1899 Nationality Law
"The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject"
By William Wetherall
First posted 1 April 2006
Last updated 15 June 2014
Birth of "kokuseki"
"Nihonjin" as raceless status
•
Naturalization law drafts
•
Nationality law drafts
•
Primacy of family law
Initial determination
Hosokawa 1990
•
Ninomiya 1983
•
Sawaki 1981
•
De Becker 1909
•
Aoki Shuzo's constitution, 1872-1874
1899 Nationality Law (No. 66)
Nationality through father, mother, birth in Japan, marriage, adoption, naturalization
Promulgation and revision history
•
Nationality of children
•
Acquisition by aliens
•
Restrictions on acquired nationality
Losing, retaining, renouncing
•
Limitations on dual nationality
•
Regaining lost nationality
1899 Law concerning rights of those who have lost nationality (No. 94)
1899 ordinance (Ordinance No. 51)
Adopted sons, incoming husbands, naturalization, restoration of nationality
1915 Japanese Law of Nationality pamphlet "No racial or national discrimination"
Discovery of pamphlet
•
Personal importance
•
Historical importance
•
Gilbert Bowles
•
J. E. De Becker
•
Reproduction of pamphlet
1916 revision (Law No. 27)
Renunciation and other measures to minimize dual nationality
1924 revision (Law No. 19)
Retention of nationality of children born in the Americas
1924 enforcement regulations (Ordinance No. 26)
Guidelines for enforcing 1899 law as revised in 1924
1925 SF Consulate General of Japan books
Law Cases Effecting Japanese in the United States 1916-1924
1st 1948 revision (Law No. 239)
Changes "Interior Minister" to "competent minister"
2nd 1948 revision (Law No. 195)
Changes "competent minister" to "Attorney General"
The birth of "kokuseki"
Japan introduced its first nationality law in 1899, the year its unequal treaties with the United States and other countries were abolished. The timing appears to be merely coincidental with the ending of ending of extraterritoriality treaties the same year. However, a law that determined Japanese status had to have considered the implications of alien status.
The keyword of the law -- kokuseki (国籍) -- did not come into existence until the 1880s, in the process of revising drafts of articles that were originally intended to be part of the Civil Code. The following summary of this development is mostly based on Ninomiya Masato's 1983 comparative study of nationality law and gender equality, which I have reviewed in Bibliography.
Four periods
Ninomiya breaks his study of nationality in Japan, after the start of the Meiji era, into the following four periods (Ninomiya 1983, pages 217-218).
Period 1 Until 1886, during which there were movements to revise the inside/outside [insider/outsider] marriage provisions (内外婚姻条規) and enact a naturalization law (帰化法).
Period 2 From 1887 to 1891, during which, in connection with the enactment of the constitution [in 1890] and movements to revise the unequal [extraterritorial] treaties, efforts to draft a nationality law (国籍法) were vigorously made, but in connection with the old [1890] Civil Code [approved but never enacted] it became a plan for a "naturalization law".
Period 3 The period of planning and revising the 1899 Nationality Law.
Period 4 The period when the enactment of the 1950 Nationality Law was carried out.
Thumbnail sketch of "kokuseki" development
Ninomiya gives nearly twelve pages to an overview of the development of "kokuseki" (国籍 state affiliation) in the course of tracing changes in how "status" as a Japanese was regarded in various drafts of what eventually became the 1899 Nationality Law.
Ninomiya then gives a thumbnail sketch of the first and second periods, and the start of the third period (page 218, bold emphasis and related notes are mine).
The concept of kokuseki (国籍 state affiliation, nationality) in the present age is something that was shaped concomitant with the formation of recent-age [modern] states, and issues before then should probably be taken up as legal historical themes. The concept of "kokuseki" (「国籍」) is something that was introduced (移入された) from foreign countries. The term's origin (語源) is "Staatsangehörigkeit". However, it was not that this term (語) was immediately translated (訳された) as "kokuseki". The translated term (訳語) corresponding to this term in the constitution draft of Roesler in 1887 was "kokumin taru shikaku" (「国民タル資格」"qualifications to be a national"). This was not a matter of regarding someone who possess "kokuseki" as a "kokumin" (「国民」"national"), but was the starting point of the concept of "kokumin". Accordingly, laws which existed before the establishment of the kokuseki concept were merely laws that differentiated between "Japanese" (日本人) and "aliens" (外国人). Also, under the closed-country system in which there was no inside/outside [outsider/insider] mixed residence (内外混住), "Japanese" in the racial sense was at once "Japanese" in the legal sense. For this reason, it can be said that jus sanguinis (血統主義) in the Nationality Law is something traditional since the uji-kabane system (氏姓制度) in antiquity. As for [when] the term "kika" (「帰化」"change of allegiance") was first used in a recent-age [modern] sense, [that] was in Tsuda Shin'ichirō's translation Taiseikoku hō ron (泰西国法論 "On laws of far west countries") published in 1866. In the rest [of this section], I will take up the development process of the concepts of "kokuseki" and "naturalization" in each period.
|
"Nihonjin" as a raceless status
Ninomiya points out that the term 国籍 (kokuseki) had not yet been coined in 1873 when the measure permitting Japanese to marry and adopt aliens used the phrase 日本人タル分限 (Nihonjin taru bungen) or "the standing of being Japanese".
However, Ninomiya does not analyze the significance of this phrase. Moreover, he replaces it with 国籍 in citations of articles in the 1873 proclamation, and in drafts of later proposals to revise it -- thus compromising the linguistic credibility of his thesis.
It is, however, during attempts in 1883 to revise the 1873 proclamation that the term 国籍 is coined. Hence I have placed this part of the "kokuseki" story under 1873 intermarriage proclamation: Family law and "the standing of being Japanese", which see for further details.
Naturalization law drafts
Among the papers of Inoue Kowashi (井上毅 1844-1895) is a document on the opinions of Gustave Boissonade (1825-1910) concerning a 1876 draft of a Nationalization Law (帰化法 kikahō) submitted by the Ministry of Justice to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for its consideration. The draft had sections regarding (1) the gain of the status of Japanese through naturalization and (2) the loss of such status by Japanese who naturalized in a foreign country.
The draft established provisions for naturalization to Japan and change of nationality from Japan. Japanese would need permission from the government to naturalize to a foreign country. There was no system for nationality divestment. There were limitations on the official capacities of naturalized persons. There were no ways to restore nationality. The age of eligibility for nationality would be twenty. (Ninomiya 1883:220-221)
Boissonade not only commented on the draft but wrote his own draft. In his draft he had a provision that an applicant for naturalization must be competent according to Japanese law, but must have reached an age of competency in one's own country. He also had a provision for "grand naturalization" (大帰化 daikika), which allows the government to confer nationality on an alien without regard to the qualifications required for ordinary naturalization. Both provisions were introduced in the 1899 Nationality Law and survive in the present Nationality Law (Ninomiya 1983:221).
No law of naturalization was promulgated at this time. However, there were requests to become Japanese other than through marriage.
Presumably sometime in the late 1870s, the Hokkaido Development Office (北海道開拓使, Hokkaidō Kaitakushi) -- or "Hokkaido Colonial Department" as it is usually known in English -- received, from two Chinese in Hokkaido, a petition stating that they "wish to enter the registry of your country and permanently reside and pursue a living in Hokkaido" (御国籍ニ入リ北海道ニ永住生計ヲ営ミ度). The petitioners were two of ten Chinese the office had employed to work in the territory. The office submitted to the Chancellor of the Great Council of State -- comparable to today's Prime Minister -- a notification expressing that it wished to enroll the two men under its jurisdiction in commoner registers (願意聞届 当使管下平民籍へ編入致度). (Ninomiya 1983:221)
According to Ninomiya, the office's request for permission to enroll the Chinese in local registers, which would have made them Japanese, was not permitted (Ninomiya 1983:221).
However, Asakawa Akihiro, in his 2003 and 2007 reports on this case, says that the two Chinese men were permitted to change their allegiance in 1879. See Becoming Japanese in the Meiji period for details.
Regarding naturalization legislation, Ninomiya states that there is evidence in a memo from Inoue Kowashi to Itō Hirobumi, dated 18 November 1886, concerning work being done in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on another draft of a law of naturalization. However, the concrete content of the draft is not known. (Ninomiya 1983:221).
Nationality law drafts
Article 18 of the 1890 Constitution stated that the conditions for being a "subject of Japan" (日本臣民 Nippon shinmin) would be as determined by law. The Diet was therefore obliged to come up with a law of nationality.
Efforts to come up with legislation concerning nationality and naturalization had, of course, already begun. In 1886 Inoue Kowashi produced a proposal that (1) the laws concerning nationality be divided between the civil code then being drafted and a law of naturalization, (2) nationality acquisition through birth be based on jus sanguinis, and (3) "Aliens appointed by the Government of Japan shall, if there are no other agreements, be nationals of naturalization during the appointment" (日本政府ヨリ任用シタル外国人ハ別段ノ約束アルニ非サレバ任用ノ間帰化ノ国民トス). (Ninomiya 1983:222)
The third provision took into consideration contemporary negotiations to revise treaties, and drew from Germany's 1870 nationality law. Germany's law provided that German by naturalization, unless by grand naturalization, could not hold specified higher government posts or the ranks of general or admiral. A preliminary draft of the Meiji constitution, by Karl Friedrich Hermann Roesler (1834-1894), had included similar provisions, inspired by the 1870 German nationality law. (Ninomiya 1983:222)
Natsushima draft
Both Article 18 of the 1890 Constitution and Article 10 of the 1947 Constitution, which stipulate that conditions for being a subject (1890) or national (1947) of Japan will be determined by law, have their origin in Article 49 of the Natsushima draft constitution -- so-called because it was written by Itō, Inoue, and others at Itō's summer home in Natsushima, Kanagawa prefecture on the 8th and 9th of August 1887.
The copy of the Natsushima draft that survives shows neat overstriking, as follows, reflecting how the original version was edited to eliminate the treatment of naturalization as a separate subject.
Article 49 of 1887 Natsushima draft
Article 18 of 1890 Constitution日本臣民タル要件ハ法律ノ定ムル所ニ依ル The requisites for being a subject of Japan shall be according to determinations of law. Article 10 of 1947 Constitution日本国民たる要件は、法律でこれを定める。 The requisites for being a national of Japan shall be determined by law.
|
Primacy of family law
In 1887, Inoue Kowashi prepared a draft of a "National Status Law" (国民身分法 Kokumin mibun hō). This was the first draft of an organic nationality law. Articles 12 and 14 concerned nationalization and grand naturalization.
By 1889 or so, apparently to accommodate the terminology of the new constitution, the draft had been retitled the "Imperial Subject Status Law" (帝国臣民身分法 Teikoku shinmin mibun hō). Itō, Inoue, and others incorporated some of Roesler's opinions in the draft, then submitted it to the Privy Council Imperial Status Law Committee.
The Privy Council committee renamed the draft "Nationality Law of Japan" (日本国籍法 Nihon kokuseki hō). All instances of "status as subject" (臣民身分) and "status as national" (国民身分) became "nationality" 国籍 (kokuseki). (Ninomiya 1983:223-224)
1890 Civil Code
Provisions for "standing as a national" (国民分限 kokumin bungen) were embedded in the old Civil Code, promulgated as Law No. 98 of 7 October 1890. However, this code -- modelled after the French civil code -- was never enforced, owing to controversy over its effects on family law.
Chapter 2, titled "Acquisition of the standing of national" (国民分限ノ取得 Kokumin bungen no shutoku), contained provisions for gain and loss of national status. At this point, conditions and forms of naturalization were to be covered by a special law.
A heavily revised Civil Code, structured more like German law, was finally promulgated and enforced in two parts on 27 April 1896 (Books I-III, Law No. 89) and on 21 June 1898 (Books IV-V, Law No. 9) -- without provisions on nationality. The entire Civil Code was enforced from 16 July 1898.
While the promulgated but unenforced 1890 Civil Code was being revamped, drafts of a comprehensive nationality law, covering also naturalization, went back and forth between the Imperial Diet and various committees. As with the civil code, the main concern with the nationality law was that it reflect Japanese family law. (Ninomiya 1983:226-230, Hosokawa 1990:182-184)
See 1890 Civil Code for text, translation, and more commentary on "National status" section of 1890 Civil Code.
Corporate families
Family law principles and practices which had to be accommodated by the Nationality Law included the following (Ninomiya 1983:230-231).
Singular identity of husband and wife
Singular identity of family
Incoming husband marriage
Adoption alliance
The singularity of spousal and familial identity -- by then the foundation of family registration practices -- was pretty much in line with emerging international principles of one nationality per couple and one nationality per family.
The presumption reflected in the nationality laws of many other countries -- that a wife would follow her husband, and that children of married parents would identify with their father's family and locality -- also dovetailed with practices in Japan, which were mostly patrilocal and patrilineal. This meant that, with some exceptions, an alien wife would lose her original nationality and gain her husband's nationality, and their children would gain their father's nationality.
However, Japanese family law, which regarded a registered family as a corporate entity, permitted males to enter other families as an adopted son or husband. Male-heir and husband adoption practices, more peculiar to Japan, had already been accommodated by the 1873 proclamation that permitted alliances of marriage or adoption between Japanese and aliens.
Predicated on family law
The extent to which the criteria for acquiring and losing Japanese nationality were predicated on family law -- and the essentially territorial quality of family registers -- cannot be overstressed.
It is highly significant that Japanese family law also became the standard by which Japan was to legally assimilate Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chosen into the prefectural system -- and that the territoriality of family registers became the standard by which imperial subjects changed their legal status within the empire.
Initial determination
In the context of nationality law, an "initial determination" is a description of who qualifies as a national at the time a state first defines its nationality. It is of some interest that Japan's 1899 Nationality Law came into effect without an initial determination. No legislation, ordinance, or decree defined the population of "Japanese" that would gain or lose members through the application of new law.
Though 国籍 (kokuseki) means "national register" affiliation, there is no "national register" as such in Japan. There are only "family registers" (戸籍 koseki), which after their nationalization from 1872 came to double as registries of nationals. When Japan enforced its first Nationality Law in 1899, it was merely assumed that Japan's initial nationality, or demographic territory, consisted of everyone who was a member of a family register affiliated with Japan's sovereign territory.
Since it came into effect in 1899, the Nationality Law has determined who should be added to a family register because they newly qualify for nationality, or who should be removed because they no longer qualify. Hence proof of nationality is membership in a family register.
Here I will review some remarks by others on the problem of what is called "initial determination" in nationality law parlance.
Hosokawa Kiyoshi on "initial determination"
Hosokawa Kiyoshi, a career Ministry of Justice legalist who has specialized in nationality law, makes only this somewhat flawed statement about initial determination in his English overview (Hosokawa 1990:190-191; see Bibliography for particulars and review).
INITIAL DETERMINATION OF THE BODY OF NATIONALS It is generally agreed in Japan that the modern concept of nationality as membership of a State was established after the creation of the modern State of Japan, i.e., the creation of Imperial Japan in 1868. In 1871, the new central Government promulgated the Family Registration Law, [Note 61] which established a system for registering all Japanese nationals in a family register [Koseki]. Two years later, the first formal legislation on nationality, the Proclamation of the Great Council of State No. 103 of 1973, was promulgated. [Note 62] All this legislation presupposed a definite body of Japanese nationals to which it applied. However, no formal law had ever been enacted which dealt with the question of how this body of Japanese nationals was to be determined. The regime of the TOKUGAWA Shogunate which preceded the MEIJI era had closed Japan to virtually all foreign intercourse since the seventeenth century. This policy of extreme isolation was strictly followed until the creation of the MEIJI Government in 1868. It followed that the population of Japan at that time consisted almost entirely of ethnic Japanese who were born and had been residing in Japan for several generations. Thus, in the eyes of the MEIJI Government, it was a matter of course that such people became Japanese nationals under the new regime. Accordingly, all inhabitants of Japan were treated as Japanese nationals and registered as such in the family register except those who were clearly identified as having been born outside Japan. [Note 63] Note 61. Kosekiho, Proclamation of the Great Council of State No. 170 of 1871. Note 62. See supra, sub-Part 3.1. <Hosokawa 1990:181-182, The Proclamation of 1873> Note 63. See M. Ninomiya, Kokusekiho ni okeru Danjo Byodo [Equality of the Sexes in Nationality Law] (Tokyo, 1983) p. 218. |
Crossing the line between law and social history is always a dangerous enterprise. Hosokawa's impulse to oversimplify and racialize Japan's complex social history gets him into trouble here. His reference to Ninomiya at the end of the last paragraph is also misleading.
While Hosokawa may have been inspired by Ninomiya's remarks about the meaning of "Japanese" before the advent of "kokuseki" (see above and below), Ninomiya said nothing about Japan being "closed . . . to virtually all foreign intercourse since the seventeenth century" -- nothing about the population of Japan consisting "almost entirely of ethnic Japanese" -- nothing about family registers -- and nothing about initial determination.
Ninomiya Masato on "the starting point kokumin"
I have already shown a full translation of Ninomiya's statement about the origin of jus sanguinis in Japan's Nationality Law under the The birth of "kokuseki" section at the top of this page. Here, again, I am showing the entire paragraph, marking this time the lines that are most closely associated with Hosokawa's remarks (see above section) about "initial determination" (Ninomiya 1983:218, bold emphasis mine).
The concept of kokuseki (国籍 state affiliation, nationality) in the present age is something that was shaped concomitant with the formation of recent-age [modern] states, and issues before then should probably be taken up as legal historical themes. The concept of "kokuseki" (「国籍」) is something that was introduced (移入された) from foreign countries. The term's origin (語源) is "Staatsangehörigkeit". However, it was not that this term (語) was immediately translated (訳された) as "kokuseki". The translated term (訳語) corresponding to this term in the constitution draft of Roesler in 1887 was "kokumin taru shikaku" (「国民タル資格」"qualifications to be a national"). This was not a matter of regarding someone who possess "kokuseki" as a "kokumin" (「国民」"national"), but was the starting point of the concept of "kokumin". Accordingly, laws which existed before the establishment of the kokuseki concept were merely laws that differentiated between "Japanese" (日本人) and "aliens" (外国人). Also, under the closed-country system in which there was no inside/outside [outsider/insider] mixed residence (内外混住), "Japanese" in the racial sense was at once "Japanese" in the legal sense. For this reason, it can be said that jus sanguinis (血統主義) in the Nationality Law is something traditional since the uji-kabane system (氏姓制度) in antiquity. As for [when] the term "kika" (「帰化」"change of allegiance") was first used in a recent-age [modern] sense [of meaning "naturalization"], [that] was in Tsuda Shin'ichirō's translation Taiseikoku hō ron (泰西国法論 "On laws of far west countries") published in 1866. In the rest [of this section], I will take up the development process of the concepts of "kokuseki" and "naturalization" in each period. |
Sawaki Takao on proto-nationals
Sawaki Takao (1931-1993) was a professor of law at St. Paul's University. His speciality was international private law, which includes nationality law.
Here I wish to examine the remarks Sawaki made concerning the initial determination of Japanese nationality, in an article that was part of a feature on discrimination and the Nationality Law in the 7 August 1981 issue of Asahi Journal. See Sawaki 1981 in the Nationality section of the Bibliography for full particulars and a review.
On a personal note, Sawaki was one of the three scholars who wrote the expert opinion submitted in the Tokyo District Court hearings in Shapiro v. State (1977-u360). The same opinion was submitted in two other nationality confirmation cases, of my children, Sugiyama v. State (1978-u175) and Sugiyama v. State (1982-u57). He also wrote the most thorough overview of the first (Tokyo District Court) decisions handed down in the Shapiro case and the first Sugiyama case in March 1981. See Sugiyama v. State for further details on both cases and references to related publications.
In the following remark, Sawaki recognizes the historical background that make it perfectly natural to view "Japanese" as an essentially racioethnic entity. However, he clearly points out, as not many analysts do, that the Nationality Law embraces all people who are Japanese regardless of their racioethnic ancestry.
Japan, which adopted the view of a state based on blood relations [descent] (血縁 ketsuen) Article 1 of the old [1899] Nationality Law provided that "A child will be a Japanese when at the time of birth its father is Japanese." The form of this provision is the same in Item 1 of Article 2 of the present [1950] Nationality law. There, naturally what logically becomes a problem, is the problem of by what is it determined whether or not the father is Japanese? If we trace this logic back, it becomes a matter in which in the beginning proto-Japanese (原始日本人 genshi Nihonjin; primitive, primeval, primordial, original, archetypal Japanese) had to exist. In nationality statutes in foreign countries, it is not that there are no examples which stipulate proto-nationals by civilization. And, in cases where they are the first nationality statute, there appear to be many examples in which proto-nationals are taken to be the residents. However, like the nationality law of our nation, there are many [nationality laws] that do not have a stipulation about proto-nationals. And so, [in such states], following the historical traditions of the respective state, while centering on residents, the scope of those who are [were] its own nationals was probably determined [without stipulation in the law]. And so, what was probably the case of Japan? As for those who were residing in the nation of Japan at the time the Nationality Law was established in 1899, it cannot possibly be thought that all had become nationals of Japan. Meanwhile, because at the time already American migration [emigration to America] had begun, it was not that it had regarded these overseas compatriots (海外同胞 kaigai dŏhŏ) aliens. However again, as according to the 1873 proclamation, [the law] recognized an alien women who had married a Japanese as Japanese, and a Japanese woman who had married an alien man as someone who does not possess the nationality of Japan, it was not a simple thing based on ethnonation = blood descentism [blood relation doctrine] (民族=血縁主義 minzoku = ketsuen shugi). When looking at it this way, with respect to the differentiation of Japanese and aliens, something a simple thing the alien women, the time of 1899 had no special meaning, rather it is more appropriate to think of it as something that confirmed the facts of the past. In 1898 the [new] Family Registration Law was established, wherein it was stated that only those who possess the nationality of Japan could decide a principal register (本籍 honseki), but, though from the nature of the law [this] is a matter of course (法律の性質上当然のことである), who is a national of has not been decided. However, though certainly a family register that is contrary to truth can be denied [disavowed, negated] by contrary evidence. Meanwhile, that a recording (登載 tōsai) to a family register is a provisional confirmation that [one] is a national of Japan, probably cannot be denied. If this be so, the quest for proto-Japanese in the sense of international law, is not a problem in which it is sufficient to simply trace a blood line (血統 kettō) to the past. Rather this is to be sought in [the question of] what scope of those [persons] did [officials] record in family registers as nationals, at the time Japan formed as a modern state (近代国家 kindai kokka). The Jinshin registers of Meiji 4 (1871), have been characterized as official [public] registries (公簿 kōbo) that ought to record nationals of Japan -- similarly, without clarifying who was a national of Japan. As the first registers of Japan as a modern state, they, at the same time, were things which had the meaning of [being] the determination of the scope of nationals of Japan by official [public] authority. Accordingly, the problem of proto-Japanese becomes nothing more than a problem of what scope of people [were] recorded in these family registers, and what was the criterion. It very likely [was such that], those had been accepted at the time in the society of Japan as a community of residents (住民共同体 jūmin kyŏdŏtai, Gemeinschaft of residents), and whose qualification of being its member had been recognized by general legal awareness, probably became the center [of scope of those considered nationals of Japan]; but the discriminatory nature (差別性 sabetsusei) of Jinshin registers has already been pointed out, and it is clear that they were not just registrations of residents.
A proto-Japanese cannot possibly be a person other than a person who came to be recognized as Japanese by people from before [previously]. However, concretely it is someone confirmed by official authority, through a recording to a family register. The modern state of Japan, which changed from being a community of residents to a political community of nationals, adopted preferential patrilineal jus sanguinis (父系優先血統主義 fukei yūsen kettō shugi) as a tenet [principle] of community integration. Namely, [this] is the statutory doctrine (立法主義 rippō shugi) in which a child who is born of a Japanese father becomes a national of Japan. This sort of view of a state based on blood relations [descent] (血縁 ketsuen) is widely recognized in Germany, France, and other [countries], and Japan also adopted it. It can be said that, from the international circumstances in which Meiji Japan was situated, stipulating [defining] itself as a blood-related group, rather than as a territorially-related group, was a natural choice.
|
In the above extract, Sawaki made some interesting and vital points about why Japan's population registers became the starting point of its legal "nation" for purposes of applying its 1899 Nationality Law. However, a number of his observations, in the rest of the above section, and elsewhere in his article, are problematic. Here are just a few examples.
Sawaki on naturalization
Sawaki also noted that Japan's nationality laws have been fairly permissive in their views of the naturalization of Japanese to other countries, as in the following paragraph, which immediately follows the above extraction (Sawaki 1981:96).
The old [1899] nationality law, related to military service and some other duties, had certain constraints, but [it] recognized the principle of freedom of nationality. Once born as a Japanese, one would forever be a Japanese, there was no incorporation of feudal domination and subjection concepts, and recognized the naturalisation of its own nationals to alien countries, and on the other hand recognized also the naturalization of aliens to Japan. However, concerning the latter, it has been pointed out that, from population policies, and racioethnic purism, this permission [of aliens to naturalize] did not come to be easily recognized. The peculiar fusion of worship of the outside and exclusion of the outside in modern Japan, has come to leave its subtle shadow, in the background of the modern legal system, in the aspect of nationality also. However, it can be said that changes can be seen, in recent years, also in the administration of naturalization. |
While Sawaki correctly attributed constraints on alien naturalization to administrative policies rather than to the Nationality Law itself, his imputation of these constraints to government policies is only half the truth.
Like many critics of racialism, and the use of law to foster racialism, Sawaki fails to point out the shortcomings of attitudes of people in general toward the law as a raceless civil instrument.
Though true that some bureaucrats have used their authority to administer naturalization provisions in arguably racialist ways, blame also has to be put on the lawmakers who have allowed such bureaucrats to have their way.
Blame also has to be put on the people who have allowed the naturalization system to continue as it has without much protest. I refer not only to Japanese who have spoken out about naturalization procedures -- which, for sure, could be a bit simpler -- but also to resident aliens -- who have been better at complaining than acting.
Many Koreans in Japan, for example, have racialized their own and Japanese nationality to the point that they easily believe their own myths about the difficulty of naturalizing in Japan. The only real issue -- at the time Sawaki wrote this article -- was the Ministry of Justice's extralegal (and arguably illegal) administrative guidance concerning the kinds of names that naturalizers (particularly Chinese and Koreans) were expected (and at times pressured) to adopt as Japanese.
No Korean organization ever mounted a systematic and protracted movement against the governments administrative policies concerning names. Most advocacy groups still prefer to insist on what amount to special privileges for themselves as perpetual victims of history. They themselves impute racial qualities to Japanese nationality -- qualities which have no foundation in the law or its administration. In any event, names are the providence of the Family Register Law, not the Nationality Law.
Sawaki on state and race
Sawaki next touches upon the problem of dual nationality, particularly as it affected children born in right-of-soil states like the United States who would also gain the nationality of Japan through a Japanese father, and the problem of differentiating between the state as a political community of nationals defined by nationality, and group defined by blood descent. China, also, had this problem.
1930 Hague Convention on Nationality
Sawaki notes that the Hague Convention on Nationality called for the elimination of stateless and dual nationality in accordance with the principle that everyone should have one and only one nationality (see Dual nationality treaties and Statelessness treaties).
He observes that Japan's Nationality Law had evolved into a law which reflected the provisions of the Hague convention. He alludes to the revisions made in the 1899 Nationality Law, and retained in the 1950 law, which provided for "the event that children born in place-of-birth states to Japanese fathers, became nationals of the country of their birth, and did not hold (保有 hoyū) the nationality of Japan" (Sawaki 1981:96).
Japan's nationality law thus came to adopt the international principle of one nationality per person. And this, Sawaki argues, confirms that in Japan "a political community of nationals mediated [conveyed, borne, transmitted] by nationality and a blood-related [descent] group are different things (国籍を媒介とする政治的国民共同体と血縁集団とは別個のものである kokuseki o baikai to suru seijiteki kokumin kyōdōtai to ketsuen shūdan to wa bekko no mono de aru)" (Sawaki 1981:96).
1980 People's Republic of China
At this point Sawaki segues to the People's Republic of China, which had recently enforced a new nationality law (Sawaki 1981:96).
One can see the same kind of problem in the nationality problem of overseas Chinese [Chinese sojourners abroad] (在外華僑 zaigai Kakyō) in the new Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China. However, notwithstanding such legislative pretenses (法制上の建前 hoseijō no tatemae) [in Japan's Nationality Law], it is a fact that, like the aforementioned [policies] toward naturalizers [see above], in the sentiments toward Japanese Americans (日系アメリカ人 Nikkei Amerikajin), there remain problems which cannot be solved by the state and race [ethnonation] (国家と民族 kokka to minzoku) system. |
This is a fairly conventional -- but somewhat flawed -- criticism of Japan's "sentiments" (感情 kanjō) toward "Nikkeijin" (日系人 nikkeijin) -- meaning "people related to Japan" by virtue of family register ancestry.
See Nikkeijin for an account of what this term means and doesn't.
To be continued.
Note on "Nikkeijin"Note that "Nikkeijin" is also often racialized in English reports as "ethnic Japanese" -- an English term which has no foundation in Japanese law. Neither race nor ethnicity operate in the application of Japanese laws that mitigate rules for aliens who are related to Japanese or former Japanese when applying for a status of residence or for naturalization. The applicants "relatedness" to Japan is not based on race or ethnicity, but on a documentable trail back to a family register in Japan. In 1989, eight years after Sawaki wrote his article, Japan revised its Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law to include a long-term residence status for a variety of people. This status was not a visa but, like permanent residence, is an unrestricted activity status of residence. The long term status was created for a variety of people, including refugees, war displaced persons and their families relocating from China and other countries, certain classifications of alien family members of Japanese residing in Japan -- and, related to the "nikkeijin" discussion here, alien children or grandchildren or Japanese emigrants -- meaning Japanese now residing overseas -- who wished to work in Japan. Since 1 June 1990, when the revision came into effect, many Nikkeijin aliens, mostly from Brazil and Peru, have been permitted to enter Japan as long-term resident aliens. Many have brought their spouse and children, and many such family members would not themselves have qualified for the long-term status. Aliens who qualify as third-generation Nikkeijin get one-year renewable long-term residence permits. Second-generation nikkeijin get three-year renewable permits. Emigrants who have renounced or lost their Japanese nationality, though now aliens, are not eligible for the long-term status. Emigrant who have remained Japanese need only their Japanese passports to enter Japan, where they are free to live as they like and, if they wish, register in Japan as residents -- i.e., re-establish their domiciles in Japan. Note that the term "Nikkeijin" is not used in the description of the qualifications for long-term resident status. |
Sawaki on differentiation of nationals
Sawaki implies -- i.e., he insinuates without stating -- that Japan's nationality law does not differentiate nationals by race or ethnicity (Sawaki 1981:97).
The Nationality Law of our country, at least legislatively (法制上 hōseijō), in the same way that it didn't come to recognize varieties of nationality like [natural] born nationals (生来国民 seirai kokumin) and naturalized nationals (帰化国民 kika kokumin), did not recognize classifications like mainland [interior] nationals (本土国民 hondo kokumin) and colony [exterior] nationals (植民地国民 shokuminchi kokumin). However, in reality, [Japan] seized upon [the device] of, through the family register system, differentiating Japanese who possess principal registers (本籍 honseki) in the interior (内地 naichi) and those who do not, and this differentiation was adopted as is in the solution of nationality problems after World War II. |
As elsewhere in his article, this observation is marred by errors and half-truths.
Born and naturalized nationals
Contrary to what Sawaki claims, Articles 16 and 17 of the 1899 Nationality Law drew a clear line between those who had become Japanese through birth, and those who had obtained their nationality through other provisions. The latter included not just "naturalized" Japanese (as Sawaki implies), but also Japanese who had obtained their nationality through marriage or adoption.
Article 16 listed several high level political and military posts for which the latter were not eligible.
Article 17 provided that the Minister of Justice could remove the restrictions after five years for those who had acquired nationality through grand naturalization (Article 11), and after ten years for others.
All such restrictions ended with the enforcement of the 1950 Nationality Law.
Interior and exterior nationals
Also contrary to what Sawaki implies, the family registration system was not particularly contrived as a means of differentiating the imperial subnations.
Registers within the interior (prefectures) were themselves territorial. Registers were primarily affiliated with municipalities. Their prefectural affiliations changed when prefectural borders were redrawn, as often happened during the first two decades of the Meiji period. Even today, mergers of municipalities result in new family register jurisdictions.
Taiwan and Korea already had population registers that were essentially territorial. Karafuto already had some registers were vestiges of early Japanese administration of parts of the island.
In any event, Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea were legally differentiated territories at the time Japan incorporated them into its sovereign empire. The histories of social change in these territories, when they were parts of Japan, are histories of a gradual introduction of interior-style family law to the exterior subnations.
These histories, though somewhat different for each of the exterior subnations, have in common the slow but steady removal of territorial distinctions, with the long-term aim of total legal integration. As histories go, they are not essentially different from other histories of territorial annexation, merger, or integration.
J. E. De Becker on initial determinant ion
Gilbert Bowles made the following comment in his 1915 pamphlet Japanese Law of Nationality (see content of entire pamphlet below).
Concerning the above Article [Article 16, listing offices and posts that cannot be held by "Naturalized persons, children of naturalized persons who have acquired Japanese nationality, and persons who have become adopted children or nyufu of Japanese"]. Mr. J.E. DeBecker [sic] says in his "Annotated [sic] Civil Code of Japan", "These restrictions do not apply to the very few aliens who were naturalized by adoption prior to 1st April, 1899. They, in the contemplation of the law, are native-born." |
De Becker was referring to many former alien men and women who had become Japanese through marriage under the 1873 proclamation on marriage and adoption alliances between Japanese and aliens. He was also referring to himself. For in 1891, as the incoming husband of Kobayashi Ei, he became a Japanese named Kobayashi Beika (see full story below).
Bowles does not give further particulars, but he appears to be referring to the Appendix of De Becker's 1909 translation of the 1898 Civil Code, which is supposed to include De Becker's translation of the 1899 Nationality Law. I have not been able to examine a copy of this work, but from various sources I gather that the particulars are as follows.
J. E. De Becker (デ・ベッカー)
Annotated Civil Code of Japan (日本民法注解)
London: Butterworth
Yokohama: Kelley & Walsh
Volumes 1 and 2, 1909
Volumes 3 and 4, 1910
A Tokyo antiquarian bookseller made the following observation in its offering of a complete first edition set for 189,000 yen (retrieved September 2007).
明治31年(1898)施行された明治民法典は、不平等条約のもとで欧米と多くのトラブルを生んだ.そのため、欧米側の解説書として本書が編まれたが、これは翌年の不平等条約撤廃に大きく寄与したものと考えられる。 The Civil Code, enforced in 1898, gave birth to lots of trouble with Euro-America under unequal treaties. Consequently, these volumes were compiled as Euro-America-side commentaries, and they are thought to have greatly contributed to the abolition of the unequal treaties the following year. |
Aoki Shuzo's constitution
The 1890 Constitution did not define "Japan" and left the determination of "subjects of Japan" to law. The 1899 Nationality Law stipulated the rules for acquiring and losing Japanese nationality from the time the law came into effect, but it did not state criteria for determining who was Japanese at the time the law came into effect.
1872-1874 draft by Aoki Shūzō
During the first decades of the Meiji period, there were numerous proposals for a constitution. Over forty drafts of proposals are known. Most lists begin with the 1872-1874 work of Aoki Shūzō (青木周蔵 1844-1914), who had studied in Germany from 1868 and joined the Foreign Ministry in 1873.
In 1874, Aoki became Japan's minister to Germany. It was through Aoki that Karl Friedrich Hermann Roesler (1834-1894) came to Japan in 1878 to advise the Foreign Ministry on matters of law.
On 25 January 1877, under the 1873 Proclamation on the making of marriage and adoption alliances with aliens, Aoki was permitted to marry Elisabeth von Rhade, a German woman.
Aoki served as foreign minister several times, under several prime ministers, during the late 1880s and 1890s.
Aoki was Japan's minister to both Germany and Great Britain 1894 when the Great Britain and Japan negotiated a new treaty of commerce that ended extraterritoriality in 1899. The negotiations did not go particularly well because Japan had held up the enforcement of a controversial civil code, and did not yet have a commercial code. did not yet have a civil code or commercial code.
Finally, on 16 July 1894, the two countries signed the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, also called the Aoki-Kimberley Treaty, because the names of these two men appear on the treaty. Japan agreed not to seek to enforce the treaty until its codes were fully operative (Kayaoglu 2004:25-30).
Turan Kayaoglu, a professor of political science at the University of Washington, has presented a fascinating overview of the "Abolition of Extraterritoriality in Japan, 1894-1899" in a working paper called Sovereignty, State-Building and the Abolition of Extraterritoriality (May 2004). The paper focuses on Japan, Turkey, and China.
Aoki was the ambassador to the United States in 1906.
帝号大日本政典 (Teigō Dai-Nippon seiten) must have struck people as impressive. 帝号 was an imperial name, in particular the posthumous name of an emperor, and could mean all emperors. 大日本 was a beautified name for the country. 政典 was the title of an 8th century Tang compendium of political conventions.
Together these elements meant something like "State Codes of Great Japan of Emperors" -- or simply "Codes of Imperial Japan".
The heavily edited draft of Aoki's constitution shows some remarkable honing of terminology and phrasing.
Aoki Shuzo's Imperial Japan State Code proposal "Rights and duties of Nationals" |
|
Japanese textThe following Japanese is my transcription made images of Aoki Shūzō's 1872-1874 constitution proposal shown at 日本憲法の誕生 (Birth of the Constitution of Japan), a digital exhibition posted by the National Diet Library. The NDL site also features a transcription, but of only the final version. The transcription uses present-day characters, hiragana, and punctuation, and has some errors. Here I have shown the original version with corrections. Because the original is a brushed manuscript in more than one hands, there is some variation in the representation of the same characters. Hence I have shown all characters in their present-day form. English translationThe translation is mine (William Wetherall). |
|
帝号大日本政典 | State Codes of Imperial Japan |
第一 帝国 |
No. 1 |
第一章 |
Article 1 |
第二章 |
Article 2 |
第二 国民ノ権利及其 |
No. 2 Rights and |
第三章 |
Article 3 |
第四章 |
Article 4 |
第五章 |
Article 5 |
Aoki spoke of 日本国ノ民位 (Nihonkoku no min'i) to speak of "the status of the people of Japan" in calling for an end to "peers" (華族 kazoku) and "commoner" (平民 heimin) statuses. The topic sentence of his article on obligations and and qualifications for military service thus read 華族平民ノ差別ナク総テ日本国ノ民位ニ列スル者ハ.
He used 人民 (jinmin) most commonly when referring more generally to "people" as in "people's abodes" (人民ノ住家 jinmin no jūka), "people's residences" (人民ノ居宅 jinmin no kyotaku), and "people's possessions" (人民ノ固有物 jinmin no koyūbutsu).
He spoke of both "persons who are Japanese" (Nihonjin taru mono 日本人タル者) and "people of Japan" (Nihon jinmin 日本人民).
Article 15 (第十五章)
リ族平民の差別なく、高ト日本人たる者は一夫同時に一婦に配し、一婦同時に一夫に配すべし、要するノ正配ある者は別に倍配を保つ事を得ず。
Without any differentiation [discrimination] (sabetsu 差別) between "peers" and "commoners", as for all persons who are Japanese, one husband will have one wife, and one wife will have one husband, and those who are proper spouses are not to have two spouses.
Article 57 第五十七章
議官たる者は、日本人民の名代たるべし。其会議討論するものは、即ち 皇帝独り政治を私せず、広く之を人民に忖度する所以なり。但し某議士、素と某州より撰択せらるると雖、議院に会集し政府に対向するときは、各〃広く日本人民を名代するの覚悟を存し、狭く一州の私を顧る事勿るべし。
This speaks of the officials (gikan 議官) of the House of Elders (Genrōin 元老院), the national assembly created in 1875 to draft a constitution, as the representatives (myōdai 名代) of the people of Japan (Nihon jinmin 日本人民). It clearly states that the emperor is not to rule the country alone, but that its rule is to be spread among the people (jinmin 人民). Moreover, officials are to endeavor to broardly represent all the "people of Japan" and are not to narrowly think of their own province.
1899 Nationality Law
The 1899 Nationality Law established, for the first time in Japan, legal criteria for acquiring and losing Japanese nationality. Naturalization also became possible, for the first time, with the enforcement of this law from 1 April 1899.
While providing measures for naturalization, the 1899 law continued to recognize the principles of nationality acquired through marriage or adoption, set down in the 1873 Great Council of State Proclamation No. 103, and the modifications stipulated in Law No. 21 of 1898. A few months after the new law came into force, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an ordinance (No. 51 of 1899), related to both the 1873 proclamation and the 1899 law, concerning procedures for obtaining permission to make an alien an adopted son or incoming husband, which would cause the alien to become Japanese.
Promulgation and revision history
The 1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 66) was promulgated on 16 May 1899 and enforced from 1 April 1899. It was revised four times -- in 1916 and in 1924, and twice in 1947 (effective in 1948). It remained in effect until 1 July 1950, when the 1950 Nationality Law (Law No. 147), promulgated on 4 May 1950, came into force, thereby abolishing it.
Year | Law / Ord | Promulgated | Enforced | Major changes |
1899 | Law 66 | 16 Mar 1899 | 1 Apr 1899 | Naturalization begins |
1899 | Law 94 | 19 Mar 1899 | 1 Apr 1899 | Rights of families losing nationality |
1899 | Imperial Ordinance No. 289 | 21 Jun 1899 | 21 Jun 1899 | Extended application of law to Taiwan |
1916 | Law 27 | 16 Mar 1916 | 1 Aug 1916 | Some renunciation permitted |
1924 | Imperial Ordinance No. 88 | (16) 18 Apr 1924 | 1 Aug 1924 | Extended application of law to Karafuto |
1924 | Law 19 | 22 Jul 1924 | 1 Dec 1924 | Intent to retain nationality begins |
1924 | Ord 26 | 17 Nov 1924 | 1 Dec 1924 | Enforcement regulations |
1947 | Law 239 | 26 Dec 1947 | 1 Jan 1948 |
Home Affairs Minister → competent minister |
1947 | Law 195 | 17 Dec 1947 | 15 Feb 1948 |
competent minister → Attorney General |
Chōsen The Nationality Law was never applied to Chōsen, which meant that Japanese nationality associated with membership in Chōsen's population registers was gained and lost in accordance with Chōsen's people's register laws. |
1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 66 of 1899) Reflecting 1916, 1924, and 1947 revisions |
||||||||||||
Japanese textThe following Japanese text as been constructed from two sources: (1) Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (pages 831-842, especially 831-834), and (2) the website of the research group of Okuda Yasuhiro (奥田安弘), a law professor at Chuo University Law School (中央大学法科大学院 Chūō Daigaku Hōka Daigakuin). Okuda, a specialist in international law, has also been involved in nationality and family register law issues. Tashiro presents the original law and each revision separately, while Okuda shows the most recent revision and notes the revisions. While my layout has been inspired more by Okuda's style, I have followed Tashiro's more complete and typographically more orthodox texts. A couple of transcription errors have been corrected. English translationsThe structural translation is mine (William Wetherall). The numbers are as stipulated in the original. The received translation is from Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., and Manley O. Hudson, A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries as Contained in Constitutions, Statutes and Treaties, New York] Oxford University Press, 1929, pages 382-386. The source attribution is "Text from British Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 1 (1827), Cmd. 2852, p. 39." Notes are numbered as received. The section titles were inspired by those in a six-page pamphlet compiled by Gilbert Bowles called Japanese Law of Nationality (Tokyo, 15 May 1915). Bowles shows only extracts or summaries of a translation he attributed to J. E. D Becker in the Appendix of Annotated Civil Code of Japan, which I have not seen. De Becker's translation is generally accurate but its phrasing tends to be interpretive rather than structural. RevisionsThe Japanese text and the structural translation reflect all the revisions according to the colors shown in the following table. The received translation, however, reflects the 1924 version of the law ("Law No. 66, of March 1899, as revised by Law No. 27, of March 1916, and by Law No. 19, of July 1924, effective from December 1, 1924") with the minor 1947 revisions.
|
||||||||||||
国籍法 | Nationality Law | |||||||||||
Japanese text | Structural translation | |||||||||||
朕帝国議会ノ協賛ヲ経タル国籍法ヲ裁可シ茲ニ之ヲ公布セシム
御名御璽 明。三十二年三月十五日 内閣総理大臣 侯爵 山県 有朋 内務大臣 侯爵 西郷 従道 法律第六十六号 (官報三月十六日) |
I [the emperor] sanction the Law of Nationality which has passed the approval of the Imperial Diet and herein promulgate it.
Imperial seal [Mutsuhito] Meiji 32-3-15 [15 March 1899] Prime Minister of the Cabinet Marquis Yamagata Aritomo Minister of Home Affairs Marquis Saigo Tsugumichi Law No. 66 (Kanpo 16 March) |
Nationality of children | ||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
|
第一条 |
Article 1 A child will be a Japanese [Nihonjin] when at the time of birth its father is Japanese. The same will [apply] when the father who has died before its birth was a Japanese at the time of death. |
Article 1 |
第二条 前項ノ規定ハ父母カ共ニ其家ヲ去リタル場合ニハ之ヲ適用セス但母カ子ノ出生前ニ復籍ヲ為シタルトキハ此限ニ在ラス |
Article 2 The provision of the preceding article will not apply in the event the father and mother both have departed the family [the father entered through a marriage or an alliance and consequently acquired Japanese nationality]. However, when the mother has effected a restoration of [Japanese] nationality before the birth of the child, [this provision] will not apply. [ == Provided, however, that this will not apply when the mother has effected a restoration of [Japanese] nationality before the birth of the child.] |
Article 2 The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply in cases where both the father and the mother have left the family, except when the mother in such cases returns to the family before the child's birth. |
第三条 |
Article 3 |
Article 3 |
第四条 |
Article 4 |
Article 4 |
How aliens may acquire Japanese nationality | ||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
|
第五条 一 日本人ノ妻ト為リタルトキ |
Article 5 1. When [the alien] has become the wife of a Japanese; |
Article 5 (1) By becoming the wife of a Japanese. Note 2 A man who marries the female head of a family and becomes a member thereof. |
第六条 一 本国法ニ依リテ未成年者タルコト |
Article 6 1. Be a minor according to the laws of one's home country [hongoku]; |
Article 6 (1) He or she must be a minor by the law of his or her country. |
第七条
一 引続キ五年以上日本ニ住所ヲ有スルコト |
Article 7
1. |
Article 7 The (1) Having had a domicile in Japan for five or more years consecutively. |
第八条 |
Article 8 |
Article 8 |
第九条 一 父又ハ母ノ日本人タリシ者 前項第一号乃至第三号ニ掲ケタル者ハ引続キ三年以上日本ニ居所ヲ有スルニ非サレハ帰化ヲ為スコトヲ得ス但第三号ニ掲ケタル者ノ父又ハ母カ日本ニ於テ生マレタル者ナルトキハ此限ニ在ラス |
Article 9 1.
|
Article 9 (1) Those whose fathers or mothers were Japanese. The persons mentioned in numbers 1 to 3, inclusive, of the preceding paragraph, cannot become naturalized unless they have possessed places of residence in Japan for three years or more, consecutively; but if the father, or the mother, of a person mentioned in number 3 was born in Japan, this rule does not apply. |
第十条 |
Article 10 |
Article 10 |
策十一条 |
Article 11 |
Article 11 |
策十二条 帰化ハ其告示アリタル後ニ非サレハ之ヲ以テ善意ノ第三者ニ対抗スルコトヲ得ス |
Article 12
|
Article 12 Naturalization cannot be set up against a third party who has acted in good faith, until after such notification has taken place. |
第十三条 前項ノ規定ハ妻ノ本国法ニ反対ノ規定アルトキハ之ヲ適用セス |
Article 13 As for the provision of the preceding paragraph, [one] shall not apply it when there is a contrary provision in the law of the wife's home country. |
Article 13 The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply when the law of the wife's country contains provisions which are contrary thereto. |
第十四条 |
Article 14 |
Article 14 |
策十五条 前項ノ規定ハ子ノ本国法ニ反対ノ規定アルトキハ之ヲ適用セス |
Article 15
|
Article 15 The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply when the law of the child's country contains provisions which are contrary thereto. |
Restrictions attached to acquired Japanese nationality | ||
acquired This characterization of Articles 16 and 17 of the 1899 Nationality Law, based on De Becker 1909/1910 as cited in Bowles 1915, reflects the terminology in the 1899 Nationality Law, which used "acquisition" (取得 shutoku) only in references to Japanese nationality obtained through marriage, adoption, or naturalization, and in reference to foreign nationalities obtained by Japanese. Note that the 1950 Nationality Law defines all means of obtaining the nationality of Japan, or of another country, as "acquisition" (取得 shutoku). Note also that the following restrictions on nationality, acquired other than through birth, ended when the 1950 Nationality Law came into force. There are now no distinctions between nationals as to when or how they obtained their nationality. |
||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
|
第十六条 一 国務大臣ト為ルコト |
Article 16 1. |
Article 16 (1) The right to become a Minister of State. |
第十七条 |
Article 17 |
Article 17 |
How Japanese nationality may be lost, retained, renounced | |||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
||
第十八条 日本人カ外国人ノ妻ト為リ夫ノ国籍ヲ取得シタルトキハ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ |
Article 18 When a Japanese [Nihonjin] has become the wife of an alien and has gained the husband's nationality she will lose the nationality of Japan. |
Article 18 |
|
第十九条 |
Article 19 |
Article 19 |
|
第二十条 |
Article 20 |
Article 20 |
|
第二十条ノ二 勅令ヲ以テ指定スル外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人ハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ヲ留保スルノ意思ヲ表示スルニ非サレハ其出生ノ時ニ遡リテ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ 前項ノ規定ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ヲ留保シタル者又ハ前項ノ規定ニ依ル指定前其指定セラレタル外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人当該外国ノ国籍ヲ有シ且其国ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ其志望ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為スコトヲ得 前項ノ規定ニ依リ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為シタル者ハ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ |
Article 20-2 As for Japanese who by reason of having been born in a foreign country designated by imperial ordinance have acquired the nationality of that country, should there be no expression of intent to retain the nationality of Japan, they shall lose the nationality of Japan retroactive to the time of their birth according to the determinations of decrees. Those who retain the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph, and when a Japanese who by reason of having been born before the designation according to the provision of the preceding paragraph has acquired the nationality of that country possess the nationality of the said country and possesses a domicile in the country shall be able to effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan in accordance with their wish. Those who have effected a renunciation of nationality in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph shall lose the nationality of Japan. |
Section 2 of Article 20. A Japanese who, by reason of having been born in a foreign country designated by Imperial Ordinance, [Note 1] has acquired the nationality of that country, and who does not as laid down by order express his intention of retaining Japanese nationality, loses his Japanese nationality retroactively from his birth. Persons who have retained Japanese nationality in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, or Japanese subjects who, by reason of having been born in a designated foreign country before its designation in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, have acquired the nationality of that country, may, when they are in possession of the nationality of the country concerned and in possession of a domicile in that country, renounce Japanese nationality if they desire to do so. Persons who shall have renounced their nationality in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph lose Japanese nationality. Note 1 Imperial Ordinance No. 262 of November 15, 1924, designates the following countries as coming within the meaning of this paragraph: (1) United States of America: (2) Argentina; (3) Brazil; (4) Canada; (5) Chile; (6) Peru.
|
|
第二十条ノ三 前条第一項ノ外国以外ノ外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人カ其国ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ 前条第三項ノ規定ハ前項ノ規定ニ依リ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為シタル者ニ之ヲ準用ス |
Article 20-3 When a Japanese who by reason of having been born in a foreign country other than a foreign country of paragraph one of the preceding article has acquired the nationality of that country possesses a domicile in that country, the [Japanese] shall be able to effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan by obtaining the permission of the As for the provision of paragraph three of the preceding article, this shall apply mutatis mutandis to those who have effected a renunciation of nationality in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph [of this article]. |
Section 3 of Article 20. Japanese subjects who, by reason of having been born in a foreign country other than the foreign countries indicated in paragraph 1 of the preceding article, have acquired the nationality of that country, may, when they possess a domicile in that country, effect renunciation of Japanese nationality by obtaining the sanction of the |
|
第二十一条 |
Article 21 |
Article 21 |
|
第二十二条 |
Article 22 |
Article 22 |
|
第二十三条 |
Article 23 |
Article 23 |
Limitations as to freedom of Japanese in gaining a foreign nationality | ||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
|
第二十四条 現ニ文武ノ官職ヲ帯フル者ハ |
Article 24 A person who presently occupies a civil or military government post, notwithstanding the provisions of |
Article 24 A person who actually occupies an official post, civil or military, does not lose Japanese nationality notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding eight articles until after he or she has lost such official post. |
Regaining of lost nationality | ||
Japanese text and structural translation (1899 law with 1916, 1924, 1947 revisions) |
Received translation (1899 law as of 1924) |
|
第二十五条 |
Article 25 |
Article 25 |
第二十六条
|
Article 26
|
Article 26 |
第二十七条 第二十七条ノ二 国籍ノ離脱及回復ニ関スル手続ハ命令ヲ以テ之ヲ定ム |
Article 27 Article 27-2 As for applications concerning renunciation and restoration of nationality, [these] shall be determined by decrees. |
Article 27 Section 2 or Article 27 The procedure relative to the renunciation and recover of nationality shall be determined by Order. |
附則 | Supplementary provisions | |
第二十八条 本法ハ明治三十二年四月一目ヨリ之ヲ施行ス |
Article 28 This law shall be enforced from 1 April 1899. |
Article 28 [ Not in received translations. ] |
1899 Law No. 94
Concerning rights of those who have lost nationality
A number of laws, ordinances and regulations were passed to facilitate the enforcement of the Nationality Law, or to deal with its effects. The following law dealt with the effect of losing nationality -- namely, the disposition of "rights" that a family would no longer be able to exercise because its members were no longer Japanese.
1899 Law No. 94 Rights of family losing Japanese nationality go to state after one year |
||
Japanese textThe following Japanese text is based on a copy downloaded from Nakano Bunko (retrieved August 2007). For some reason this law was not included in the appendix of Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 -- although it is referred in in Imperial Ordinance (勅令 chokurei) No. 88 of 1924, which extended the Nationality Law, and four other laws including this law, to Karafuto (Tashiro 1974: 851). English translationsThe structural translation is mine (William Wetherall). The received translation is from Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., and Manley O. Hudson, A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries as Contained in Constitutions, Statutes and Treaties, New York] Oxford University Press, 1929, page 386. The source attribution is "Text from enclosure with Despatch No. 1279, September 12, 1929, from the American Chargé d'Affaires at Tokyo to the Secretary of State." |
||
国籍喪失者ノ権利ニ関スル法律 Law concerning the rights of those who have lost nationality Law concerning the rights of persons who have lost Japanese nationality |
||
Japanese | Structural | Received |
法律第九十四号
明治三十二年三月二十九日に公布 |
Law No. 94
Promulgated Meiji 32-3-29 [29 March 1899] |
Law No. 94, of March 29, 1899 |
日本ノ国籍ヲ失ヒタル家族カ日本人ニ非サレハ享有スルコトヲ得サル権利ヲ有スル場合ニ於テ一年内ニ之ヲ日本人ニ譲渡セサルトキハ其権利ハ国庫ニ帰属ス |
In the event that a family which has lost the nationality of Japan possesses rights [claims, privileges] it is unable to enjoy if [its members are] not Japanese [Nihonjin], when [it] does not transfer these to a Japanese [Nihonjin] within one year, these rights shall belong [revert] to the national treasury. |
In case a member of a house who has lost Japanese nationality possesses property rights which cannot be enjoyed except by a Japanese, such rights vest in the National Treasury, unless they are assigned to a Japanese within one year. |
Comment on received translationThe received translation reduces a general statement about both collective family and individual member rights, to one about individual member rights. The Japanese text states "family" because Japan's 1899 Nationality Law followed the then widely embraced principle of one nationality per family. If a man changed his nationality, his wife and minor children changed their nationality to conform with his. The members of such a family in a Japanese register would have lost their Japanese nationality, in unison, had the father naturalized in another country, therefore losing his Japanese nationality. The nationality law of the other country would most likely have provided that the man's spouse and minor children would naturalize with him, in compliance with its practice of the one-nationality-per-family principle, hence they too would have lost their Japanese nationality. Moreover, under Japanese law, married parents and minor children would have been in a single family register that defined a corporate family. Some rights of individuals in a family were constrained by the rights of the family as a corporate entity. The male head of household would generally have had the legal authority to transfer ownership of family property. In the case of property involving an extended family, a "family council" might have been convened to decide complex family matters. |
1899 Ministry of Home Affairs Ordinance No. 51
This ordinance established (1) procedures for Japanese who wish to make an alien either an adopted son [yoshi] or an incoming husband [nyufu], and (2) procedures for foreigners who wish to naturalize or restore a lost Japanese nationality.
1899 Ministry of Home Affairs Ordinance No. 51 Adopted sons, incoming husbands, naturalization, restoration of nationality |
|
Japanese textThe following Japanese text began as a copy download from the website of Nagoya University professor Asakawa Akihiro (retrieved April 2006). The script had been corrupted by the sort of errors made by optical mark readers after scanning. The downloaded copy was corrected and edited while consulting relevant parts of a copy in the appendix of Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974, page 830. English translationThe translation is mine (William Wetherall). |
|
明治三十二年内 務省令第五十一號 外国人ヲ養子又ハ入夫ト為サントスル者及帰化ヲ為シ又ハ国籍ヲ回復セントスル者出願方ノ件 |
Meiji 32 [1899] Ministry of Home Affairs Ordinance No. 51 Regarding applications of persons who would make an alien an adopted son [yoshi] or an incoming husband [nyufu] and of persons who would effect naturalization or restore [Japanese] nationality |
明治三十一年法律第二十一號ニ依リ外国人ヲ養子又ハ入夫ト為サントスル者ハ本籍地又ハ寄留地地方廳ヲ経由シテ 本年法律第六十六號ニ依リ歸化ヲ為シ又ハ国籍ヲ囘復セントスル者ハ其ノ住所ノ地方廳ヲ経由ツテ |
Persons who would make an alien an adopted son [yoshi] or an incoming husband [nyufu] in accordance with Law No. 21 of 1898 shall apply to the Persons who would effect naturalization [kika o nasu] or restore [Japanese] nationality [kokuseki o kaifuku suru] in accordance with Law No. 66 of this year shall apply to the |
明治三十二年九月十四日 内務大臣侯爵西郷從道 |
Meiji 32-9-14 [14 September 1899] Minister of Home Affairs Marquis Saigo Tsugumichi |
1915 pamphlet on "Japanese Law of Nationality"
"No racial or national discrimination" in Japanese law
Presented here is a complete reproduction of a six-page pamphlet that changed my thinking and some ways my life. First, though, the story of its discovery, why it proved to be important for me personally as well as to my understanding of how laws in the United States racially discriminated against immigrants because of their race or national origin, and profiles of Gilbert Bowles and J. E. De Becker.
Discovery of pamphlet
I discovered the following pamphlet one day between the fall of 1972 and the spring of 1975, in the stacks of the Doe Library of the University of California at Berkeley.
Bowles, Gilbert
Japanese Law of Nationality
Tokyo: Gilbert Bowles, 15 May 1915
6 page pamphlet in softcover
I cannot remember what else I was doing at the time, but I it was one of several volumes I checked out and lugged over to Cleo's on Telegraph to copy on the cheapest self-service machines near the campus.
The copy is now a bit faded but still readable. I wrote the call number in the upper-left corner of the first page of the copy in red ballpoint, and the character 全 in the upper-right corner to indicate that the copy was complete. No, I didn't wear geta.
JQ
1686
A3
1915
The copy is well marked with the red wax pencil I used at the time -- even in my own books, heaven forbid -- to highlight points of interest or doubt.
Personal importance of pamphlet
It was this small pamphlet that started me thinking that most of what I had been led to believe at the time about citizenship, nationality, and race was not true.
I knew nothing at the time about "nationality" as a matter of law. I knew I was a "citizen" of the United States, and I figured others were "citizens" of their respective country. It was my impression that "nationality" had something to do with race or ethnicity -- as the expression "national origins" generally implied in the United States.
I also assumed -- because so many others, including my professors, seemed to insinuate -- that being "Japanese" had something to do with race or ethnicity. So I figured that "nationality" in Japan also had something to do with "blood" in the racial sense of this word.
But in the stacks of Doe that day -- on the very last page of the this pamphlet -- I read the following statement.
NO RACIAL OR NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION. In a personal letter to the compiler of this article Mr. J. E. De Becker writes: "No line is drawn at either nationality or race. The only question considered is -- is the applicant likely to make a desirable citizen. If the man himself is all right, then his nationality, or race cuts no figure whatsoever in the matter, and this, I think, is as it should be." |
I had no idea what to make of this remark. Nor did I quite understand the significance of another remark, that certain "aliens" who had been "naturalized by adoption" were considered "native-born" under Japan's Nationality Law.
These two observations had been written six decades before I read them, and both flew in the face of the "conventional wisdom" I was passively acquiring in graduate school. So I copied the pamphlet and began looking for explanations.
It is not that I suddenly devoted my life to the understanding of this pamphlet. It was just there, in my files, and now and then I would review it, and wonder anew at what it all meant.
Its personal significance only became apparent in 1978 when my daughter was born and she became the plaintiff in a law suit seeking to confirm that she should be Japanese. And again when my son was born in 1982 and he became a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit.
Only then did I fully understand that Japan's Nationality Law, though revised in 1950, had all along been free of racial and national discrimination.
Most people then -- from journalists to activists -- didn't believe me. Many people still don't believe that being Japanese has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
Historical importance of pamphlet
If it a few years for me to feel the implications of the pamphlet in my personal and family life, it took a few more for me to fully appreciate its historical setting and significance.
Only when I plunged into the history of Japanese emigration to the United States and the response of particularly California and Washington, D.C. to the presence of an increasing number of Americans of Japanese descent in the state and country did I start to fathom the pamphlet's contemporary importance. And only when I placed the pamphlet in the sequence of legal developments in both the United States and Japan, in response to the "Japanese Problem" in America, did I realize why Bowles went to the trouble to produce and distribute the pamphlet.
Bowles compiled the pamphlet at a time when laws were being passed in California and elsewhere in the United States prohibiting aliens "ineligible to citizenship" from owning land, and when Japan was making "gentleman's agreements" concerning its issuance of passports to Japanese who might be thinking of settling in the United States, particularly in California, which in 1913 had passed its then controversial and now notorious "Alien Land Law".
It was also a time when the United States was pressuring Japan to permit its nationals to renounce their nationality, in order to reduce the number of US citizens who were also nationals of Japan -- having been born in the United States to Japanese immigrants. Their immigrant parents were not able to naturalize because of their race -- no, not because of their race, but because America's "citizenship" laws were racist.
Some Americans who knew Japan -- who were living or had lived in Japan -- were siding with Japanese who took offense at being racially barred in the United States -- not only from becoming citizens but, in some states from owning land or from marrying "whites".
The importance of this little pamphlet was that it was written as a vehicle for the message that, unlike laws in the United States, laws in Japan did not discriminate because of nationality or race. An alien's putative race or nationality was not, in Japan, a barrier to becoming Japanese.
The pamphlet which I copied was gifted to the UC Berkeley Library on 16 September 1915, the year it was published in Tokyo. Apparently it was privately published and distributed by the compiler, Gilbert Bowles, who was living in Tokyo at the time.
Bowles also compiled and distributed a similar pamphlet called "Land Tenure by Foreigners in Japan", as reprinted from the November 1914 issue of "The Japan Peace Movement". This seems to have been a Quaker publication, as Bowles was a Quaker missionary in Japan, and he was active in the peace movement that followed the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905.
Someone -- possibly Bowles himself -- gifted the pamphlet I copied to the University of California library, if that is what the stamp on the cover means. In other words, it appears that Bowles not only published the pamphlet but distributed it to places where he hoped it might influence people whose opinion mattered.
Gilbert Bowles
Gilbert Bowles (1869-1960) was an American. He served in the Friends Foreign Mission in Japan from 1901 to 1941. Apparently he is buried in the foreign section of the Aoyama Cemetery in Tokyo, though I have not dug into this question. His wife, Minnie P. Bowles, is said to have served in the same mission between 1893 and 1941.
This aside has nothing to do with Japan's Nationality Law. Rather it is about one individual who was sufficiently interested in Japan's Nationality Law in 1915 to publish a pamphlet and go to the trouble to cite De Becker's statement about there being no racial or national discrimination in the law.
Today Bowles would be regarded a publicist for human rights. Like many missionaries who knew Japan, he appears to have advocated an end to discrimination against Japanese immigrants in the United States, who were not allowed to naturalize because they were neither "white" nor of "African nativity" or "African descent". Their "ineligibility to citizenship" because of their putative "race" was legally specified in the guise of the racialist term "national origin".
I believe one of the reasons Bowles published this pamphlet was to show that Japan's Nationality Law -- unlike America's laws -- did not codify "racial or national discrimination". While this was clear from the law itself, Bowles stressed this point in his comments at the end of the pamphlet by citing De Becker, not only an authority on Japanese law, but an example of someone who had become a Japanese national through marriage -- something unimaginable in the United States.
Kobayashi Beika aka J. E. De Becker
Bowles failed to point out the fact -- perhaps because he thought most informed readers at the time would have known -- that J. E. De Becker was a living example of the absolute neutrality in Japanese law regarding the race or nationality of aliens who wanted to become Japanese.
Joseph Ernest De Becker (1863-1929), born in London and educated in the United States, had come to Japan in 1887 and become Japanese on 29 July 1891 as the incoming husband (入夫 nyūfu) of Kobayashi Ei (小林エイ), a Kanagawa commoner. As a Japanese he was known as Kobayashi Beika (小林米珂) (Koyama 1995:268)
De Becker, an attorney, was the first person to translate Japan's basic laws into English. Today, though, he is better known as the author of The Nightless City (Or the "History of the Yoshiwara Yukwaku History of the Yoshiwara Yukwaku"), Yokohama: Z.P. Maruya & Co. Ltd., 1899.
The first edition of Nightless City -- called 不夜城 (Fuyajō) in Japanese -- was attributed only an to "An English Student of Sociology ******". The colophon, though, says it was published on 30 June 1899 by 小林米珂 (Kobayashi Beika) of 奈川縣久良岐郡中村千五百四十九番地 (Kanagawa-ken Kuraki-gun Nakamura 1549-banchi).
The address is that of Kobayashi and his wife -- originally hers, then also his as a result of their marriage. Before the marriage, he had been a resident -- as required by extraterritorial laws at the time -- of the Yokohama Settlement (横浜居留地 Yokohama Kyoryūchi), a treaty concession for foreigners.
In April 1890, the year before he became Kobayashi, De Becker sent a query to the prime minister asking if it was possible "to change his allegiance to Japanese nationality" (日本国籍に帰化する Nihon kokuseki ni kika suru). The reply, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to the effect that there were no examples of a foreigner being permitted "to change allegiance to Japan" (日本への帰化 Nihon e no kika) other than through adoption as a son-in-law (婿養子 muko yōshi) or an incoming husband (入夫 nyūfu).
The above anecdote comes from Koyama (1995:115). He does not, however, directly cite De Becker's query or the government response. Hence the language used in the exchange cannot be confirmed.
De Becker went on to translate many Japanese laws, including the 1899 Nationality Law, as noted in the pamphlet.
Without further ado, Bowles's 1915 pamphlet.
"Japanese Law of Nationality" by Gilbert Bowles, 1915 In praise of racial and nationality equality in Japan's Nationality Law |
|
[Front cover] [Stamp]
GIFT
JAPANESE LAW
COMPILED BY
TOKYO |
|
[Inside front Cover] Copies of "The Japanese Law of Nationality", also copies of a uniform pamphlet, "Land Tenure by Foreigners in Japan", a reprint from the November (1814) number of The Japan Peace Movement, may be obtained from Gilbert Bowles, 30 Koun Cho, Mita, Tokyo. |
|
[Page 1]
JAPANESE LAW Compiled by Gilbert Bowles. Introductory. This summary of the Japanese Law of Nationality was published in the English Department of the April (1915) number of The Japan Peace Movement, organ of the Japan Peace Society and the American Peace Society of Japan. During the past year questions concerning the Japanese Law of Nationality have become frequent. This has naturally arisen with more serious consideration of the naturalization of Japanese resident in America. In personal interviews and conferences it has been difficult to obtain accurate information concerning Japanese laws governing the losing of nationality by Japanese subjects and the acquiring of Japanese nationality by foreigners. The response given to the publication, in the November (1914) number of The Japan Peace Movement, of a summary of Japanese law concerning "Land Tenure by Foreigners in Japan" has encouraged the compilation of a similar summary of the Japanese "Law of Nationality." The object in endeavoring to present such facts, whether concerning land tenure or naturalization, is neither defense nor condemnation. Whatever be the Japanese or American laws concerning such important subjects, it is necessary that the facts be known. If the wider publicity of laws concerning land tenure or nationality reveals just causes for anxiety and criticism, intelligent and frank discussion will naturally point toward amendment. It is known that some very influential Japanese believe certain sections of the Japanese "Law of Nationality" should be amended. The Japanese "Law of Nationality" (Law No. 66), called in Japanese "Kokuseki-Hō," was promulgated on March 16, 1899, and came into force on April 1 of the same year. Extracts are made from this Law of twenty-eight articles, as translated by Mr. J. E. De Becker LL. B., of Yokohama, Legal Adviser to the Yokohama and Tokyo Foreign Board of Trade, and printed in the Appendix of his "Annotated Civil Code of Japan." Mr. De Becker says "You are welcome to make any use you like of it." Headings have been given and a general analysis made, |
|
[Page 2] with a few notes, for the sake of reference. Only the parts so designated by marks are exact quotations from the Law. NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN. Article 1. "A child is a Japanese if his or her father is a Japanese at the time of his or her birth." [ Article 2. Not shown] Article 3. "A Child whose father is unknown or possesses no nationality is a Japanese provided that his or her mother is a Japanese." Article 4. "A child born in Japan is a Japanese when both his or her father and mother are unknown or possess no nationality."
HOW ALIENS MAY ACQUIRE JAPANESE Article 5. "An Alien acquires Japanese nationality in any of the following cases:-- [Commentary] "Recognition," as used in the article is referred to as follows in a personal note by Mr. T. Miyaoka of the Tokyo Bar, Legal Adviser to the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce: "When an alien has been recognized by the father or mother who is a Japanese as his or her son or daughter." Mr. DeBecker [sic] adds that "recognition must be effected by the observance of certain legal formalities provided for in the Civil Code and ancillary laws." Article 6. [Summary] This article says that one acquiring Japanese nationality by recognition must be "a minor according to the law of his or her own country" and that, if a woman, she be "not the wife of an alien." Article 7. "An alien may become naturalized with the permission of the Minister for Home Affairs. |
|
[Page 3] legal capacity according to the law of his or her home country; Article 8. "The wife of an alien cannot become naturalized except together with her husband." Article 9. "Those aliens mentioned below and who are actually domiciled in Japan may become naturalized even when the condition of No. 1 of Paragraph 2 of Art. 7 is not fulfilled:-- Article 10. "An alien whose father or mother is a Japanese may, provided that he or she actually possesses a domicile in Japan, become naturalized even when the conditions mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of Paragraph 2 of Art. 7 are not fulfilled." Article 11. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Art. 7, the Ministry for Home Affairs may, subject to Imperial sanction, permit the naturalization of an alien who has rendered specially meritorious services to Japan." Article 12. "Naturalization shall be publicly notified in the Official Gazette. Article 13. "The wife of an alien who acquires Japanese nationality acquires the same nationality together with her husband. |
|
[Page 4] Article 14. "In case the wife of a person who has acquired Japanese nationality has not acquired Japanese nationality in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Article, she may become naturalized even when the conditions mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Art. 7 are not fulfilled." Article 15. "The child of a person who has acquired Japanese nationality acquires Japanese nationality together with his or her father or mother, provided that he or she is a minor according to the law of his or her home country.
RESTRICTIONS ATTACHING TO ACQUIRED Article 16. "Naturalized persons, children of naturalized persons who have acquired Japanese nationality, and persons who have become adopted children or nyufu of Japanese possess none of the rights mentioned below:-- [Commentary] Concerning the above Article. Mr. J.E. DeBecker [sic] says in his "Annotated [sic] Civil Code of Japan", "These restrictions do not apply to the very few aliens who were naturalized by adoption prior to 1st April, 1899. They, in the contemplation of the law, are native-born." Article 17. "The Minister for Home Affairs may, subject to Imperial sanction, remove the restrictions mentioned in the preceding Article after the lapse of five years from the time of acquisition of Japanese nationality in the case of persons whose naturalization has been permit- |
|
[Page 5] ted according to the provisions of Art. 11, and, after ten years, in the case of other persons." HOW JAPANESE NATIONALITY MAY BE LOST. Article 18. "A Japanese woman who has married an alien loses Japanese nationality." Article 19. "A person who has acquired Japanese nationality by virtue of marriage or adoption loses Japanese nationality in case of divorce or dissolution of adoption only when he or she thereby recovers his or her foreign nationality." Article 20. "A person who has voluntarily acquired a foreign nationality loses Japanese nationality." Article 21. "The wife and child of a person who has lost Japanese nationality loses Japanese nationality when they have acquired that person's nationality." [Article 22. Not shown] [Article 23.] Article 22. "In case a child who is a Japanese has acquired a foreign nationality by virtue of recognition, he or she loses Japanese nationality; but this does not apply to a person who has become the wife, nyufu, or adopted child of a Japanese."
LIMITATIONS AS TO FREEDOM OF JAPANESE [Article 24.] Article 23. "Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding five Articles, a male of full seventeen years of age or upwards does not lose Japanese nationality unless he has completed active service in the Army or Navy or he is under no obligation to enter into it. REGAINING OF LOST NATIONALITY. Article 25. "A person who has lost Japanese nationality by virtue of marriage may, with the permission of the Minister for Home Affairs, recover Japanese nationality provided that such person possesses a domicile in Japan after dissolution of the marriage." Article 26. "A Person who has lost Japanese nationality in accordance with Art. 20 or 21 may recover Japanese nationality provided that he or she possesses a domicile in Japan; but this does not apply |
|
[Page 6] when the persons mentioned in Art. 16 have lost Japanese nationality." [Article 27. Not shown] [Article 28. Not shown]
SPECIAL LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION According to Law No. 21, July 11, 1898, the Minister for Home Affairs may grant the necessary permission to a Japanese "to adopt an alien or to make him a nyufu" ("man married to the female head of a house") in case the alien of "good conduct or behaviour," has "possessed a domicile or place of residence in Japan for at least one year consecutively." NO RACIAL OR NATIONAL DISCRIMINATION. In a personal letter to the compiler of this article Mr. J. E. De Becker writes: "No line is drawn at either nationality or race. The only question considered is -- is the applicant likely to make a desirable citizen. If the man himself is all right, then his nationality, or race cuts no figure whatsoever in the matter, and this, I think, is as it should be."
FOREIGNERS WHO HAVE OBTAINED The Japanese law of Naturalization went into operation in 1899. According to that Law, five years residence in Japan is required before naturalization. The statistics of naturalization under this Law date from 1904 and are as follows: Foreigners Who Have Obtained Japanese Nationality, 1904 to 1913. (From Reports of Home Department) Naturalized Adopted and Nationality Total Nyufu Regained English 2 7 5 14 American 2 1 7 10 German -- 1 2 3 Chinese 158 7 17 182 French 5 -- -- 5 Korean -- 1 -- 1 Portuguese -- 1 -- 1 Total 167 18 31 216 |
|
[Inside back cover] 大正四年五月 十 日印刷 大正四年五月十五日發行 発行兼編輯人 キルバート、ボールス 東京市芝區三田功運町三十番地 印 刷 人 ジェー、エム、ガーデナー 東京市麹町區土手三番町三十二番地 印 刷 所 株式會社 秀 英 舎 東京市京橋區西紺屋町二十七番地 |
|
[Back cover] [Bookplate]
|
1916 revision of 1899 Nationality Law
The 1916 revision clarified conditions under which a Japanese woman who married an alien would lose her nationality, and provided -- for the first time -- provisions for renunciation.
Pressure from American states
The renunciation measures were introduced in response to pressure from North and South American states, but especially the United States, to permit dual-national offspring of Japanese immigrants to singularize their nationality. Most American states had place-of-birth nationality laws, and some were concerned about dual nationality -- in addition to racial concerns about Japanese immigration.
Dual nationals who were domiciled in the country of their alien nationality could renounce their Japanese nationality with the permission from the Ministry of Justice.
Renunciation by representation
Provisions were also made for the parents or guardians of a dual-national minor to renounce on behalf of the minor. These provisions were dropped with the introduction of the nationality retention system in 1924 (see below).
1916 revision of 1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 27) Concerning loss and renunciation of nationality |
|
Japanese textThe following Japanese as been constructed from two sources: (1) Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (page 834), and (2) the website of the research group of Okuda Yasuhiro (奥田安弘), a law professor at Chuo University Law School (中央大学法科大学院 Chuo Daigaku Hoka Daigakuin). Okuda, a specialist in international law, has also been involved in nationality and family register law issues. The Tashiro text shows the actually revision law. The Okuda text shows only the results of the revision law. The latter is obviously what most people will want to see. However, I have chosen to show both -- for those who may want to see how the laws were actually revised. First I cut and pasted the articles affected by the 1916 revision from Okuda's website to this page. I then compared the text of these articles with the text of the actual revision law in Tashiro 1974. Next I added content from Tashiro that was not in Okuda. Finally I formatted the text to facilitate its presentation here, and marked the text to facilitate understanding how the extant law was revised. English translationThe translation is mine (William Wetherall). Highlighting1916 revisions are shown in blue. |
|
朕帝国[議]会ノ協賛ヲ経タル国籍法中改正法律ヲ裁可シ茲ニ之ヲ公布セシム
御名御璽 大正五年三月十五日 内閣総理大臣 伯爵 大隈 重信 内務大臣 法学博士 一木喜徳郎 法律第二十七号 (官報三月十六日) |
I [the emperor] sanction the law of revisions in the Law of Nationality which has passed the approval of the Imperial Diet and herein promulgate it.
Imperial seal [Yoshihito] Taisho 5-3-15 [15 March 1916] Prime Minister of the Cabinet Count Ookuma Shigenobu Minister of Home Affairs LL.D. Ikki Kitokuro Law No. 27 (Kanpo 16 March) |
国籍法中左ノ通改正ス | The Law of Nationality is revised as to the left. |
第十八条 日本人カ外国人ノ妻ト為リ夫ノ国籍ヲ取得シタルトキハ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ 第十八条 |
Article 18 When a Japanese [Nihonjin] has become the wife of an alien and has gained the husband's nationality [she] will lose the nationality of Japan. When a |
第二十条ノ二 外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人カ其国ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ 前項ノ許可ノ申請ハ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為ス者カ十五年未満ナルトキハ法定代理人ヨリ之ヲ為シ満十五年以上ノ未成年者又ハ禁治産者ナルトキハ法定代理人ノ同意ヲ得テ之ヲ為スコトヲ要ス 継父、継母、嫡母又ハ後見人カ前項ノ申請又ハ同意ヲ為スニハ親族会ノ同意ヲ得ルコヲ要ス 国籍ノ離脱ヲ為シタル者ハ国籍ヲ失フ |
Article 20-2 A Japanese [Nihonjin] who by virtue of having been born in a foreign country has gained the nationality of that country, if possessing a domicile in that country, shall be able to effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan having obtained the permission of the As for the application for permission of the preceding paragraph, when a person who would effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan is not yet fully fifteen years of age, [the person] will effect this through a legal representative, and when [the person] is a minor fully fifteen years old or above or is an incompetent person [the person] will be required to effect this obtaining the consent of a legal representative. When a stepfather, stepmother, legitimate mother, or guardian effects the application or permission in the preceding paragraph, [they] will be required to obtain the consent of a family council. A person who has effected a renunciation of [the] nationality [of Japan] shall lose [the] nationality [of Japan]. |
第二十四条中「前五条」ヲ「前六条」ニ、「前六条」を「前七条」ニ改ス
第二十四条 満十七年以上ノ男子ハ 現ニ文武ノ官職ヲ帯フル者ハ |
In Article 24 change "the preceding five articles" to "the preceding six articles", and "the preceding six articles" to "the preceding seven articles".
Article 24 A male of fully 17 years of age or above, notwithstanding the provisions of A person who presently occupies a civil or military government post, notwithstanding the provisions of |
第二十六条中「第二十条」ノ下ニ「第二十条ノ二」ヲ加へ同条ニ左ノ一項ヲ加フ
前項ノ許可ノ申請ハ第二十重条ノ二ノ規定ニ依リテ日本ノ国籍ヲ失ヒタル者カ十五年未満ナルトキハ日本ノ国籍ノ離脱ノ際其ノ者ノ属セシ家ニ在ル父、父之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ母、母之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ祖父、祖父之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ祖母ヨリ之ヲ為スコトヲ要ス 第二十六条 第二十条、第二十条ノ二又ハ第二十一条ノ規定ニ依リテ日本ノ国籍ヲ失ヒタル者カ日本ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ 前項ノ許可ノ申請ハ第二十重条ノ二ノ規定ニ依リテ日本ノ国籍ヲ失ヒタル者カ十五年未満ナルトキハ日本ノ国籍ノ離脱ノ際其ノ者ノ属セシ家ニ在ル父、父之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ母、母之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ祖父、祖父之ヲ為スコト能ハサルトキハ祖母ヨリ之ヲ為スコトヲ要ス |
In Article 26 under "Article 20" add "Article 20-2" and to the same article add the paragraph to the left.
As for the application for permission of the preceding paragraph, when a person who has lost the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article 20-2 is not yet fully fifteen years of age, at the time of renunciation of the nationality of Japan, it shall be necessary to effect this through the father in the family affiliated with the person, or when the father cannot do this the mother, or when the mother cannot do this a grandfather, or when a grandfather cannot do this a grandmother. Article 26 When a person who has lost the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article 20, Article 20-2, or Article 21 possesses a domicile in Japan, [the person] shall be able to regain the nationality of Japan having received the permission of the As for the application for permission of the preceding paragraph, when a person who has lost the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article 20-2 is not yet fully fifteen years of age, at the time of renunciation of the nationality of Japan, it shall be necessary to effect this through the father in the family affiliated with the person, or when the father cannot do this the mother, or when the mother cannot do this a grandfather, or when a grandfather cannot do this a grandmother. |
附則 | Supplementary provisions |
本法施行ノ期日ハ勅令ヲ以テ之ヲ定ム | The date of the enforcement of this law shall be determined by imperial ordinance. |
Terminologylegitimate mother (嫡母 chakubo) was the legal wife of the person's father, who as such had parental authority over the child, whose biological mother might have been a mistress. family council (親族会 shinzokukai) was a legal process of decision making under contemporary family law. The system, until abolished in 1947, was used to resolve important matters related to specific family members or to the entire family as a corporate entity. A court would convene a conference of the persons involved, the head of household, guardians, relatives, a prosecutor, and other interested parties and hear their claims. |
1924 revision of 1899 Nationality Law
The main aim of this revision was to establish procedures for Japanese residing in specified American states to file notification of intent to retain nationality for a child born in the country within two weeks of its birth.
The two-week period was the time within which a notification of birth had to be filed under the family registration law.
Specified American states
An imperial ordinance (No. 262 of 1924) specified that the retention provision of Article 20-2(1) in the 1924 revision applied to Japanese residing in the United States (亜米利加合衆国), Argentina (亜爾然丁国), Brazil (伯剌西爾国), Canada (加奈陀), Chile (智利国), and Peru (秘露国). Mexico was added to the list in 1926 by another imperial ordinance (No. 16 of 1926).
Note Both ordinances are mentioned in Hosokawa 1990 (page 185). The character names for the countries are as shown in the version of Imperial Ordinance No. 262 in Tashiro 1974 (page 837). Tashiro's text shows that the ordinance was sanctioned on 15 November, promulgated in the Official Gazette on 17 November, and came into force from 1 December 1924 with the revisions of Law 19. Tashiro does not show, or mention, Imperial Ordinance No. 16 of 1926. Mexico was probably shown as 墨西哥.
All the designated countries were American states with place-of-birth nationality laws. The 1924 retention-of-nationality measure was made in response to diplomatic pressure -- especially from the United States, which was then in the throes of an anti-alien, anti-Oriental, anti-dual-national tantrum -- to make it more difficult for children born to Japanese parents in the designated countries to become dual nationals through birth. The United States was also concerned with Japanese immigration in Latin American countries.
Changes in renunciation measures
Article 20-2(2) of the 1924 revision also provided that those who retained their nationality according to the revision, and resided in the country of the foreign nationality, could renounce their Japanese nationality in accordance with their wish to do so -- that is, they would not require ministerial permission to do so.
However, Article 20-3 provided that those in similar circumstances, who had become dual nationals before the 1924 revision, would have to receive the permission of the Ministry of Justice in order to renounce their nationality (as provided for in the 1916 revision). In either case, they would lose their Japanese nationality upon effecting renunciation.
Provisions made in 1916, for parents or guardians of a dual-national minor to renounce on behalf of the minor, were dropped with the introduction of the nationality retention system.
Impact on later nationality laws
The retention measure was retained in the 1950 law. And it became the basis of the declaration of choice provision introduced in the 1985 revision.
Japan did not in the past -- and still does not -- prohibit dual nationality acquired at time of birth. Nor does it actually prohibit dual nationality arising later in life.
1924 revision of 1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 19) Concerning retention of nationality |
|
Japanese textThe following Japanese as been constructed from two sources: (1) Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (pages 834-835), and (2) the website of the research group of Okuda Yasuhiro (奥田安弘), a law professor at Chuo University Law School (中央大学法科大学院 Chuo Daigaku Hoka Daigakuin). Okuda, a specialist in international law, has also been involved in nationality and family register law issues. The Tashiro text shows the actually revision law. The Okuda text shows only the results of the revision law. The latter is obviously what most people will want to see. However, I have chosen to show both -- for those who may want to see how the laws were actually revised. First I cut and pasted the articles affected by the 1916 revision from Okuda's website to this page. I then compared the text of these articles with the text of the actual revision law in Tashiro 1974. Next I added content from Tashiro that was not in Okuda. Finally I formatted the text to facilitate its presentation here, and marked the text to facilitate understanding how the extant law was revised. English translationThe translation is mine (William Wetherall). Highlighting1916 revisions are shown in blue. |
|
朕帝国議会ノ協賛ヲ経タル国籍法中改正法律ヲ裁可シ茲ニ之ヲ公布セシム
御名御璽 摂政名 大正十三年七月二十二日 内閣総理大臣 子爵 加藤 高明 内務大臣 若槻礼次郎 法律第十九号 (官報号外) |
I [the emperor] sanction the law of revisions in the Law of Nationality which has passed the approval of the Imperial Diet and herein promulgate it.
Imperial seal [Yoshihito] Name of regent [Hirohito] Taisho 13-7-22 [22 July 1924] Prime Minister of the Cabinet Viscount Kato Takaaki Minister of Home Affairs Wakatsuki Reijiro Law No. 19 (Kanpo Extra edition) |
国籍法中左ノ通改正ス | The Law of Nationality is revised as to the left. |
第二十条ノ二 勅令ヲ以テ指定スル外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人ハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ヲ留保スルノ意思ヲ表示スルニ非サレハ其出生ノ時ニ遡リテ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ 前項ノ規定ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ヲ留保シタル者又ハ前項ノ規定ニ依ル指定前其指定セラレタル外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人当該外国ノ国籍ヲ有シ且其国ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ其志望ニ依リ日本ノ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為スコトヲ得 前項ノ規定ニ依リ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為シタル者ハ日本ノ国籍ヲ失フ |
Article 20-2 As for Japanese who by reason of having been born in a foreign country designated by imperial ordinance have acquired the nationality of that country, should there be no expression of intent to retain the nationality of Japan as they shall lose the nationality of Japan retroactive to the time of their birth according to the determinations of decrees. Those who reserve the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph, and when a Japanese who by reason of having been born before the designation according to the provision of the preceding paragraph has acquired the nationality of that country possess the nationality of the said country and possesses a domicile in the country shall be able to effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan in accordance with their wish. Those who have effected a renunciation of nationality in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph shall lose the nationality of Japan. |
第二十条ノ三 前条第一項ノ外国以外ノ外国ニ於テ生マレタルニ因リテ其国ノ国籍ヲ取得シタル日本人カ其国ニ住所ヲ有スルトキハ 前条第三項ノ規定ハ前項ノ規定ニ依リ国籍ノ離脱ヲ為シタル者ニ之ヲ準用ス |
Article 20-3 When a Japanese who by reason of having been born in a foreign country other than a foreign country of paragraph one of the preceding article has acquired the nationality of that country possesses a domicile in that country, the [Japanese] shall be able to effect a renunciation of the nationality of Japan by obtaining the permission of the As for the provision of paragraph three of the preceding article, this shall apply mutatis mutandis to those who have effected a renunciation of nationality in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph [of this article]. |
第二十四条中「前六条」ヲ「第十九条、第二十条及前三条」ニ、「前七条」ヲ「前八条」ニ改ム
第二十四条 満十七年以上ノ男子ハ 現ニ文武ノ官職ヲ帯フル者ハ |
In Article 24 change "the preceding six articles" to "Article 19, Article 20, and preceding three articles", and "the preceding seven articles" to "the preceding eight articles".
Article 24 A male of fully 17 years of age or above, notwithstanding the provisions of A person who presently occupies a civil or military government post, notwithstanding the provisions of |
第二十六条中「第二十条、第二十条ノ二又ハ第二十一条」を「第二十条及至第二十一条」ニ改メ同条第二項ヲ消ル
第二十六条 |
In Article 26 change "Article 20, Article 20-2, or Article 21" to "Article 20 through Article 21" and delete paragraph 2 of the same article.
Article 26 When a person who has lost the nationality of Japan in accordance with the provisions of |
第二十七条ノ二 国籍ノ離脱及回復ニ関スル手続ハ命令ヲ以テ之ヲ定ム |
Article 27-2 As for applications concerning renunciation and restoration of nationality, [these] shall be determined by decrees. |
附則 | Supplementary provisions |
本法施行ノ期日ハ勅令ヲ以テ之ヲ定ム | The date of the enforcement of this law shall be determined by imperial ordinance. |
1924 Nationality Law Enforcement Regulations
While there had been a number of ministerial ordinances concerning enforcement of the 1873 Great Council of State proclamation and the 1899 Nationality Law, these are the first "Nationality Law Enforcement regulations" so-called.
1924 enforcement regulation (Ordinance No. 26) Guidelines for administering 1899 Nationality Law from 1 December 1924 |
|||
Japanese textThe following Japanese text is transcribed from Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (pages 839-841). English translationsThe structural translation is mine (William Wetherall). The numbers are as stipulated in the original. The received translation is from Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., and Manley O. Hudson, A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries as Contained in Constitutions, Statutes and Treaties, New York] Oxford University Press, 1929, pages 386-388. The source attribution is "Text from enclosure with Despatch No. 17, December 1, 1924, from the American Ambassador to Japan to the Secretary of State." Notes are numbered as received. Highlighting1st 1948 revision is shown in red. |
|||
内務省令 第二十六号 |
Ministry of Home Affairs Ordinance No. 26 |
||
Japanese text | Structural translation | ||
国籍法施行規則左ノ通定ム
大正十三年十一月十七日 内務大臣 若槻礼次郎 外務大臣 男爵 幣原喜重郎 |
The Nationality Law enforcement regulation is decided as to the left.
Taisho 13-11-17 [17 November 1924] Minister of Home Affairs Wakatsuki Reijiro Minister of Foreign Affairs Baron Shidehara Kijuro |
||
Japanese text | Structural translation | Received translation | |
第一条 |
Article 1 |
Article 1 |
|
第二条 天災又ハ避クヘカラサル事由ニ因リ前項ノ期間内ニ国籍ノ留保ノ届出ヲ為ス能ハサル場合ニ於テハ其ノ期間ハ届出ヲ為スコトヲ得ルニ至リタル時ヨリ之ヲ起算ス 航海中ニ出生シタル者ニ関シテハ第一項ノ届出ハ戸籍法第七十五条第二項又ハ第三項ノ規定ニ依リ船長ノ発送スル航海日誌ノ謄本ニ其ノ届書ヲ添付スルコトニ依リ之ヲ為スコトヲ得 |
Article 2 In the event that [one] is unable to effect the making of a notification of retention of nationality within the time period of the preceding paragraph, due to a natural disaster or [other] causes that could not have been avoided, the time period shall be calculated from the time from which [one] was able to effect the making of a notification. Regarding a person who is born at sea, as for the making of the notification of paragraph 1, it shall be possible to effect it by attaching the notification document to a certified copy of the navigation log the ship's captain will issue in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 75 of the Family Registration Law. |
Article 2 Those unable to file a statement preserving their nationality within the period specified above, due to an Act of God or other unavoidable cause, the period within which the report may be made shall be calculated from the moment on which the Act of God or other cause shall have occurred. In the case of those born at sea, the report mentioned in paragraph 1 shall, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 or 3 of Article 75 [Note 4] of the Census Domicile Law, be accompanied by a certified copy of the ship's daily log which is required to be filed by the Master. Note 3 Providing for the registration of legitimate and illegitimate children. Note 4 Providing for the registration and reports of births at sea. |
|
Comment on Article 2 The received translation totally misrepresents the procedure clearly described in the Japanese text. The person whose nationality is being retained is an infant child, who obviously cannot make a notification of its own birth much less an intent to retain its own nationality. A parent or other person as provided by law was responsible for filing notifications of birth and intent to retain nationality. The notifications had to be made together, generally within two weeks of the child's birth.
|
|||
第三条 |
Article 3 |
Article 3 The report referred to in the previous paragraph shall be made in the case of those less than fifteen years of age, by their legal representative. In the case of those not of age and more than fifteen years of age, or of legal incompetents, the report shall be filed only with the consent of their legal representatives. Whenever the report mentioned in the preceding paragraphs is to be made by a stepfather, stepmother, or guardian, or whenever the consent of such persons is required, the consent of the family council shall also be obtained. |
|
第四条 |
Article 4 |
Article 4 (1) Certified copy of census domicile. |
|
第五条 |
Article 5 |
Article 5 |
|
第六条 |
Article 6 |
Article 6 |
|
第七条 |
Article 7 |
Article 7 |
|
第八条 |
Article 8 |
Article 8 Whenever the petition for the consent referred to in the preceding paragraph is required of one less than fifteen years of age, who has lost his nationality in accordance with Article 20 (2) or (3) of the Nationality Law, the request shall be made by his father; if the father is unable to make this request, then by the mother; and if she be unable also, then by a grandfather, and if either one is unable to do so, then by a grandmother. |
|
附則 |
Supplementary provisions
|
Supplementary provisions This ordinance shall become effective on December 1, 1924. Ordinance No. 8 of the Department of the Interior is hereby revoked. Applications for the divestment of Japanese nationality made in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 8 before the date on which this ordinance shall become effective, shall, in the case of those Japanese who have acquired foreign nationality by reason of birth in any foreign country specified in Imperial Ordinance No. 262 of 1924, be regarded as applications for the divestment of Japanese nationality required by this ordinance; and they shall be regarded as having been made on the date on which this ordinance shall become effective. |
1925 San Francisco Consulate General of Japan case books
In 1925, the San Francisco Consulate General of Japan compiled and published Documental History of Law Cases affecting Japanese in the United States 1916-1924 in two thick paper-bound volumes. Volume 1 covered Naturalization Cases and Cases Affecting Constitutional and Treaty Rights. Volume 2 covered Japanese Land Cases.
While the cases in this publication involve US and not Japanese status laws, its timing reflects the gravity of 1924 developments in US-Japan relations regarding the issue of "race" in US immigration, alien property, and naturalization laws, and Japan's responses to US fears of dual nationality.
See SF CG of Japan 1925 in Nationality section of Bibliography for particulars and review.
First 1948 revision of 1899 Nationality Law
This revision did not effect the provisions of the Nationality Law but changed only the name of the competent minister who oversaw the administration of the law. The revision was effected by an article in a law that abolished the Ministry of Interior Affairs and other administrative structures at the end of 1947 as directed by the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP) during the Occupation of Japan after World War II.
From 1 January 1948, what had been the Naimushō (内務省) or "Interior Ministry" since 1873, headed by the Naimu Daijin (内務大臣) or "Minister of Interior" since 1885, was dispanded.
The 1899 Nationality Law was revised to reflect this change in the title of the competent minister.
1st 1948 revision of 1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 239) Changes "Interior Minister" to "competent minister" |
|
Japanese textThe Japanese text is from Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (page 836) Only parts affecting the Nationality Law are shown. English translationThe English translation is mine. |
|
内務省官制等廃止に伴う法令の整理に関する法律 | Law concerning the disposal of laws and ordinances attending the abolishment of the Interior Ministry administrative system and others |
内務省官制等廃止に伴う法令の整理に関する法律をここに公布する。
御名御璽 昭和二十二年十二月二十六日 内閣総理大臣 片山 哲 法律第二百三十九号 |
[We] hereby promulgate the Law concerning the disposal of laws and ordinances attending the abolishment of the Interior Ministry administrative system and others.
Imperial seal [Hirohito] Showa 22-12-26 [26 December 1947] Prime Minister of the Cabinet Katayama Tetsu Law No. 239 |
[ 施行 昭和二十八年一月一日 ] | [ Enforced from 1 January 1948 ] |
第一条 左に揚げる法令中「内務大臣」を「主務大臣」に改める。 国籍法 |
Article 1 In the laws and ordinances cited to the left change "Interior Minister" to "competent minister". Nationality Law |
附則 | Supplementary provisions |
この法律は、昭和二十八年一月一日から、これを施行する。
内務大臣 木村小左衛門 外法大臣 芦田 均 内閣総理大臣 片山 哲 |
This Law shall come into force from 1 January 1948.
Minister of Interior Kimura Kozaemon Minister of Foreign Affairs Ashida Hitoshi Prime Minister of the Cabinet Katayama Tetsu |
Second 1948 revision of 1899 Nationality Law
This revision did not effect the provisions of the Nationality Law but changed only the name of the competent minister who oversaw the administration of the law. The revision was effected by an article in a law that replaced the Ministry of Justice with the Attorney General's Office, as directed by the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP) during the Occupation of Japan after World War II.
From 15 February 1948, what had been the Shihōshō (司法省) or "Ministry of Justice" since Meiji 4-7-9 (24 August 1871) headed by the Shih#333; Daijin (司法大臣) or "Minister of Justice" since 1885, was replaced by the Hōmuchō (法務庁) or "Attorney General's Office" headed by the Hōmu Sōsai (法務総裁) or "Attorney General".
The 1899 Nationality Law was revised to reflect this change in the title of the competent minister. Such a revision was unnecessary when from 1 June 1949 the office was renamed the Hōmufu (法務府), because the title of the competent minister did not change. The English terms for both the office and the title of the competent minister also remained unchanged.
2nd 1948 revision of 1899 Nationality Law (Law No. 195) Changes "competent minister" to "Attorney General" |
|
Japanese textThe Japanese text is from Tashiro Aritsugu, Kokusekihō chikujō kaisetsu [An article by article commentary on the Nationality Law], Tokyo: Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1974 (pages 835-836) Only parts affecting the Nationality Law are shown. English translationThe English translation is mine. |
|
法務庁設置法に伴う法令の整理に関する法律 | Law concerning the disposal of laws and ordinances attending the Attorney General's Office Establishment Law |
法務庁設置法に伴う法令の整理に関する法律をここに公布する。
御名御璽 昭和二十二年十二月十七日 内閣総理大臣 片山 哲 法律第百九十五号 |
[We] hereby promulgate the Law concerning the disposal of laws and ordinances attending the Attorney General's Office Establishment Law.
Imperial seal [Hirohito] Showa 22-12-17 [17 December 1947] Prime Minister of the Cabinet Katayama Tetsu Law No. 195 |
[ 施行 昭和二十八年二月二十五日 ] | [ Enforced from 15 February 1948 ] |
第十四条 左に揚げる法令中「主務大臣」を「法務総裁」に改める。 国籍法 |
Article 14 In the laws and ordinances cited to the left change "competent minister" to "Attorney General". Nationality Law |
附則 | Supplementary provisions |
第十七条 この法律は、公布の後六十日を経過した日から、これを施行する。 内閣総理大臣 片山 哲 内務大臣 木村小左衛門 司法大臣 鈴木 義男 |
This Law shall come into force from the day as of which sixty days have passed after promulgation.
Prime Minister of the Cabinet Katayama Tetsu Minister of Interior Kimura Kozaemon Minister of Justice Suzuki Yoshio |