Loss and renunciation
The line between choice and mandate
By William Wetherall
First posted 1 November 2007
Last updated 26 November 2026
Ways of losing nationality
Every state different, but there are some commonalities
Japanese and English terminology
Ridatsu "renunciation"
•
Hōki "relinquishment"
•
Sōshitsu "loss"
•
Saishutoku "reacquisition"
Effects of 1952 Peace Treaty
The territorial grounds for loss of Japanese nationality by persons in Chōsen and Taiwan household registers
Japanese American renunciants
Wartime loss of U.S. citizenship under the duress
Ways of losing nationality
Nationality can be lost in many ways.
- By voluntary renunciation or relinquishment
- By foreiture or deprivation as a consequence of performing a negative or positive act defined as a legal cause for expatriation, whether through government-initiated procedures or the automatic operation of a law
- From the effects of a treaty with explicit nationality disposition terms, or with territorial terms that affect nationality
The process of losing one's nationality -- one's legal civil status as a subject, national, or citizen of a state -- is variously called denaturalization, denationalization, expatriation, and alienation in English. None of these metaphors travel well in Japanese, which represents them in more specific terms that correspond to simply "loss" (sōshitsu 喪失) through "renunciation" (ridatsu 離脱) or "relinquishment" (hōki 放棄) of nationality, or loss through the committent of an act that Japan's laws define as a cause for automatic or procedural loss of nationality.
Actively making a declaration in which one intentionally distances or separates oneself from a possessed nationality is called repudiation (否認 hinin "disavow, disclaim"), relinquishment (放棄 hōki "abandon, release"), and renunciation (離脱 ridatsu "separation").
Passively, one can be divested, deprived, or stripped of a nationality (剥奪される hakudatsu sareru).
Otherwise, one is said to simply lose a nationality (失う ushinau, 喪失する sōshitsu suru).
Nothing "automatic"
The Nationality Law has no provisions for truly automatic acquisition or loss of nationality.
Acquisition of nationality under Nationality Law
Whether at time of birth or later in life, Japanese nationality is today acquired by automatic operation of the law, only after filing a notification of birth at the time of a child's birth, or a notification of legitimation before a child reaches majority, or a notification of naturalization after receiving permission to naturalize.
Notifications at time of birth or legitimation do not require permission in advance of filing. Notifications are vetted by municipal governments, and nationality is acquired if the particulars are accurate and meet the conditions stated in the law.
Naturalization requires permission, hence naturalizers first apply for permission to naturalize. Once permission has been granted, the naturalizer files a notification of naturalization with a local government, which vets the particulars, and if found to be accurate the naturalizer acquires nationality.
Failure to file notifications, whether at time of birth or when naturalizing, within fairly short periods of time after birth or after receiving permission to naturalize, will usually result in failure to acquire nationality.
Loss of nationality under Nationality Law
Statutory loss of birthright nationality
Forthcoming.
Renunciation
Every state, as a sovereign entity, has the right to determine its own provisions, if any, for active renunciation and/or passive loss of nationality. And no state has the right to determine the disposition of another state's nationality -- other than to recognize, or not recognize, a state's nationality, which is generally an artifact of recognizing the other state.
States that recognize each other, for the purpose of conducting normal diplomatic relations, are generally obliged to recognize each other's nationality, and to treat aliens who possess the other state's nationality according to mutual agreements. Most states do not treat all aliens the same, but according to its mutual agreements with with alien's state of nationality.
States are also free to treat some aliens according to domestic laws not linked with mutual agreements with other states. Japan, for example, recognizes individuals representing about 50 other nationalities as "Special Permanent Residents" -- entirely on ground linked to effects of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as intepreted by the Japanese government under its own laws.
For example, the San Francisco Peace Treaty confirmed Japan's loss Chōsen and Taiwan as parts of its sovereign dominion. The loss stipuated in terms of the the 19
This being said, most states have some provisions for both active divesture and passive foreiture of their nationality. And today, most states are reluctant to, or strictly outlaw, any form of nationality loss, whether active or passive, that would result in statelessness. For this reason, practically all people today, who have reason to want to lose the nationality of a state, will or must have the nationality of another state. And the state controling the nationality that is to be lost, may chose not to permit or recognize loss, if the dual national's other nationality is of a state it does not recognize.
Nationality renunciation is the act of declaring to the state that controls the-- in some formal manner, to an agent of the state with the authority to determine whether a person possesses or does not possess the state's nationality, such as a competent court or consular official -- that one wishes to divest oneself of the state's nationality. Most states have procedures for voluntary nationality renunciation or divesture. A few have no provisions for voluntary loss of nationality.
Some states have provisions for forfeiture or loss of nationality for nationals who commit an act defined as a cause for denaturalization or expatriation -- such as becoming a member of a military force or holding an office in the government of another country, or voluntarily seeking and acquiring the nationality of another country. Loss of nationality might be come through automatic operation of the law, or be confirmed after a review of the act by a competent government official, board, or court.
vary from state to state. And, all states have Every state is different, and there are many variations of another country, or naturalization in a foreign government, or naturalizing in a foreign country.Japanese and English terminology
Japan's laws generally use the following terms, the approximately the following English meanings. Note that translations of Japanese laws are notoriously inconsistent in their translations of these terms. Note also that the nuances of the English "equivalents" variably considerably with usage in English, hence the whole idea of "equivalency" is questionable.
More important, when reading Japanese laws, is to observe patterns of differentiation of usage in Japanese. Differentiation of usage, if careful and consistent, is an element of what I call "structure" -- and structural translation aims at consistency in metaphorical representation, in this case consistency in the English "tag" used to mark a particular Japanese term.
In the following headings, I have shown the Japanese term as it is graphically written, its romanization, and the English "tag" that I am using to represent the Japanese term in structural translations.
ridatsu 離脱 renunciation
Declaration to a state of one's desire to lose its nationality is usually called renunciation. One generally renounces State A's nationality to State A.
While nationals of a state may in principle have the right to renounce its nationality, the state may reserve the right not to recognize a declaration of renunciation it loss of its nationality would result in statelessness.
Both Japan and the United States require national who would renounce their nationality to formally file documents declaring their desire to lose nationality. And both states reserve the right not to permit renunciation.
The United States formally differentiates two kinds of repudiations of U.S. nationality -- "renunciation" and "relinquishment".
To be continued.
hōki 放棄 relinquishment
Declaration to a state whose nationality one already has, or is about to acquire, of one's intent not to be the national of another state whose nationality one also possesses, is usually called abandonment. Whether a declaration of abandonment to State A of State B's nationality results in the loss of State B's nationality entirely depends on State B's nationality laws.
Some states regard abandonment as the equivalent of renunciation. Hence their laws provide that a national who makes a declaration of abandonment of the state's nationality, to another state, will lose the state's nationality. However, such provisions usually operate if the national has another state's nationality, hence would not become stateless.
Other states, however, do not recognize abandonment as a cause for losing nationality.
Japan recognizes abandonment as cause for losing its nationality. The United States does not.
sōshitsu 喪失 loss
To be continued.
Most states have provisions for administrative or legal actions that result in a national losing its nationality.
Both Japan and the United States have provisions for initiation of loss of nationality proceedures.
Official reports of loss of nationality
Japan reports all officially recognized losses of its nationality in the Kanpō (Official Gazette), a daily record of Diet proceedings, promulgations of laws, and all manner of announcements and notices related to government actions. This publication also announces permissions to naturalize. Kanpō is published by the National Printing Bureau.
In the United States, the Federal Register, which like the Congressional Record is published by the Government Printing Office, issues a "Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039G". The section number is that of a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) pursuant to a 1996 health insurance act. The competent agency for the code is the Internal Revenue Service in the Department of the Treasury. A typical web version of the quarterly report is prefaced like this.
This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G, as amended, by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996. This listing contains the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a)) with respect to whom the Secretary received information during the quarter ending [Month Day, Year.
To be continued.
saishutoku 再取得 reacquisition
Forthcoming.
回復 kaifuku "recovery"Effects of 1952 Peace Treaty
The territorial grounds for loss of Japanese nationality
by persons in Chōsen and Taiwan household registers
Some treaties have caused automatic acquisition or loss of Japanese nationality, by operation of provisions of the treaty, or by the nature of treaty. The Nationality Law was extended to Taiwan within months after it entered into force in the prefectures in 1899.
Acquisition of nationality by treaties
Japanese nationality was acquired by most inhabitants of Taiwan by automatic operation of provisions in the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895. The 1899 Nationality Law was extended to Taiwan within three months of the start of its enforcement in the prefectures, after which Taiwanese were treated according to its provisions.
The Portsmouth Treaty of 1905 did not contain provisions for Russian subjects who remained in Karafuto to become Japanese but rather guaranteed the protection of their rights as Russians so long as they agreed to abide by Japanese laws.
The Nationality Law was not extended to Karafuto until 1924, after which it would appear that alien inhabitants were able to naturalize. Russian Karafuto Ainu, however, were treated somewhat differently, as Japan had once embraced Sakhalin Ainu as its subjects (see below).
Japanese nationality has been automatically acquired as a natural effect of the treaty itself only in the case of the 1910 treaty of annexation between Japan and Korea. Since Korea had ceded itself in its entirety to Japan, no provisions were made for nationality, since after the treaty came into force there would be no Korea, hence no possibility of remaining Korean.
Pursuant to the treaty's enforcement, the Empire of Korea became the Japanese territory of Chosen, and affiliated inhabitants became Japanese subjects of Chosenese subnationality (regionality). The 1899 Nationality Law was never applied to Chosen. Nationality matters were treated according to customary law.
Loss of nationality by treaties
The 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg allowed Russians on the Kurils to remain Russian and Japanese on Sakhalin to remain Japanese. Sakhalin and Kuril natives (土人 dojin), however, were treated somewhat differently. Since both Russia and Japan had embraced them as their subjects, Sakhalin natives, mostly Ainu, were given three years within which to move to Japan including the Kurils or become Russian subjects, while Kuril Ainu were given three years to move to Sakhalin or other parts of Russia or become Japanese subjects.
Taiwanese and Chosenese -- as Koreans were called after the 1910 annexation -- lost their nationality from 28 April 1952 as a natural effect of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. The loss, and the grounds for the loss, were tacitly recognized by ROC in its peace treaty with Japan in 1952, and by ROK in its normalization treaty with Japan in 1965.
The loss of Japanese nationality by Taiwanese and Chosenese in 1952 was not a revocation of nationality by Japan, but a mass secession from Japanese nationality of the affiliates of Taiwan and Chosen the moment these territories were separated from Japan as a result of the operation of the peace treaty. Civil Affairs Notification No. 439, dated 19 April 1952, was not a law but a Ministry of Justice circular stating the natural effects of the treaty -- which in the absence of other provisions.
Japanese American renunciantsWartime loss of U.S. citizenship under the duressDonald E. Collins Unpaginated content includes Contents (1 page), Illustrations (1 page), and 10 full-page black-and-white photographs (between pages 46-47). Donald E. Collins (b1934), born in Miami, Florida, received a BA and an MA in library science at the University of Florida, before obtaining an MA and a PhD in history from the University of Georgia. This book is an adaptation of his 1975 doctoral dissertation. He became a professor of history at East Carolina University in Greenville, and most of his publications have involved the Civil War. Donald Collins dedicated his book to a short list of people, beginning with Wayne Collins, who he says this about in the Preface (pages 3-4). Perhaps the single most important individual in this volume is neither a renunciant nor a Japanese American. Without the full cooperation of San Francisco attorney Wayne M. Collins (no relation) with the author, this story could not have been written; and without his dedication to civil liberties and perseverance in the face of government and American Civil Liberties Union opposition, many renunciants might have never remained in their native country, nor regained their American citizenship. StatisticsCollins captures the scale of the renunciation problem in the first sentence of his Preface (page 3). During a brief three-month period in 1944-45, 5,589 persons, one in every fourteen American citizens of Japanese descent, gave up their citizenship in the land of their birth. This implies that there were about 78,000 (5,589 x 14) Japanese Americans at the time. Collins divides "Japanese living on the West Coast in 1940" into three groups -- issei immigrant parents, nisei children born in America, and kibei -- "a sub-group of the Nisei, who had received much of their education in Japan" (page 9). Among the "112,000 persons of Japanese descent" residing on west coast of the United States on the eve of the Pacific War, "about 40,000" -- or 36 percent -- were issei. This implies that the other 72,000 -- or 64 percent -- were nisei (my percents). Collins then states that the nisei population in 1940 totalled "approximately 70,000" -- of whom "about 9,000" -- or 13 percent -- were kibei "who, although American citizens, were culturally closer to their Issei parents than to their United States-educated brothers and sisters" (page 9). Collins's description of "kibei" creates the impression that they were perhaps more educated in Japan than in America, but that would be a narrow understanding. For sure, as a cohort, "kibei" -- having lived in Japan for a while, and returned to the United States -- were more acquainted with the country, its language and society, than most other nisei. His reason for making the nisei-kibei distinction comes down to his observation that "Some of the problems in the wartime relocation centers developed from these Kibei-Nisei quarrels" (page 9) -- by which he means that kibei were more likely than other nisei to feel some degree of loyalty toward Japan, quarrel with nisei who denounced Japan, and foment anti-American sentiments among disgruntled non-kibei nisei who felt betrayed by their own government. Native American Aliens is about the litigation mounted on behalf of Japanese Americans who, during their wartime internment, had renounced their U.S. citizenship -- then sought to have it restored on grounds that they had renounced under duress. Their "free will" had been psychologicall compromised by the circumstances at the time -- their emotions regarding the way they had been treated as citizens of the United States by their own government -- and by conditions in the internment camps, which included pressure from the issei and nisei, including some kibei, who felt some degree of loyalty toward Japan, or betrayal by the United States. The first renunciates to petition the government for restoration to U.S. citizenship were followed by others, in mass action suits involving dozens and hundreds of litigants, many of them filed by Wayne Mortimer Collins (1899-1974), a product of San Francisco Law School in 1927. In 1934, Collins had helped establish the Northern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had generally supported activism on behalf of Japanese Americans who had resisted evalucation and relocation orders, Wayne Collins battled not only U.S. Department of Justice officials bent on expelling the whole lot of citizenship renunciants, but also from ACLU's national headquarters, which oppossed his aggressive support for renunciants -- not only to restore them to citizenship -- but first and foremost, because renunciants faced Department of Justice orders for deportation to Japan, to persuade courts to block such orders. Nor was Wayne Collins supported by the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), which had promoted peaceful compliance with the removal orders and opposed expressions of disloyalty, including renunciation of citizenship. Flag-proud JACLers retarded nisei renunciants not only as traitors, but as blemishes on the public image of Japanese Americans. Hence JACL distanced itself from the citizenship-restoration movement. 1943 Statement of United States CitizenshipA few Japanese Americans -- disillusioned by the meaning of their U.S. citizenship, when faced with jail if they refused to follow Western Defence Command and Forth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration intructions to evacuate their homes in the spring of 1942 -- may have thought of renouncing their citizenship -- never mind that, at the time, they could not have done so. Some did refuse to comply with the "instructions" -- or otherwise refuse to obey related military and police orders -- and went to jail. Some, like the attorney Minoru Yasui (1916-1986), who baited local police to arrest him for violation of a curfew order so he could initiate a lawsuit against the government (see also 1941-1946 Relocation camps under "The Yasui-Miyake family" on "The Heymans and Yasuis of Grass Valley and Hood River" page on the "Wetherall.org" website for details). Most Japanese Americans who were subject to evacuation from the west coast, however, went along for the ride -- supressing their emotions for the sake of personal and family survival. They formed new, self-governing communities in the internment camps, which on the whole were tolerable -- never mind the regimented life in primitive barracks, behind barbed wire fences and guard stations, on mostly remote, desolate, barely inhabitable land. From the openings of the internment camps, internees began to be granted leaves to live elsewhere. There was hope that the war might soon be over and people could return to their homes and rebuild their lives. Forbearance, though, wears thin with time. Internees, Japanese and Americans alike, grew restless as the war continued and prospects of life quickly returning to normal vanished. Then insult was added to injury -- in the form of a questionnaire that had the audacity to ask internees to declare their loyalities. The divided answers resulted in nearly 6,000 Japanese American internees -- about 7 or 8 percent of all inturned U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry -- which set in motion the series of events that led to nearly 6,000 renunciations in 1944 when renunciation became possible. On 8 February 1943, the War Relocation Authority distributed a questionnaire called "Statement of United States Citizenship of Japanese American Ancestry" (Selective Service Form304A). The object of the form was to register all male internees, determine the degree of their loyalty to the United States, and encourage the able-bodied and loyal to enlist in the armed forces. The form was also called an "Application for Leave of Clearance" -- "clearance" meaning "security clearance" -- "leave" release from the camp to a locality outside the restricted westcoast military zone if found to pose no security risk. Questions 27 and 28 on the form were contrived to separate the "loyal" from the "disloyal" among both Japanese and American internees.
Among some 21,000 American internees of "Japanese ancestry" who had were eligible for military service, about 4,600 (22 percent) replied "No" to both both questions or did not respond. Most of these men were transferred to Tule Lake, which became a center for internees regarded as threats to security. 1944 Renunciation ActOn 1 July 1944, President Roosevelt signed into law "A bill to provide for the loss of United States nationality under certain circumstances". Officially but ambiguously called the "Act of July 1, 1944", the law is better known as the "Renunciation Act of 1944". And some people have dubbed it the "Denationalization Act of 1944". Until this act, U.S. citizens or nationals were not allowed to renounce their U.S. nationality while in the United States. The act enabled renunciation in the United States under conditions stipluated in the following paragraph, which was added to a list of actions in the Nationality Act of 1940 Section 401 (8 U.S.C. Section 801) that would result in loss of nationality by a U.S. citizen or national (underscoring mine). making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense. By the end of 1944, the Department of Justice had received nearly six-thousand applications for renunciation of U.S. citizenship from Americans of Japanese ancestry -- practically all of them internees at Tule Lake, where most of those who had answered "no" to the loyalty questions had been sent. In January 1945, Department of Justic officials began conducting hearings in which every renunciation applicant was interviewed to confirm that their desire to lose their U.S. citizenship and their understanding of the consquences -- namely, "repatriation" to Japan -- i.e., deportation from the United States. Donald Collins described the political environemtn at Tule Lake like this (page 101, [percents] mine), notes not reproduced here). When the Department of Justice completed its two and one-half months of hearings on March 17, 1945, it had heard approximately six thousand applicants. [Note 70] Of this number, 5,589 renunciations were accepted by the Attorney General, 5,461 [97.7 percent] from Tule Lake and 128 [2.3 percent] others scattered widely among eight other relocation centers. [Note 71] In Tule Lake, seven out of every ten citizens age eighteen and above gave up their citizenship. Approximately 1,343 Tulean citizens of comparable ages who did not renounce were able to avoid the effects of the mass hysteria. Most of them either lived in remote blocks were the pressure groups were inactive, had been moved into the fenced-off hospital area by the authorities, worked in the administrative area during the day where they avoided the pressures of camp, or were persons clever enough to make the pressure groups believe they had renounced. [Note 72] Donald Collins cites more figures by way of dramatizing developments at Tule Lake after the early 1945 hearings and the camp's closure in 1946 (pages 107-109, [percents} and other bracketed remarks, and comments are mine), On October 18, the WRA [War Relocation Authority] announced that February 1, 1946, would be the closing date for Tule Lake and that all persons eligible would have to leave the center by then. Those who refused to designate a place in which they wished to resettle would be returned to the point from which they were originally evacuated and released. On October 10, 1945, the Department of Justice assumed control of the camp, and from that date relocation was speeded. Whereas only 140 Tuleans resettled during the first half of the year, the population began to decline at a rate of 2,000 per month after August 1, 1945. By January 31,1936, the project held only 5,045 persons, consisting only of evacuees under detention and their families. Comments The closing date for Tule Lake would be 20 March 1946. evacuees under detention and their families appears to mean internees who had outstanding legal issues the Department of Justice deemed as grounds for not freeing them or releasing them on parole, and their families. Practically all detainees were men who were slated for deportation because they had renounced their citizenship. Most had joined mass action suits to stay their deportation and recover citizenship. Family members of detainees at Tule Lake would be freed upon its closure, though some chose to accompany the detainee to Crystal City in Texas or another detention facility. See Citizenship restoration lawsuitsWayne Collins filed 4 mass action suits for citizenship restoration in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in San Francisco, on 13 November 1945, just two days before Army transport ships were scheduled to sail for Japan with many of the plaintiffs aboard. The ships do not appear to have been specifically for deporation, but were part of fleet were not specifically for Many transport ship plied between the west coast and Japan, which had been occupied by Allied Forces numbering a few hundred , which plied back and forth between Occupied Japan and the west coast, The first 2 suits -- Abo v. Williams and Furuya v. Williams -- were "applications for writs of habeas corpus requesting freedom from internment and prevention of deportation" (page 125). The other 2 suits -- Abo v. Clark and Furuya v. Clark -- "sought to cancel the renunciations and have each plaintiff declared a citizen of the United States" (page 125). The mass suits snowballed (page 125). Originally only 987 of the 5,589 renunciants joined the mass suits. this number continued to increase, however, until 4,754 persons [85 percent] were counted as plaintiffs. |
||||||
