state affiliates as "nationals" (國民 → 国民 kokumin). The term stresses a person's a relationship with the country or state.

The term "subject" (臣民 shinmin), formally introduced in the 1890 Constitution, fell into disuse in 1945 at the beginning of the Allied Occupation of Japan. Replaced by "national" in the 1947 Constitution, the term -- meaning "loyal affiliate" -- denoted a person's relationship with the sovereign "tennō" (天皇) or "emperor".

Japan has provided ways for aliens to "naturalize" (歸化 → 帰化 kika) since its first Nationality Law in 1899. The same graphs appear in Japan's earliest national histories, in their original Chinese sense of "allegiance change".

See Japan's Nationality Law: A primer and guide to other articles for more details.

Top  

"Nationals" of the Republic of China

The Republic of China (ROC) refers to its "people" (人民 rénmín), who possess its "nationality" (國籍 guójí), as "nationals" (國民 guómín). Laws provide ways for aliens to "naturalize" (歸化 guīhuà). ROC thus uses the conventional "national" and "allegiance change" metaphors.

The current (2003) "Immigration Act" or "Entering or Leaving the Country and Immigration Law" (入出國及移民法) of the Republic of China (ROC) defines "nationals" of the state as follows (Article 3, Definitions of terms; English version as received, but [bracketed clarifications] are mine).

The "Taiwan areas" encompass "Taiwan, Penhu, Kinmen, Matsu and other territories under the control of the government of the State" (Article 3, Item 2).

A distinction is made between ROC nationals who "have established their permanent residence at a household registry" in the "Taiwan areas" and those who have not.

The latter are mainly ROC nationals overseas whose nationality orginated with registration in mainland provinces when under ROC control. For many years after 1949, ROC continued to claim the mainland provinces as part of its sovereignty. Now, however, ROC formally claims only the "Taiwan areas" as part of its sovereign dominion.

ROC nationals whose nationality derives from affiliation with mainland provinces are "legacy nationals" in the sense that their nationality reflects affiliation with an entity that no longer exists. That is, ROC no longer exists as a mainland entity.

As a legal status in Japan, "Chosenese" is similarly the legacy status of a person who continues to be identified as an affilate of an entity that no longer exists -- in this case, the former "Chosen" subnation of the Empire of Japan.

See ROC nationality laws from 1912 to 2000: Membership in an increasingly stateless nation for more details.

Top  

"Citizens" of the People's Republic of China

The People's Republic of China (PRC), as a socialist state, refers to its "people" (人民 rénmín), who possess its "nationality" (国籍 guójí), as "citizens" (公民 gōngmín). Aliens may "naturalize" (加入国籍 jiārù guójí) -- literally "join [the state's] nationality]".

PRC eschews the conventional "national" (国民 guómín) and "alligience change" (归化 guīhuà) metaphors, as they run counter to its "people's republic" ideology. Oddly, though, English versions of PRC's nationality law use "national".

See PRC's 1980 Nationality Law: A single nationality multiethnic state for more details.

Top  

"Nationals" of the Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea (ROK), which adapted Japan's nationality laws to its own standards of family law, defined people who possessed its "nationality" (국적 kukchŏk 國籍) as "nationals" (국민 kungmin 國民).

ROK also defines "alien nationality compatriots" (외국 국적 동포 이중 국적 oeguk kukchŏk tongp'o 外国国籍同胞) or "compatriots abroad" (재외 동포 chaeoe tongp'o 在外同胞) -- meaning people of Korean ancestry affiliated with other states.

See ROK's 1948 and 1998 nationality laws: Last bastion of Korean patriarchy falls and ROK's Compatriots Abroad Act: "nationals abroad" and "alien nationality compatriots"for more details.

Top  

"Citizens" of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), like the People's Republic of China (PRC), defines its "people" (인민 inmin 人民), who possess its "nationality" (국적 kukchŏk 國籍), as "citizens" (공민 kongmin 公民).

See DPRK's Nationality Act: First East Asian law to degenderize nationalityfor more details.

Top  

"Citizens" of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) closely follows the People's Republic of China (PRC) in its use of "citizen" (công dân < 公民) in reference to people recognized as possessing its nationality (quốc tịch < 国籍).

Top  

European terms for "nationality" and "citizenship"

The municipal (domestic, national) laws of some countries use equivalents of "citizen" and "citizenship" when referring to a "national" who possesses the country's "nationality". The two metaphors are not, however, the same, and it is very important to differentiate them.

Conflation and confusion in America

It does not usually occur to Americans that nationality and citizenship are entirely different. Most Americans think of themselves only as "citizens" and speak only of "citizenship" -- unaware that the US Immigration and Nationality Act also defines non-citizen "nationals".

Americans are also apt to think of "nationality" as a description of "national origin" -- which, in American vernacular, has long been a highly racialized expression, though today it is more fashionable to speak of someone's "heritage" as an "ethnic" (ethnonational) or "cultural" (ethnocultural) quality.

People generally are not aware that, in international law, "nationality" an attribute of state affiliation having nothing to do with citizenship, race, or ethnicity. Few Americans realize that their global status as "Americans" derives entirely from their US "nationality", and not from their domestic status as a "citizen" or "national" of the United States.

Semantic boundaries in Europe

The semantic boundaries of the European-language equivalents of "nationality" and "citizenship" is an interesting study in itself. The next sections look at "nationality and citizenship" in British and Irish law, and at how other members of the European Union are differentiating their own metaphors for these terms.

Top  

Terminology in British Nationality Act

The varieties of legal statuses of people who actually or virtually possess British nationality is staggering. The British Nationality Act of 1981 (effective from 1983) and later revisions differentiates the following kinds of status among persons connected by nationality to the United Kingdom and Colonies. (The "Existing entity" and "Legacy entity" labels are mine. The "virtual nationality" qualification is also mine.

I have called the first two categories "existing entity statuses" because they represent affiliations with existing entities of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These statuses are acquired by qualified persons through birth or adoption in the UK, birth outside the UK and other qualifying territories, registration, or naturalisation.

All of the "legacy entity statuses" -- sometimes called "residual nationalities" because they involve remnants of colonial and other entities that either no longer exist or are no longer part of the United Kingdom -- will gradually disappear as those who possess them die. In principle, these statuses are closed to new acquisition, except when accorded in order to prevent statelessness.

While only British citizens have the automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, those with other categories of British nationality are treated differently from aliens. British protected persons do not actually possess British nationality, but legally they are not aliens, and because they are presumed not to be stateless, they have what can I call "virtual nationality".

British citizenship through birth in the UK is partly jus sanguinis (one parent must be a British citizen), and partly jus soli (one parent must be a "settled" alien). "Settled" aliens include Irish citizens, and aliens who have been granted "right of abode" or "indefinite leave to remain" in the United Kingdom. The latter two statuses are comparable to "permanent residence".

No "British nationality" in British act

The British Nationality Act of 1981 is subtitled "An Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality, and to amend the Immigration Act 1971 as regards the right of abode in the United Kingdom".

However, British nationality acts do not speak of "British nationality" as such. Rather they speak of "British citizenship" and "British citizens" in addition to non-citizen categories like "nationals" and "subjects".

The term "nationality" generally appears in phrases like "citizenship or nationality" in reference to other countries. This is done to accommodate the fact that some countries use one term or the other.

Here are some examples of such references in the 1981 British Nationality Act.

Top  

Terminology in Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act

Like Britain until the 1981 British Nationality Act came into force in 1983, Ireland's customary laws and statutes generally recognized that all persons born in Ireland were Irish citizens. However, the 2004 Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act, which came into effect from 2005, echoes the shift in British law from primarily jus soli to primarily jus sanguinis principles.

Irish nationality and citizenship is now acquired at time of birth if one parent is an Irish citizen, a British citizen, an alien permitted to indefinitely reside in the Irish Republic or in Northern Ireland, or an alien who has resided in Ireland for a specified period of time (among other conditions).

Note that Ireland's law reciprocates Britain's recognition of Irish citizens in the UK as virtual British subjects for purposes of jus sanguinis British nationality and citizenship. Ireland's law also recognizes permanent residence in Northern Ireland, which is formally part of the United Kingdom, as the equivalent of permanent residence in the Republic.

Irish nationality and citizenship (naísiúntacht agus saoránacht Éireann)

The principle of jus soli, though to some extent applied since the initial determination of the Irish nation in 1922, was first codified in the constitution by a 1998 amendment to Article 2. However, the sweeping provision of Article 2 was restricted by a 2004 amendment to Article 9.

The English versions of these two articles now read as follows. For linguistic interest, I have shown the Irish equivalents of terms related to "nationality" and "citizenship" in brackets.

Top  

Terminology in European Constitution

The European Union is emerging as a "supranational" state in that it laws, to the extent they are ratified by its member states, extend the national laws of these states -- just as United Nations covenents extend the municipal laws of member UN states. Consequently, the advent of "European citizenship" implies the existence of "European nationality".

Members of the European Union now need to differentate "citizenship" in the European Union from the "citizenship" or "national citizenship" that derives from status within each member state. They also have to accommodate the preference in international law for "nationality" as an attribute for state affiliation.

More concretely, a "British citizen" is such only in Britain, and a "citoyen de Français " is such only in France. Both, however, are citizens of the European Union (or will be upon the adoption of a formal constitution that incorporates provisions for "European citizenship".

However, in international law, and in the eyes of the laws of the European Union, affiliation with the United Kingdom or France is viewed as a matter of possessing British or French "nationality". Similarly, in international law, affiliation with the European Union (if and when "European citizenship" comes to pass) will be viewed as a matter of "Euroepan nationality".

"Towards a European Nationality Law" (de Groot 2004)

Gerard-Rene de Groot of Maastricht University has written a very interesting paper called "Towards a European Nationality Law", Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 8.3, October 2004). De Groot is mainly concerned with the question of "whether the introduction of European citizenship has consequences for the autonomy of the Member States in matters of nationality" (1. Introduction).

However, de Groot begins with an examination of "the precise relationship between the terms 'nationality' and 'citizenship'" in 1992 and 1997 versions of European Union treaties in English, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. The terms appeared in articles for the planned European Constitution.

De Groot found that "Staatsangehörigkeit" was used to represent "nationality" while "Bürgerschaft" represented "citizenship" (2. Terminology). This is significant because the Japanese term 国籍 (kokuseki) appears to have evolved from the term 国民籍 (kokuminseki), which was coined in 1883 as a translation of "Staatsangehörigkeit" (Ninomiya 1983: 218, 220).

The following table, though my own creation, was inspired by, and in part borrows from, de Groot's "Towards a European Nationality Law" (Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 8.3, October 2004).

Top  

Japanese legal terminology

Forthcoming.

Top  

Government actions

Forthcoming.

Imperial actions

勅令 (chokurei) imperial ordinance
勅命 (chokumei) imperial command
勅諭 (chokuyu) imperial instruction, rescript

詔勅 (shōchoku) imperial edict, decree
a. 詔書 (shōsho) imperial edict, decree
b. 勅書 (chokusho) imperial rescript
c. 勅語 (chokugo) imperial rescript

大詔 (taishō) imperial rescript
勅裁 (chokusai) imperial sanction, approval, decision

Great Council of State actions

布告 (fukoku) proclamation, decree, or promulgation (of such)
布達 (futatsu), 達 (tatsu) circular, notification, or promulgation of such

定 (sadame) determination (with regard to, say, a query from a ministry)

Ministerial actions

御触れ (御布令) (o-fure) proclamation
御達し (o-tasshi) circular, notification

伺 (ukagai) query (to, say, Great Council of State)

指令 (shirei) directive from higher office to lower office

Imperial and National Diet actions

法令 hōrei -- laws, ordinances, regulations, instructions (generally)
憲法 kenpō -- constitution (constrains laws)
条約 jōyaku -- treaty (may constrain laws)
法律 hōritsu -- code, act, law (enacted by the national diet)
  ABC 法 ABC hō -- ABC code, ABC act, ABC law

Cabinet, ministry, and agency actions

命令 meirei -- ordinances, orders issued by government organ (generally)
政令 seirei -- cabinet order, government ordinance (issued by prime minister and cabinet)
内閣府令 naikaku furei -- cabinet office ordinance
(abbr) 閣令 kakurei -- cabinet office ordinance
省令 shōrei -- ministry ordinance
庁令 chōrei -- agency ordinance
規則 kisoku -- rule, regulation (parliamentary houses, courts, government committees, other government bodies invested with regulatory powers)
訓令 kunrei -- instruction (from higher organ to lower organ)
告示 kokuji -- [public] announcement, notification

皇室令 koshitsurei -- imperial house ordinance (based on Imperial House Law, now just another piece of diet legislation, but not subject to diet approval under the Meiji constitution

軍令 gunrei -- military ordinance (military laws and regulations, sanctioned by the emperor, concerning the command of the army and navy, instituted from 1907, abrogated by GHQ/SCAP in 1946)

府令 and 庁令 may refer to ordinances from any entity called a 府 or 庁 -- which include ministries, agencies, governments-general (Taiwan, Chosen), and prefectures or prefecture-like polities (Karafuto, Hokkaido).

通達 (tsūtatsu) notification
通知 (tsūchi) notice
回答 (kaitō) reply, response
心得 (kokoroe) rule

Local government actions

条例 jōrei --ordinance (prefectural or municipal polity)
  prefectural (都道府県 todōfuken) ordinance
  municipal (市町村 chichōson) city, town, village) ordinance

Structure of laws

条 (jō) article
項 (kō) paragraph
号 (gō) item

補足 (hosoku) supplementary provision
附則 (fusoku) appended provision, supplementary provision
別表 (beppyō) schedule

規定 (kitei) provision [commonly used today]
条規 (jōki) provision (規定), regulation (規則) [rarely used today]

Top  

Government-General actions

A number of terms were used to describe legal actions taken by the Government-General of Taiwan (台湾総督府 Taiwan Sōtokufu) or by the Government-General of Chosen (台湾総督府 Chōson Sōtokufu). Some actions required the imperial sanction in manner of Interior laws, while others could be taken under the direct authority of the Governor-General (総督 Sōtoku) of the Government-General (総督府 Sōtokufu) of Taiwan or Chosen.

Laws (法律 hōritsu)   Laws were enacted by the Imperial Diet in accordance with Constitution. Laws passed by the Diet were effective only in prefectures unless, at time of their enactment, they included provisions that specifically extended them, in part or in whole, to one or another non-prefectural territory within Japan's sovereign domain. The Diet could also extend parts of all of a prefectural law to a territory.

Decrees (律令 ritsurei)   Decrees by this name were issued by the Governor-General of Taiwan (台湾総督 Taiwan Sōtoku) with imperial sanction (勅裁 chokusai). They were the Taiwan equivalent of diet-enacted laws in the interior. Taiwan also had 州令 (provincial ordinance) and 庁令 (district ordinance).

Decrees (制令 seirei)   Decrees by this name were proclaimed by the Governor-General of Chosen (朝鮮総督 Chōsen Sōtoku). They were the Chosen equivalent to diet-enacted laws (法律 hōritsu) in the interior. They required sanction by the emperor (勅裁 chokusai) before promulgation, but in emergencies the governor-general had the authority to promulgate a decree before obtaining imperial sanction.

Ordinances (総令 sōrei, 府令 furei)   Government-General ordinances (総督府令 sōtoku furei) did not require imperial sanction. They were issued and enforced entirely under the executive authority of the Governor-General (総督府令 Sōtoku). They usually concerned minor issues, including issues related to the enforcement of decrees.

Top  

Court actions

訴訟 (soshō) lawsuit, action [of first instance]
原告 (genkoku) plaintiff in original action
被告 (hikoku) defendant in original action
訴訟人 (kosōnin) plaintiff, suitor, litigant

Soshō are pursued in district courts as courts of first instance, and usually involve civil or criminal matters.

控訴 (kōso) appeal to higher court [of second instance]
控訴人 (kōsonin) appellant in first appellant court
被控訴人 (hikōsonin) respondent in first appellant court

Kōso appeals are made against first instance decisions of family courts, summary courts, and district courts in matters that cannot be brought before the Supreme Court.

抗告 (kōkoku) appeal to higher court [of second instance]

Kōkoku appeals go as far as a high court, unless they involving allegations of unconstitutionality or incompatability with a Supreme Court precedent.

上告 (jōkoku) final appeal [to Supreme Court]
上告人 (jōkokunin) appellant
被上告人 (hijōkokunin) respondent

Jōkoku are final appeals to the Supreme Court against a judgments of a lower court, usually a high court, of second instance. In civil cases, such appeals are limited to matters which involve an allegation of unconstitutionality, error in legal interpretation, major procedural violation, or conflict with a Supreme Court precedent, among other matters that the Supreme Court may regard as important.

判決 (hanketsu) judgment, decision
決定 (kettei) decree, ruling
破棄 (haki) reverse, annul, abrogate
棄却 (kikyaku) dismiss, reject [appeal denied, decision affirmed]

判示事項 (hanji jikō) main points at issue
判決要旨 (hanketsu yoshi) essential elements
主文 (shubun) text, main text, conclusion [of decision] 理由 (riyū) reasons

Top  

Treaty actions

signature -- Treaties, both conventions and protocols, are open for signatures for a period of time after they are adopted at a conference, and before they come into force. Signatures only indicate that a country is willing to participate and do not oblige ratification.

ratification -- Endorsement of a treaty by a state, after signature, usually as a result of gaining approval of the treaty in the state's legislature. Failure to ratify the treaty within a specified time limit will usually nullify a state's signature. However, the state may then, in the future, accede or succeed to the treaty.

accession -- Becoming a party to a treaty after the period for signing it has closed. Acceding to a treaty combines signature and ratification in a single act.

succession -- A new state may declare its intent to abide by a treaty prior to becoming independent. Or any non-party state may declare that it will provisionally abide by a treaty while deciding whether to accede.

reservations and declarations -- These are conditions a participant attaches when signing or ratifying, or when acceding or succeeding to, a treaty. They consist of statments that modify or exclude the binding effect of specific articles or phrasing within articles. In principle any conditions may be attached so long as they do not compromise the purpose of the treaty.

denunciation -- Terminating participation in a treaty by announcing that one is no longer a participant. Most treaties have articles that stipulate causes and procedures for termination.

Top  

Other actions

The Nationality Law and related laws use a number of terms that reflect the relationship between individuals to whom provisions in these laws might apply and the government offices and officials that mediate the laws. Here is a list of the terms that appear with particularly high frequency in many Japanese laws, including the Nationality Law.

Todokede

A notification (届出 todokede) is made by a person or an organization to a competent government office or official in order to initiate an action based on the application of the law alone. Action does not require permission at the discretion of a competent official. Officials will vet the notification forms (which are typically single sheets of paper) and supporting documents as required, to make sure they comply with provisions of applicable laws, and take action on strength of the laws alone.

Notifications are the important legal actions, since they initiate an operation of the law itself without the intervention of a grant of permission by an authority. The most important notifications, for most people in Japan, are those they make to a local municipal office concerning their family register and other personal matters. People residing overseas make notifications through a Japanese embassy or consulate.

Though Japanese nationality is directly related to family register status, some notifications concerning specifically nationality need to be made to regional Legal Affairs Bureaus, which are directly under the Ministry of Justice.

Shinsei

application (申請 shinsei) for permission that is granted by a competent official on the strength of the official's discretionary powers. An application is therefore a petition for approval. A petition's compliance with provisions in relevant laws and regulations is not in and of itself sufficient for favorable action without approval. A petition that appears to meet prerequisites might be rejected, and one that fails to meet prerequisites might be approved, depending on the parameters of the competent official's discretionary powers.

Sengen

declaration (宣言 sengen) made by a person as a vow or agreement. As a legal act, a declaration may be made with reservations that qualify the declaration. The reservations may be stipulated or implied in the laws that govern the declaration, if not in the declaration itself.

Senkoku

pronouncment (宣告 senkoku) made as a judgment or adjudication, including a ministerial decision, concerning the disposition of a person who is held to have violated a law or regulation for which official action is authorized by law. Articles 16 of the Nationality Law, for example, gives the Minister of Justice the discretionary power to denationalize a Japanese national who is held to have violated the stipulation in the article.

Kokuji

announcment (告示 kokuji) in a public manner, such as by publication in the 官報 (Kanpō) or Official Gazette, which is recognized as a legal notice. Comparable to the Congressional Record in the United States, the Official Gazette publishes Diet proceedings, facilitates the the promulgation of laws, and also serves as the primary vehicle for issuing numerous official announcements, grants of permission to naturalize (Article 10) and pronouncements of loss of nationality (Articles 15 and 16). Such announcments have legal effect from their date of publication. Pronouncements may have effect immediately (Article 16) or after a designated period of time if stipulated conditions are not met (Article 15).

Tsuchi

notices (通知 tsūchi) are made by competent government officials or offices, and by courts and the like, to a person or an organization concerning some official or legal matter, such as a decision regarding a petition or other formal request for permission or action, including an application for permission to naturalize.

Top  

Basic status act notifications

Here are the most common of many more kinds of notifications which affect one's legal status in Japan. Actions which are made on the basis of such notifications are called status acts (身分行為 mibun kōi).

People in Japan, Japanese and aliens alike, will make such notifications at a municipal office having jurisdiction of the locality in which they are registered as residents.

Birth and parental ties

Notification of birth
出生届 shusshō todoke
Made in Japan at a municipal office by Japanese and alien parents alike, within 14 days of a child's birth. A Japanese parent of a child born overseas has three months within which to file a birth notification at a Japanese embassy or consulate.

Notification of acknowledgement
認知届 ninchi todoke
Japanese and aliens alike make notifications to acknowledge (recognize) their parental ties. At present, most such notifications are made by fathers recognizing their paternity. Maternal acknowlwedgements are in principle possible are limited by the lack of provisions for, say, surrogate birth. Acknowledgements made by a Japanese father, of a child born to an alien mother to whom the father is not married, before or at the time of the child's birth, will result in the child becoming Japanese by birth under Article 2 of the Nationality Law. Later acknowledgement, which now also enables acquisition of Japanese nationality, falls under Article 3.

Notification of parental right
親権届 shinken todoke

Notification of guardinaship
後見届 kōken todoke

Notification of entering register
入籍届 nyōseki todoke
Made to effect a migration, usually of a child, to another register, usually of a parent who has migrated to another register as a result of marriage or divorce. Adult offspring may themselves seek to effect a register migration by such a notification. Such migrations result in a change in a person's family name the that of the newly entered.

Notification of making an alliance of adoption
養子縁組届 yōshi engumi todoke
One cannot adopt an older person, or an ascendant, or one's own wedlock child, but one can one's own out-of-wedlock biological child, or a biological younger sibling or grandchild.

Notification of dissolution of an alliance of adoption
養子離縁届 yōshi rien todoke

Death and disappearance

Notification of death
死亡届 shibō todoke
Made within 7 days from the time a death has come to be known. The notification must be accompanied by a certification of the cause of death. The determinination of cause of death, though made by a medically competent person, who could be the deceased person's attending physician or a medical examiner, is mediated by police officer.

Notification of missing person
失踪届 shissō todoke
A person may be presumed to have died, be struck from a family register as deceased, and inheritance laws applied to the person's property, if a family court pronounces the person missing and public notice is made to this effect. There are two kinds of missing person actions.

Marriage and divorce

Notification of marriage
婚姻届 kon'in todoke
Made by couples who wish to be regarded as married. Since a marriage legal originates upon registration, there is no period within which a marriage must be registered. Ceremonies are strictly private and have no legal effect. Whether a couple has a ceremony, or when they have one, is of no legal consequence.

Notification of divorce
離婚届 rikon todoke
Made within 14 days of the date shown on the notification, on which a married couple agree in the witness of a third part to divorce

Creating new or modifying existing registers

Notification to create a register
就籍届 shūseki todoke
Made by a person or on behalf of a person, pursuant to a judgment by a family court that the person is entitled either by law or by the court's discretion to acquire status in a family register. Such persons include (1) newborn infants who have not yet been registered, especially those who qualify for Japanese nationality because they were born in Japan to parents both of whom are stateless, or are presumed to be Japanese nationals because they were born in Japan and neither parent is known, (2) older children and adults who should have been registered but for reasons acceptable to the court were not registered, (3) people who had been orphaned as children in China or elsewhere in the wake of World War II and later resettled in Japan and were recognized as Japanese nationals, (4) people who had been registrants of Karafuto when, as a prefecture of Japan, it was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union.

Notification of separation of register
分籍届 bunseki todoke
Made by a person who wishes to leave, say, the principal register of the family into which the person was born, and establish an independent register. The separate register may have the same address as the natal register, but as a separate register it could have a different family name.

Notification of transfer of register
転籍届 tenseki todoke
Made by persons who wish to change the locality of their principal register, usually from one municipality to another.

Top  

Name change notifications

Here are just a few of the notifications that can be made to effect a change of one's family name. Japanese family law requires that all members of the same register bear the same family name.

Many of basic status acts result in register migrations which bring about a change in family name. Most of the following notifications affect the family name of a register itself, hence the family name of all members in the register.

Notification to restore [natal or previous] family name
復氏届 fukushi todoke
Typically made by persons whose family name had changed when they married and, who after divorce, which to resume using their former family name.

Notification to [continue to] bear the family name borne at time of divorce
離婚の際に称していた氏を称する届 rikon no sai ni shō shite ita shi o shō suru todoke

Notification of change of family name due to marriage to alien
外国人との婚姻による氏の変更届 gaikokujin to no kon'in ni yoru shi no henkō todoke
Made, within 6 months after marriage, by a Japanese man or woman who desires to use the spouse's family name (or surname) as his or her legal Japanese name. The alien's surname, if not written in Sino-Japanese characters that are permitted for name use, will be written in kana, usually katakana.

Notification of change of family name to the family name of an alien father or mother
外国人父母の氏への氏の変更届 gaikokujin fubo no shi e no shi no kenkō todoke
Made to a municipal office by a person who has been permitted by a family court to so change one's family name. The name of the alien parent, if not written in Sino-Japanese characters, will be written in kana, usually katakana.

Notification of change of [personal] name
名の変更届 na no henkō todoke
Made by a person who has received permission from a family court to change their personal name on a family register

Top  

Nationality related notifications

A number of notifications directly concern nationality, whether or not they affect an individuals status as a national of Japan. Notices which require vetting by the Ministry of Justice are made directly to regional Legal Affairs Bureaus.

Notification of birth
出生届 shusshō todoke
Made in Japan at a municipal office by Japanese and alien parents alike, within 14 days of a child's birth. A Japanese parent of a child born overseas has three months within which to file a birth notification at a Japanese embassy or consulate to effect enrollment of the child in the parent's family register, which is essential for acquisition of Japanese nationality. Failure to file such notification means the child will not become Japanese.

Notification of reservation of [Japanese] nationality ty
国籍留保届 kokuseki ryūho todoke
Usually made by the Japanese parent or parents of a child who is born in a foreign country and who acquires the nationality of a foreign country through birth, when filing the child's notification of birth in order to enroll the child in parent's or parents' family register. The foreign nationality is usually, but not necessarily, the nationality of the country of birth.

Notification of acquisition of [Japanese] nationality
国籍取得届 kokuseki shutoku todoke
Made to a legal affairs bureau in Japan, or through an embassy or consulate overseas, by an alien one of whose parents is a Japanese national, but also by certain other aliens who are legally closely related to a Japanese national. This is the notification a child or legal representative would make regarding the transitional measures that facilitate the revision to Article 3 that came into effect from 1 January 2009.

Notification of acquisition of [Japanese] nationality by legitimation [ 1985-2008 ]
準正による国籍取得届 junshō ni yoru kokuseki shutoku todoke
This notification was formerly made, to a legal affairs bureau or to a Japanese mission overseas, under Article 3 of the 1985 Nationality Law effective from 1 January 1985 through 31 December 2008 (de jure) or 4 June 2008 (de facto). Pursuant to a ruling handed down on 4 June 2008 by the Supreme Court, which held the "legitimation" condition to be unconstitutional, a revision of Article 3 came into effect from 1 January 2009, since when this notification became called simply a "Notification of acquisition of [Japanese] nationality" (国籍取得届 kokuseki shutoku todoke).

Notification of naturalization
帰化届 kika todoke
Made in Japan by an alien to the municipal office in which the alien is registered as a resident, within one month after the announcement in the Official Gazette of the grant of permission to naturalize (Family Register Law, Article 102-2). Nationality, though not actually acquired until the notification is filed and the person permitted to naturalize is enrolled in a family register, is considered to have been acquired from the date of the announcment.

Notification of choice of [Japanese] nationality
国籍選択届 kokuseki sentaku todoke
Made in Japan to a municipal office, or to a Japanese mission overease, within two years after a person has become a multinational as an adult in the eyes of Japanese law. In the notification, a multinational Japanese lists his or her foreign nationalities, declares that one abandons them and chooses Japanese nationality, and promises to endeavor to renounce the listed foreign nationalities.

Notification of renunciation of [Japanese] nationality
国籍離脱届 kokuseki ridatsu todoke
Made in Japan at a legal affairs bureau, or to an overseas Japanese mission, by Japanese nationals who have another nationality and wish to cease being Japanese. Such notifications will not be accepted if the person's other nationality is one which Japan does not recognize (DPRK nationality, for example). In other words, Japanese law does not permit renunciation if loss of Japanese nationality would leave the person stateless in the eyes of Japanese law.

Notification of loss of [Japanese] nationality
国籍喪失届 kokuseki sōshitsu todoke
Made by Japanese who have another nationality, who have lost Japanese nationality because they have abandoned Japanese nationality under the laws of their other country of nationality.

Notification of loss of [foreign] nationality
外国国籍喪失届 gaikoku kokuseki sōshitsu todoke
Made by Japanese who have renounced or otherwise lost the nationality of another state under its laws.

Notification of reacquisition of [Japanese] nationality
国籍再取得届 kokuseki saishutoku todoke
Made by aliens who had once been Japanese, had for some reason lost their Japanese nationality, and qualify for reacquisition. Note that this not a form of acquisition by naturalization (which requires permission), but by notification (which does not require permission).

Top  

Japanese government organizations

A proper telling of history has to take into account changes in the organization of governments and the names of government organs. The following information has been collated to clarify changes in the names of Japanese ministries and agencies at different times since the Meiji period.

Top  

Great Council of State

The Great Council of State (太政官 Dajōkan), with roots in the 8th century, was created on 11 June 1868 (Keio 4-i4-21) as the first government of the Meiji period. This prelimiary system was revamped on 15 August 1869 (Meiji 2-7-8) into the ministerial system that governed the new country until 22 December 1885 (Meiji 18-12-22), when it was replaced by the cabinet system, anticipating the 1890 constitution.

Top  

Ministry of Justice

For nearly five years beginning during the Occupation of Japan, the Ministry of Justice was called the Attorney General's Office in English. The Japanese name of the agency has changed even more often.

Until 1948 -- Ministry of Justice

Meiji 2-7-8 (15 August 1869) -- Kyobusho (刑部省) [Ministry of Justice] established as an office of the Dajōkan (太政官) [Great Council of State]. The office was essentially a transformation of the Kyobusho [Utae Tadasu Tsukasa, Utae no Tsukasa] established during the Heian period.

Meiji 4-7-9 (24 August 1871) -- The Kyobusho [Ministry of Justice] was abolished and became the Shihosho (司法省) [Ministry of Justice]. Eto Shinpei (Taira no Taneo, 1834-1874) was its first head, then called the Shihokyo (司法卿). From 1885 the head of the ministry was called the Shiho Daijin (司法大臣) [Minister of Justice].

1948-1952 -- Attorney General's Office

15 February 1948 -- The Shihosho [Ministry of Justice] was abolished and became the Homucho (法務庁) [Attorney General's Office], headed by the Homu Sosai (法務総裁) [Attorney General].

1 June 1949 -- The Homucho [Attorney General's Office] was renamed the Homufu (法務府) [Attorney General's Office], headed by the Homu Sosai [Attorney General].

Since 1952 -- Ministry of Justice

1 August 1952 -- The Homufu [Attorney General's Office] was renamed the Homusho (法務省) [Ministry of Justice], headed by the Homu Daijin (法務大臣) [Justice Minister].

Top  

Ministry of Interior (Home Ministry)

Meiji 3-11-10 (10 November 1873) -- Naimushō (内務省) [Home Department] established as an office of the Dajōkan (太政官) [Great Council of State]. The minister was called Naimukyō (内務卿) [Home Minister].

22 December 1885 -- Naimushō (内務省) [Home Department] established as a ministry under the new cabinet system. The minister's title becomes Naimu Daijin (内務大臣) [Home Minister].

27 June 1947 -- Five days after convening of first Diet under new constitution, Home Ministry is disbanded, in recognition of constitutional provisions for local autonomy. These provisions were reflected in amendments to the Local Autonomy Law, made by the Imperial Diet on 17 April 1947 (Law No. 67), which came into effect on 3 May 1947, when the new Constitution came into effect and imperial government was replaced by the new government.

31 December 1947 -- Ministry of Home Affairs disbanded. GHQ/SCAP, which had already cut away some of its bureaus and reduced the authority of others, ordered the ministry's disbandment in a directive issued on 27 June. It was formally disbanded by the "Law to abolish imperial ordinances concerning the Home Ministry and organs of the Home Ministry (内務省及び内務省の機構に関する勅令等を廃止する法律) of 26 December (Law No. 238) and by the "Law concerning the adjusment of codes associated with the abolishment of the Home Ministry administration system" (内務省官制等廃止に伴う法令の整理に関する法律) also of 26 December (Law No. 239).

Scope of Home Ministry functions

The Home Ministry -- really the "Ministry of Interior Affairs" or just "Interior Ministry" -- was set up to keep track of former samurai who might cause disturbances. It quickly gained authority over prefectural governors, and was soon the most powerful ministry in the national government.

The Home Ministry's bureaus included police, security, hygiene (public health), society (labor), regional governments (elections), and shrines. The Tokyo Police Department and the Special Police of each prefecture were under its wing, as were the governments of Hokkaido and Karafuto.

Many administrative functions were added to, or separated from, the Home Ministry during its long existence. Though Health and Labor became an independent ministry in 1938, the child ministry's personnel continued to come from the parent ministry.

From the fall of 1942, the Home Ministry took over control of the three exterior territories, with the mission of integrating them into the interior. The integration of Karafuto became effective in 1943.

Jichishō (自治省) had the honor of being called the "Home Ministry" in English during its tenure from 1 July 1960 and 5 January 2001. As its name implies, this was actually a "Ministry of Self-Governments" meaning the prefectures.

From 5 January 2001, the "Home Ministry" (自治省) was merged with the "Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications" (郵政省) into the "Management and Coordination Agency" (総務庁), which became Sōmushō (総務省). This colossal organ first had the distinction of being called the "Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications" in English but has been the "Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications" since September 2004.

Top  

Immigration Bureau's MOFA roots

Until the end of World War II, police, under the Ministry of Interior (Home Ministry), controlled the entry and departure of Japanese and aliens into and from the prefectures. During the early months of the Occupation of Japan, movements into and out of what came to be defined as "Japan" was limited to movements of Allied personnel, and the repatriation to or from "Japan" as redefined by the Allied Powers of "Japanese" and "non-Japanese" and others as defined by Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) in Tokyo.

SCAP's definitions of "Japan" and "Japanese" and "non-Japanese" for occupation and repatriation purposes were based on directives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, D.C., which in turn were based on the terms of surrender. The government of Japan did not have much say in such matters because its sovereignty, including the right to conduct its own foreign affairs, and the right to control (much less define) its borders and nationals, was subject to SCAP authority.

Actions taken by the Japanese government to control the movements of people within Japan, and across Japan's borders, followed and implemented SCAP instructions. Ordinances for registering lawful aliens and deporting unlawful aliens appeared in 1946, when alien affairs were still under what was left of the police.

Comprehensive legislative measures for dealing with Japanese and aliens crossing borders, and aliens residing in Japan, were not taken until the middle of the Occupation. Only during the final years of the Occupation, as postwar settlements began to take shape, did Japan have a freer hand in such matters.

Entry, exit, and registration

From 10 August 1949, matters related to border crossing, meaning the entry and departure of all persons into and from Japan, other than Allied Powers military and Occupation Forces personnel and their families, were placed under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). From 1 October 1950, alien registration was also placed under the foreign ministry.

From 1 August 1952, when the Attorney General's Office was reconfigured as the Ministry of Justice, procedures for entering and exiting the country for Japanese and aliens alike, and alien registration matters, were placed under the supervision of the justice ministry.

Top  

Immigration control chronology

The term "immigration" is used here with the awareness that it means "exit-enter-country" as a matter of border crossing, and not "immigrants" or "immigration" in the senses that such terms are used in, say, Americanese.

10 August 1949 -- Immigration Department (入国管理部 Nyūkoku kanribu) established within the Control Bureau (管理局 Kanrikyoku) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (外務省 (Gaimushō) by "Cabinet order concerning control of exit-and-entry-of-country [emigration and immigration]" (出入国の管理に関する政令), Cabinet Order No. 299 of 1949 (昭和二十四年政令第二百九十九号), promugated on and enforced from 10 August 1949.

1 October 1950 -- Emigration and Immigration Agency (出入国管理庁 Shutsunyūkoku kanrichō) established as an external agency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in accordance with "Emigration and Immigration Control Agency Establishment Order" (出入国管理庁設置令), Cabinet Order No. 295 of 1950 (昭和二十五年政令第二百九十五号). At this time, alien registration, which had been under the Civil Affairs Bureau (民事局 Minjikyoku) of the Attorney General's Office (法務府 Hōmufu), was moved under MOFA.

1 November 1951 -- Emigration and Immigration Agency becomes simply Immigration Agency (入国管理部 Nyūkoku kanrichō), in accordance with "Immigration Control Agency Establishment Order" (入国管理庁設置令), Cabinet Order No. 320 of 1951 (昭和二十六年政令第三百二十号).

1 August 1952 -- Immigration Agency is reconfigured as Immigration Bureau (入国管理局 Nyūkoku kanrikyoku) under the Ministry of Justice (法務省 Hōmushō) as the Attorney General's Office was renamed from the same date.

Top  

Meiji volumes of Hōrei zensho

法令全書
Hōrei zensho
[ Complete book of laws and ordinances ]

There is one volume for each of the late Keiō and early Meiji era years, beginning from Keiō 3. Meiji 1 begins from Keiō 4-9-8 (23 October 1868), and so Keiō ends the day before. Materials from Meiji 4 to Meiji 8 are in Volumes 6 to 10.

National Diet Library Dajōkan database

Scans of Dajōkan proclamations and related materials can be found and selectively downloaded from National Diet Library websites as follows.

1. Begin with the National Diet Library Dajokan search page.
   1. Index to laws and ordinances of Japan [Early Meiji section] (日本法令索引 [明治前期編] Nihon hōrei sakuin [Meiji zenki hen]).
   This database covers from Keiō 3-10 to Meiji 19-2 -- approximately November 1867 to February 1886.
2. Enter a key word like "minseki", or a known word or phrase from the title of a law, or other specific terms.
   
   If interested mainly in principle laws and regulations, then select 法令全書 as the source to be searched, and do not specify dates or other particulars.
3. Search results will be displayed as a list of related items on a new page created by the same server. The list will show particulars for each item and links to the item in NDL's Digital Library.
4. Clicking a link will display further information related to the item of interest, including available scans, on National Diet Library Digital Collections.
   1. National Diet Library Digital Collection (国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション)
   2. Note that NDL's 近代デジタルライブラリー (Kindai ["recent era"] Digital Library), officially dubbed "Digital Library from the Meiji Era", was integrated into Digital Collections on 22 July 2015. However, older links on Yosha Bunko to NDL's "kindai.ndl.go.jp" server will redirect to the "dl.ndl.go.jp" server.
   3. NDL's Digital Collections includes scans of hundreds of thousands of documents and entire volumes, the copyrights of which have expired, or which copyright holders have permitted NDL to post on the Internet, or are otherwise regarded as being in the public domain, including books licensed by the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs.
5. Pages of interest can be viewed on a monitor or downloaded. Download options usually include either pdf files for selected ranges of pages, or jpg files with a choice (at times) of resolutions.

See Sources and translations and other parts of the Social status laws in Japan article in the "Anthropology" section of this website for fuller particulars, and for transcriptions and translations of several Great Council of State proclamations cited from Hōrei zensho.

Top  

Yomigana jisho

日本法令索引　[明治前期編]
ヨミガナ辞書
東京：国立国会図書館, 平成１９年１月
Nihon hōrei sakuin [Meiji zenki hen]
Yomigana jisho
[Index to laws and ordinances of Japan [Early Meiji edition]
Dictionary of kana readings
Tokyo: National Diet Library, January 2007
319 pages, PDF file

An aiueo reading dictionary of selected terms based on "Complete book of laws and ordinances (Iroha index of Japanese laws and ordinances from Keio 3-10 through Meiji 17-12)". Includes terms with difficult readings investigated in the process of compiling the Early Meiji section.

The dictionary, in aioeu order, is presented as a table with four colums: (1) Kana reading, (2) Characters, (3) Page in iroha index, and (4) Notes. The "Notes" column is further divided into two columns -- the first for cross reference to other entries, the second a simple definition -- but I have combined these subcolumns into a single column.

Entries that are new to the aeiou dictionary have no page number referring to its listing in the i-ro-ha index.

Many if not most entries (such as "eta") have neither cross references nor definitions. Others have cross references but no synonym definitions, and some (such as "hinin" and "minseki") have only definitions.

Top