Typology ofStateless Persons
in Japan
Study Group on
Statelessness in Japan
Ayane Odagawa
Sosuke Seki
Hajime Akiyama
Fumie Azukizawa
Keiko Kato
Anna Nakamura
Yue FuManami Honda* This study was commissioned by UNHCR Representationin Japan to the Study Group on Statelessness in Japan
with additional funding from the Japan Law Foundation.

TYPOLOGY OF STATELESS PERSONS IN JAPAN
December 2017

Study Group on Statelessness in Japan

Ayane Odagawa
Sosuke Seki***
Hajime Akiyama
Fumie Azukizawa
Keiko Kato
Anna Nakamura
Yue FuManami Honda

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
those of UNHCR.
This report can be downloaded at www.unhcr.org/jp/© UNHCR 2017

1

FOREWORD
A stateless person is somebody who is not considered a national by any State. There are atleast 10 million stateless people and persons at risk of statelessness worldwide. Without
the formal legal bond of nationality, stateless people are often unable to enjoy basic humanrights such as going to school, receiving healthcare, or registering birth or marriage. Manystateless persons cannot legally travel to and stay in another country. Some may even facedetention.
UNHCR is mandated by the UN General Assembly to assist States to identify, prevent andreduce statelessness as well as to protect stateless persons. States and UNHCR have inrecent years strengthened their efforts to address statelessness. Since the beginning of
UNHCR’s renewed accession campaign in 2010, the number of contracting States for the1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness increased from 65 to 89 and 33 to 70 respectively.
Furthermore, a number of States have made changes to their national legal frameworks or
established statelessness determination procedures. Encouraged by these positive
developments, UNHCR launched its #iBelong campaign in November 2014 to end
statelessness within 10 years.
This report is the third study commissioned by UNHCR in Japan and complements the two
previous studies by Professor Kohki Abe entitled “Overview of Statelessness: International
and Japanese Context” (2010) and Professor Osamu Arakaki entitled “Statelessness
Conventions and Japanese Laws: Divergence and Convergence” (2015). These earlier
studies had recommended that further research be carried out to help identify the number
and circumstances of stateless persons in Japan and the realities they face.
The study provides useful insights on the various procedures in which administrative
bodies assess a person’s nationality status. It provides case studies of stateless persons andpersons who are potentially stateless, categorized by the causes, and proposes measures
to address the challenges identified through the case studies. The report will also help thegovernment to more accurately quantify statelessness in Japan in the future.

2

This latest study reinforces the previous reports’ recommendations to establish astatelessness determination procedure, to flexibly implement and strengthen the current
Japanese nationality law provisions to address statelessness, as well as to accede to thetwo Statelessness Conventions. The authors also emphasize that the assessment ofstatelessness should be made in line with the guidance of the UNHCR Handbook on theProtection of Stateless Persons (2014).
The Study also demonstrates through examination of actual cases that increased
awareness regarding nationality and statelessness issues among the relevant actors inJapan can help identifying and addressing (the risk of) statelessness. In this context, thisStudy can contribute to a more systematic identification of persons whose statelessness
may not have come to the surface and provide practical hints to explore how to effectively
respond to their plight.
UNHCR Japan hopes that this study will provide the basis for active discussions among thegovernment, legal practitioners, civil society and stateless persons themselves about how
the identified challenges can be addressed, including potential actions for thestrengthening of the current legal framework and its implementation.
Dirk Hebecker
Representative
UNHCR Representation in Japan

3

PREFACE
The Study Group on Statelessness in Japan, to which the authors of this report belong,is a voluntary group founded in 2014 by researchers, practitioners, and NGO staff
interested in issues of statelessness in Japan. The same year in August, the group began
conducting a study funded by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations Law Foundation,i.e., the Study No. 111 “Study on Statelessness in Japan: Understanding the situations ofstateless persons and the legal framework relating to protection of stateless persons.”1
It has also held its study session once every one to two months and has carried out
overseas research by interested members in order to deepen the knowledge onstatelessness issues in Japan.
Two studies on statelessness in Japan commissioned by UNHCR Tokyo have alreadybeen conducted. These are: Kohki Abe, “Overview of Statelessness: International andJapanese Context” (March 2010), and Osamu Arakaki, “Statelessness Conventions andJapanese Laws: Convergence and Divergence” (May 2015). 2 They both produced
significant outcomes as studies examining statelessness in Japan in recent years.
In consolidating the research outcomes for the purposes of writing this report, theStudy Group on Statelessness in Japan intends to characterize it as a third volume
complementing the two previous studies and aiming to be read together with them toprovide further insights into the phenomenon of statelessness in Japan.
Appreciation is hereby made with gratitude to Professor Kohki Abe who conducted
one of the earlier studies for his great support on this report.
We also would like to express our gratitude to the persons involved with each casewhich this report covers, their attorneys-at-law, supporting organizations, and embassies
and consulates in Japan for providing information as well as advice.
Moreover, Professor Atsushi Kondo, other members of the Study Group on
Statelessness in Japan, and UNHCR staff, especially Ms. Mai Kaneko and Ms. Radha Govil,
provided us with many useful comments. The English translation of this report was
1

Japan Law Foundation, Kenkyu [Study], at https://www.jlf.or.jp/work/kenkyu.shtml.
Kohki Abe, Mukokusekino Joukei: Kokusaihouno Shiza, Nihonno Kadai [Overview of Statelessness:
International and Japanese Context] (UNHCR, 2010), at http://www.unhcr.org/4ce643ac9.html.
(Translator’s note: the English version is the following. Kohki Abe, Overview of statelessness: International
and Japanese Context (UNHCR, 2010), at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c344c252.html.)
Osamu Arakaki, Mukokuseki Jouyakuto Nihonno Kokunaihou: Sono Settento Hedatari [Statelessness
Conventions and Japanese Laws: Convergence and Divergence] (UNHCR, 2015), at
http://www.unhcr.org/jp/wpcontent/uploads/sites/34/protect/Statelessness_Conventions_and_Japanese_Law.pdf.
(Translator’s note: the English version is the following. Osamu Arakaki, Statelessness Conventions andJapanese Laws: Convergence and Divergence (UNHCR, 2015), at http://www.unhcr.org/jp/wpcontent/uploads/sites/34/protect/Statelessness_Conventions_and_Japanese_Laws_EN.pdf.)
24

prepared by Ms. Kaneko, Ms. Miki Arima, and Mr. Christopher Cade Mosley. We would
like to express our sincere gratitude to them as well.
Finally, we would like to express our respect to all the authors for their great work.
We hope this report will contribute to worldwide efforts to identify statelessness
which would in turn help resolve the issues of statelessness.

Representing the Editors,
Ayane Odagawa
Sosuke Seki

5

TABLE OF CONTENTSLEGEND .................................................................................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 1 : GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................... 22
Section 1: Situations relating to statelessness in Japan........................................................ 22
1. Japanese law and criteria for the determination of statelessness ............................. 22
2. Existing statistics relating to statelessness ...................................................................... 30
Section 2: The definition of statelessness in international law .......................................... 39
1. Definition and legal requirements of statelessness in the 1954 Convention ......... 39
2. Burden of proof in establishing statelessness ................................................................. 42
Chapter 2: SAMPLE CASE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 44
Section 1: Categories of persons whose statelessness or risk of statelessness arose
while in Japan ................................................................................................................................... 44
Category A [Conflict of laws] Persons who did not acquire by birth the nationality of
their parents or the nationality of their country of birth due to conflict of laws (Sample
cases from Paraguay and Myanmar) ...................................................................................... 44
Category B [State succession] Persons whose country of previous nationality has
gone through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality ofthe successor State or the predecessor State confirmed (Sample cases from Ethiopia
and Eritrea).................................................................................................................................... 54
Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)] Persons unable to have their birth
registered or a passport issued, etc., due to rejection by relevant consular authorities(or inability to pursue such assistance) for refugee related reasons (Sample cases from
Myanmar, Cameroon, and China)............................................................................................ 62
Category D [Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)] Persons
unable to have their birth registered or a passport issued, etc., due to rejection by
relevant consular authorities (or inability to pursue such assistance) for reasons6related to their status being similar to refugees (Sample cases from Vietnam andMyanmar) ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Category E[Change of personal status] Persons who had acquired Japanesenationality at birth but due to a subsequent change in legal parentage “lost” suchnationality retroactively going back to the time of birth (Sample cases from
ROK/Japan, China/Japan) ......................................................................................................... 78
Category F [Failure of naturalization and restoration of previous nationality] Persons
who renounced their previous nationality in the naturalization or nationality
restoration process who nevertheless failed to acquire another nationality (Sample
cases from Pakistan, China/Bolivia） .................................................................................... 90
Category G [Unknown or stateless parents] Persons whose parents are unknown orare stateless (Sample cases from Philippines, Thailand/China) ....................................... 95
Category H [Consulate denial III (Others)] Persons understood to have acquired thenationality of the country concerned according to the text of the nationality law ofthat country, for whom nevertheless the relevant consular authorities refuse birth
registration or the issuance of a passport (Sample cases from China, Myanmar) ... 103
Section 2: Categories of persons whose statelessness or risk of statelessness arose
while overseas and who subsequently came to Japan....................................................... 110
Category I [Lack of proof] Persons who cannot establish the nationality of theircountry of birth or of their parents’ nationality (Sample case from Thailand/Vietnam）...................................................................................................................................................... 110
Category J [State succession II]: Persons whose country of previous nationality has
gone through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality ofthe successor State or the predecessor State confirmed (Sample cases from the Soviet
Union/Georgia) ......................................................................................................................... 116
Category K [Persons denied nationality under the law of the country of origin]
Persons who cannot acquire nationality under the law of the relevant country (Sample
cases from Myanmar) .............................................................................................................. 121
Section 3: Other categories of persons .................................................................................. 126
Category L Unregistered persons ........................................................................................ 126
7

Category M Persons without a family register ................................................................. 130
Category N Resident Koreans registered as “Chosen” (Sample cases from ROK/DPRK)...................................................................................................................................................... 137
Chapter 3: OVERALL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 145
Section 1: Issues faced by stateless persons in Japan ...................................................... 145
1.

Persons classified as stateless ................................................................................ 145

2.

Persons classified as nationals of a foreign State ............................................. 148

Section 2: Proposals to address the current issues ............................................................ 149
1. Identification ......................................................................................................................... 150
2. Protection .............................................................................................................................. 151
3. Prevention ............................................................................................................................. 153
4. Reduction .............................................................................................................................. 156
FINAL REMARKS .............................................................................................................................. 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 162
ANNEX: Japanese Nationality Act ............................................................................................... 180

8LEGEND(1) Countries and Regions
Italy
UK
Ethiopia
Cameroon

Italian Republic
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Republic of Cameroon

ROK
DPRK

Republic of Korea
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

SerbiaSoviet Union
ThailandTaiwanChina
Paraguay
Philippines
BrazilVietnam
US
MyanmarLaos

Republic of Serbia
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Kingdom of Thailand
Republic of China
People’s Republic of China
Republic of Paraguay
Republic of the Philippines
Federative Republic of Brazil
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam
United States of America
Republic of the Union of Myanmar
Lao People’s Democratic Republic(2) Organizations
UNHCR

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees(3) Treaties
The 1961 Convention
San Francisco Peace Treaty
ICCPR
The 1954 Convention

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Adopted in
1961, Entered into force in 1975)
Treaty of Peace with Japan (Entered into force on 28 April
1952)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted
in 1966, Entered into force in 1976)
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons(Adopted in 1954, Entered into force in 1960)

9

The 1951 Refugee Convention

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Adopted in
1951, Entered into force in 1954)(4) Japanese Law
ICRRA
Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act
Special Act on Immigration Special Act on the Immigration Control of, Inter Alia, ThoseControl
Who Have Lost Japanese Nationality Pursuant to the Treatyof Peace with Japan(5) Other
The Abe Report

Abe, Kohki. Mukokusekino Joukei: Kokusaihouno Shiza, Nihonno
Kadai [Overview of Statelessness: International and JapaneseContext] (UNHCR, 2010)

The Arakaki Report

Arakaki, Osamu. Mukokuseki Jyouyakuto Nihonno Kokunaihou:
Sono Settento Hedatari [Statelessness Conventions andJapanese Laws: Convergence and Divergence] (UNHCR,2015)
UNHCR. Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons: Under
the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons(UNHCR, 2014)
Saikou Saibansho Minji Hanreishuu [Supreme Court Civil
Caselaw Report]
Saikou Saibansho Saibanshuu Minji [Collection of Supreme
Court Civil Cases]

UNHCR Handbook

Minshuu
Shuumin10

INTRODUCTION
Where this report fits in
As mentioned in the preface, this report was designed as the third volume of the twoearlier reports, Kohki Abe’s “Overview of statelessness: International and JapaneseContext” (hereinafter the Abe Report) and Osamu Arakaki’s “Statelessness Conventions
and Japanese laws: Convergence and Divergence” (hereinafter the Arakaki Report). This
report is also meant to present the outcome of a study funded by the Japan Law
Foundation, Study No. 111: “Study on Statelessness in Japan: Understanding the situationsof stateless persons and the legal framework relating to protection of stateless persons.”
The 2010 Abe Report clarifies the definition of statelessness under international law,
explains its causes and trends of statelessness, and provides an overview of statelessness
and where it fits in within the context of Japan. It also analyses some groups of stateless(or possibly stateless) persons from the standpoint of prevention of statelessness andtreatment of stateless persons.
The subsequent 2015 Arakaki Report analyses how Japan has historically handledissues of statelessness and discusses the consistency between the two statelessness
conventions (the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, hereinafter “the 1954 Convention” and “the1961 Convention”) and domestic laws as well as their practice in Japan, a State not yet asignatory to the two conventions. Particularly, the report points out that the lack of adefinition of statelessness under Japan’s domestic legislation leads to a crucial gap between
domestic law and the two statelessness conventions, revealing the legislative and policy
challenges to be addressed for accession to the two statelessness conventions.
In order to build on these two earlier studies on statelessness issues in Japan, this reportreferred to groups of stateless or potentially stateless persons which the Abe Reportexamined, as well as the points raised in the Arakaki Report, as issues to be explored further
in relation to Japanese law. The authors then conducted a new “mapping” in the sense thatthey re-identified general categories of stateless persons and persons at risk ofstatelessness in Japan as broadly as possible in order to gain an overview of the cases inJapan.
11

Trends related to statelessness around the world
As of 2010 when the Abe Report was released, UNHCR had estimated the number ofstateless persons worldwide as 12 million; 3 six years later at the end of 2016, theestimated number of stateless persons and persons at risk of statelessness was 10 million.4
On first glance at these statistics can indicate that the number of stateless persons has
decreased over the years. However, in only the six years following 2010, an enormous
number of refugees and displaced persons5 had fled from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq,
and other areas of conflict. Particularly considering this situation, there are concerns that
there may be many people who are in a vulnerable position not only due to displacement
but also due to the uncertainty about their nationality, and that such people continue to be
newly generated. In addition to this, the effects of the emergence of the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), for example, also need to be examined as a new factor
destabilizing the systems related to nation-State and nationality.
The Necessity of “mapping” activities
Under these difficult circumstances in the world, UNHCR has been courageously
promoting the “I belong” campaign to achieve the goal of ending statelessness in 10 years
by 2024.
In order to resolve statelessness, it is important to understand the actual state of therelated issues as accurately as possible. 6 Considering this, every country is keenly
3 UNHCR, UNHCR Global Trends 2010 (2011), at

http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/country/4dfa11499/unhcr-global-trends-2010.html, p. 2. In the
Preface of the Abe Report, Johan Cels, Representative of UNHCR Tokyo at the time, introduces thesame estimates.
4 UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016 (2017), at http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34,
p. 2.
5On the nexus between refugees and statelessness, see for example Institute of Statelessness andInclusion, “Statelessness and Displacement: Scoping Paper”(2015), at
http://www.institutesi.org/stateless_displacement.pdf.
6Needless to say, under ideal circumstances, the establishment of a statelessness determination systemin each country and statelessness determinations using unified criteria would contribute to an accurate
grasp of stateless persons. However, the number of States that have established statelessness
determination systems remains at just over ten at the time of writing, including France, Spain, Italy,
Hungary, Latvia, UK, and the Philippines, although the number is on the rise. On each State’s
statelessness determination procedure as of July 2016, see, UNHCR, Good Practices Paper – Action 6:

12

expected to make efforts to conduct “mapping” activities to “gain an overview” of thenumber of stateless persons and their actual situations, such as causes, predicaments
faced, and possible solutions.
Responding to this expectation, many States—such as Hungary (October 2010),7 UK(November 2011), 8 Holland (November 2011), 9 Belgium (October 2012), 10 Malta(August 2014),11 Finland (November 2014),12 Iceland (December 2014),13 and Norway(October 2015)14—have already released the results of their mapping activities, although
in various forms and with various contents. On the other hand, however, a substantive
number of countries have not yet done so.

“Mapping” activities in Japan
As mentioned above, Japan has not yet acceded to either the 1954 Convention or the1961 Convention, and the government has not taken any concrete actions to do so. As
the Arakaki Report points out, the Japanese legal system also does not yet provide forany statelessness determination system or a consistent definition of statelessness. It is
undeniable that statelessness has not had gained much attention in Japan, and studies
and practices relating to stateless cases have not been developed very actively becauseof this.15
Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons (2016), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/57836cff4.html, pp. 2-3.
7 Gábor Gyulai, Statelessness in Hungary: The Protection of Stateless Persons and the Prevention andReduction of Statelessness (Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2010), at
http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Statelessness_in_Hungary_2010.pdf.
8
Lucy Gregg, Chris Nash and Nick Oakeshott, Mapping Statelessness in the United Kingdom(UNHCR/Asylum Aid, 2011), at
http://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/4ecbc3c09/mapping-statelessness.html.
9
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in the Netherlands (UNHCR, 2011), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4eef65da2.html.
10Carine Rustom and Quentin Schoonvaere, Mapping Statelessness in Belgium (UNHCR, 2012), at
http://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/51110b1c9/unhcr-mapping-statelessness-belgiumoctober-2012.html?query=stateless mapping.
11 UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Malta (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.unhcr.org.mt/news-and-views/press-releases/774.
12 UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Finland (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/546da8744.html.
13 UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Iceland (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/54c775dd4.html.
14
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Norway (UNHCR, 2015), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/5653140d4.html.
15

In such a context, it is worth noting that Chen Tien Shi published Mukokuseki [Stateless] (Shinchosha,2005) and played a role in making known the statelessness issues in Japan to a certain extent.

13

Nevertheless, the Abe Report was released in 2010, providing an overview ofstatelessness in Japan and taking the first step towards conducting the mapping activities.
With this having had a great impact, a number of developments has taken place in relation
to statelessness.
In 2011, a year after the Abe Report, Stateless Network, 16 previously a volunteer
group, was reorganized as an officially registered non-profit organization. In 2014, theStudy Group of Statelessness in Japan, to which the authors of this report belong, wasfounded by researchers, practitioners, and NGO staff; and it initiated the study fundedby the Japan Federation of Bar Associations Law Foundation as mentioned above.
Also, many articles aimed at understanding and analyzing the current situation ofstatelessness in Japan have been published in recent years.17

16

On Stateless Network, see, http://statelessnetwork.sakura.ne.jp/wp/.
For example,a) Imin Seisaku Kenkyuu [Migration Policy Review] No. 5 (May 2013), which is a journal published by theJapan Association for Migration Policy Studies, contains the following articles: Chen Tien Shi,
“Nihonniokeru Mukokusekishano Ruikei [Types of Stateless Persons in Japan]”; Ayane Odagawa, “Kokuseki,
Mukokuseki Ninteino Genjouto Kadai – Kaisei Nyuukanhouwo Fumaete [The Current Situation andChallenges of Determinations on Nationality or Statelessness]”; and Yue Fu, “Mukokuseki Joyaku
Kanyuuno Igito Nihonno Kadai [Conventions Relating to Statelessness and Japan’s Challenges]”. For
details, see: http://iminseisaku.org/top/journal.html.
b) Houritsu Jihou [Law Times] October 2014 issue on “‘Kokusaiteki Hogo’ wo meguru Aratana Chouryuu –Nanmin, Mukokusekisha, Hokanteki Hogo [New Trends in International Protection – Refugees, Stateless,and Complementary Protection]” contains the following articles: Osamu Arakaki, “Mukokusekisha Chii
Jouyaku to Mukokuseki Sakugen Jouyaku: Seiritsumadeno Keii to Gaiyou [1954 Convention and 1961
Convention: Background and Overview]”; Mark Manley (translated by UNHCR Japan), “Mukokuseki niTorikumutameno UNHCR no Mandeeto oyobi Katsudou [UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address
Statelessness]”, and Ayane Odagawa and Yue Fu, “Nihonno Mukokuseki Mondaiwomeguru Genjouto Kadai[Current Situation and Challenges of Stateless Issues in Japan]”.
c) Hougaku Seminaa [Legal Studies Seminar] October 2014 issue on “Mukokuseki toiu Hazama [A Void
Called Statelessness]” contains the following: Fumie Azukizawa, “Mukokusekiwo Ikiru Hitobito –Houritsukaniyoru Shienno Genbakara [Persons Living in Statelessness – from the Frontlines of Legal Aid];
Chen Tien Shi, “Mukokuseki Datta Watashi [I Used to be Stateless]; Tuan Sian Khai, “Mukokusekiwo Ikiru
Watashi [I am Stateless]”; and Ayane Odagawa, “Hon Kikaku no Shushi [The Purpose of This Project]”,“Miraini Mukeru Teigen [Proposals toward the Future]”.
d) Nanmin Kenkyu Jyanaru [Refugee Studies Journal] No. 4 (December 2014) issue on “Mukokuseki[Statelessness]” contains the following: Osamu Arakaki, “Mukokusekisha Chii Jouyaku no Seiritsu to Tenkai[Formation and Development of the 1954 Convention]; Yue Fu, “Firipinniokeru Mukokusekishano Hogoto
Genjou [The Protection and Current Situation of Stateless Persons in the Philippines]; Ayane Odagawa,“Firipinno Nanmin, Mukokuseki Nintei Tetsuduki [Refugee and Statelessness Determination Procedure in
the Philippines]”; and Mai Kaneko, “Mukokuseki ni Kansuru UNHCR Shin Handobukku, Gaidoraintou no
Kaisetsu [Commentary on UNHCR’s New Handbook and Guidelines Relating to Statelessness]. For
details, see http://www.refugeestudies.jp/journal/2014/10/4.html.
e) Yue Fu, “Nihonde Umareta Kodomono Kokusekito Mukokuseki Nintei [Nationality of Children Born inJapan and Statelessness Determination]” (Doctoral Thesis, University of Tsukuba, doctoral degree
conferred in academic year 2015, No. 2783). For details, see,https://tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_uri&item_id=38434.
17

14

Along with these movements, the Arakaki Report was published in 2015 and madegreat progress in analyzing and discussing statelessness in Japan, which had been lagging
behind as compared to some other countries.
Taking this favorable opportunity, this report offers a comprehensive overview of thesituation which the Abe Report had previously described through the lens of “typology”,
with an intention to further approach “mapping” in a real sense.
In order to have a comprehensive overview of the situation, this report particularlyraises and re-identifies different categories of stateless persons as well as those at riskof statelessness in Japan. It also analyzes the causes and current situation of these anddiscusses and presents some recommendations towards solutions for each category.

15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Below is a summary of the structure and contents of this report.
First, Chapter 1 provides an overview of the legal system and practice related tostatelessness in Japan.
There is no provision in Japanese domestic law that defines statelessness, and there isno specific procedure for statelessness determinations. However, there is a considerable
number of cases where a nationality or statelessness determination is required as aprerequisite for individual procedures under some laws, and it is recognized that nationality
and statelessness determinations are conducted in practice. Such examples include theprocedures under the Japanese Nationality Act Article 2(iii), which provides Japanesenationality at birth to a child if he or she is born in Japan and both of the parents are
unknown or are “without nationality”, and Article 8(iv) which is a special provision for thefacilitation of naturalization of persons born in Japan “not having any nationality”. The
criteria for such determinations by administrative authorities are not made clear.
Chapter 1 further attempts to verify the numbers and realities of stateless persons fromvarious existing statistics; however, it is found that it is difficult to have a comprehensive
grasp of the situation under the current circumstances because the definition ofstatelessness has not been clarified or made uniform among various statistics.
Next, Chapter 2 provides an analysis by “category”, which is the highlight of this report.
Persons who are stateless or at risk of being stateless are categorized by the place where
their nationality issues arose (in or outside Japan), their causes, and the reasons behindthem. For each category, summarized versions of typical cases are provided. Also, basedon available information, attempts are made to ascertain the number of potentiallyapplicable persons as the “possible size” of each category. “Solutions” are then suggested
for each category for prevention, protection, and reduction of statelessness.
First, Chapter 2, Section 1 provides an analysis of the following categories of persons
whose statelessness or risk of statelessness arose while in Japan.
Category A [Conflict of Laws]: Persons who did not acquire by birth the nationalityof their parents or the nationality of their country of birth due to conflict of laws, for16example, because the parents’ country of origin adopts strict jus solis while Japan,
the country of birth, adopts jus sanguinis
Category B [State succession I]: Persons whose country of previous nationality has
gone through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality ofthe successor State or the predecessor State confirmed

Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)]: Persons unable to have their birth
registered or a passport issued, etc., due to rejection by relevant consular authorities(or inability to pursue such assistance) for refugee related reasons, such as having
applied for asylum or having been recognized as a refugeeCategory D [Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)]: Persons forwhom the relevant consular authorities refuse assistance such as registration of birthor issuance of a passport for reasons related to their status being similar to refugees,
such as those who have been granted permission to stay as “settled refugees” or on“humanitarian grounds” without recognition of refugee status under the 1951 Refugee
Convention

Category E [Change of personal status]: Persons who had acquired Japanesenationality at birth by having a parent with Japanese nationality based on the
Nationality Act which adopts jus sanguinis, but who, due to the subsequent change of
their legal parentage, “lost” their nationality retroactively going back to the time ofbirth making them illegal stayers in Japan

Category F [Failure of naturalization and restoration of previous nationality]: Persons
who renounced their previous nationality in the naturalization process, etc., at therequest of relevant authorities in Japan which did not permit dual nationality, who
nevertheless failed to acquire another nationalityCategory G [Unknown or stateless parents]: Persons whose parents are unknown orare stateless and who therefore would normally fall within the scope of Nationality Act
Article 2(iii), which provides for acquisition of Japanese nationality at birth, who
nevertheless became stateless by an inability to prove the fact that their parents are
unknown or statelessCategory H [Consulate denial III (Others)]: Persons understood to have acquired thenationality of the country concerned according to the text of the nationality law ofthat country, for whom nevertheless the relevant consular authorities refuse birth
registration or the issuance of a passport for reasons such as being born out of wedlock
17Chapter 2, Section 2 then provides an analysis of the categories of persons whosestatelessness or risk of statelessness arose while overseas who subsequently came to Japan.
Category I [Lack of proof]: Persons who cannot establish the nationality of theircountry of birth or of their parents’ nationality for lack of documentation of therelevant countries due to, for example, chain migration through several generations,
who subsequently came to Japan

Category J [State succession II]: Persons whose country of previous nationality has
gone through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality ofthe successor State or the predecessor State confirmed, who subsequently came to
Japan



Category K [Persons denied nationality under the law of the country of origin]:
Persons who cannot acquire nationality under the law of the relevant country, which
excludes certain ethnic groups from acquiring nationality, who subsequently came toJapan
Chapter 2, Section 3 provides a theoretical analysis of unregistered persons (CategoryL), persons without a Japanese family register (Category M), and persons registered underthe “Chosen/Korean” classification (Category N) as “Other categories of persons” in orderto gain understanding of cases potentially at risk of being stateless based on thecharacteristics of the Japanese family register system and historical background.
Chapter 3, Section 1 considers the problems faced by stateless persons in cases where
they are recognized as stateless by the Japanese authorities and in cases where they are
considered as nationals of some other country. Furthermore, it is made clear that whether
or not one possesses a status of residence makes a difference in the types of problems
faced.
Overall, it is found that stateless persons without a status of residence have more
serious troubles than those with a status of residence. The guidelines on special permission
to stay by the Immigration Bureau do not list being stateless as one of the positive elements
in favor of granting special permission; therefore, there is no guarantee that a status ofresidence would be granted to a stateless person. There is a risk that they would be18

detained for a prolonged period of time in immigration detention centers with no prospectof deportation. Even if they were to obtain provisional release, they would be prohibitedfrom working, ineligible for welfare, and would be forced to live under unstable
circumstances. Depending on the local authorities, children without a status of residence
may be denied school enrolment.
In cases where stateless persons are considered by Japanese administrative authorities
to have the nationality of another State, they face a different set of problems. Children
born from such parents would be treated as being outside the scope of the Nationality
Act Article 2(iii), which provides for the acquisition of Japanese nationality at birth. They
would also be considered to fall outside of the scope of facilitated naturalization under
Article 8(iv). In conducting legal acts concerning personal status, the law of the concernedcountry becomes the governing law, leading to Japanese administrative authorities
demanding documents, etc., from the concerned “country of nationality”, thereby slowing
down the process. Many stateless persons do not realize that they are in fact statelessbecause they believe that they possess the “nationality” noted on their official
identification documents issued by Japan (e.g., Foreigner Residence Card). This results infurther delay in the resolution of nationality issues.
Chapter 3, Section 2, provides proposals to address these problems.
The table below summarizes the proposals for solutions for each category of persons
who are stateless or at risk of being stateless. (A  indicates applicability.)
Category

A

B

C

D

Creation of a legal provision providing a















definitionofstatelessness

establishment

of

a

and

E

F

G

H

I

J

K



















































the

statelessness

determination procedure
Streamlining of the statistics relating tostateless persons
Establishment of a system to protect
stateless persons, such as by the grant of“long-term resident” status.
Utilizationofarefugeestatusdetermination procedure19

Expanded grants of special permission to

















stay for stateless persons without statusof residence
Expanding the coverage of the grant of









Japanese nationality at birth to allotherwise stateless persons

Enhanced implementation of Article 2(iii)of the Nationality Act, which grants
Japanese nationality to children born inJapan whose parents are unknown orstateless

Law reform to restrict losses of nationality
by a change in legal parentage as far as
possibleImprovement related to the requirement
for renunciation of the current nationality
prior to naturalization
Improvement of implementation of Article















8(iv), which facilitates the naturalizationof stateless persons and streamlining of
the law to include stateless persons born
outside Japan
Facilitation of naturalization for refugees

The authors wish to request the readers to note the following points in reading the report:
・The names of States added for convenience in parentheses merely show those States
involved in the sample cases introduced in each category. Thus, States other than thoseindicated in the parentheses can also well produce statelessness falling within that category.
・ The summaries of cases introduced as typical cases in each category include theinformation necessary to explain the characteristics of each category, so they do not always
lay out the facts comprehensively.
・Cases which do not have their sources specified are those which the authors of this report(attorneys) represented, for which they themselves have made summaries of the facts.
・Pseudonyms in the form of alphabetical characters are assigned to persons in each casestudy under each category in alphabetical order, starting from A in each category, to20

represent the persons in the cases. The persons are not the same even if the same letter isused among different categories.
・ This report calls the diplomatic offices of the relevant States in Japan “consulate”,“embassy” and so on for convenience’s sake even though their official titles are varied, suchas “consulate”, “consulate-general”, “consulate department of the embassy” and so on. Thus,
the descriptions in this report do not always match the official names of these entities.
・The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not represent theviews of the organizations to which they belong or of UNHCR.

21

Chapter 1 : GENERAL INFORMATION
Section 1: Situations relating to statelessness in Japan
1. Japanese law and criteria for the determination of statelessness
There is no provision that defines statelessness in Japanese laws or regulations. 18
Moreover, no independent procedure has been established for the protection of statelesspersons.
However, determination of nationality is sometimes required as a precondition for
conducting individual procedures under specific laws and regulations. In relation to suchsituations, provisions have been established with the assumption that an individual may
be stateless. Additionally, in the process of carrying out specific procedures, government
agencies do consider whether or not an individual possesses a nationality, and if so, of
which State. As a result, there are cases where the concerned individual is considered to
be stateless.19
The various procedures relating to residence stipulated by the Immigration Control andRefugee Recognition Act (hereinafter ICRRA) are conducted under the jurisdiction of the
Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice; and the eight regional immigration bureaus
under the command of the Immigration Bureau are responsible for handling individual
applications. (See Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Justice, Article 21(1), Article
4(xxxii), (xxxiii).) In contrast, the procedures relating to the acquisition of nationality
stipulated under the Japanese Nationality Act come under the jurisdiction of the Civil
Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice; and the eight legal affairs bureaus as well as the
42 district legal affairs bureaus located across Japan are responsible for handlingindividual applications. (See Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Justice, Article 18(1),Article 4(xxi).) In addition, procedures relating to the family register, 20 such as birth,marriage, divorce, and recognition of parentage, are under the jurisdiction of the headsof municipalities. (See Family Register Act, Article 1(1), Article 4.) Nevertheless, the headof the legal affairs bureau or the district legal affairs bureau which has the jurisdiction
over the relevant municipality may, under certain circumstances, provide advice or
instruction in relation to the processing of Japanese family register-related cases. (See18 Arakaki Report, supra note 2, p.34.
19 In addition to the Japanese Nationality Act, ICRRA, and Act on General Rules for Application of Laws

which are mentioned below, Article 7 of the Diplomats Act, for example, makes stateless persons andpersons of dual nationality ineligible to be a diplomat, by stipulating that, “… a person without nationality
or with nationality of a foreign country cannot be a diplomat”.
20 For explanation regarding koseki [family register], see Chapter 2, Category M [Persons without aJapanese family register] 1. (1).

22Article 3(2) of the same law.) Therefore, the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice
has the final jurisdiction over these procedures related to the family register.
The following sections will explore the various situations where statelessness is
considered under the Nationality Act, ICRRA, and the Act on General Rules forApplication of Laws as well as how the administrative and judicial authorities determine
the statelessness of individuals.
(1) Japanese Nationality Act
The Japanese Nationality Act, which provides the requirements for acquiring Japanesecitizenship, stipulates statelessness of the parents or the child as one of the requirements
for the acquisition of nationality at birth and for naturalization. Article 2(iii) of the
Nationality Act provides that, “A child shall be a Japanese citizen … [i]f born in Japan andboth of the parents are unknown or are without nationality” (italics by the author); and it
is interpreted to mean that a child acquires Japanese nationality by birth not only whenboth of the parents are unknown or both of the parents are without nationality, but also
when the father is unknown and the mother is without nationality, or when the motheris unknown and the father is without nationality.21 Moreover, Article 8(iv) provides that
the Minister of Justice may permit naturalization of “A person born in Japan, not having
any nationality since the time of birth, and continuously having a domicile in Japan forthree years or more since that time” even if that person has not met the usual conditions
for naturalization. Thus, the law specifies statelessness of the parents as one of therequirements for acquisition of Japanese nationality at birth and statelessness of the childas one of the requirements for permission to apply for facilitated naturalization.
Therefore, the decision by the authorities regarding the statelessness of a person has asignificant impact on whether or not an individual acquires Japanese nationality.
The phrase “without nationality” in Article 2(iii), which provides for acquisition ofJapanese nationality at birth in the Nationality Act, is interpreted to cover two situations:(i) where the parents do not have a nationality of any State and are therefore statelessand (ii) where the parents’ nationality is unknown, such as when it is not clear which
State’s nationality they possess.22 However, no clear criteria is indicated for which cases
an individual’s nationality are considered unknown by the administrative authorities.
The Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for mattersregarding the family register including birth registration, calls for careful consideration
regarding statelessness in its circular. Specifically, there are cases where an individual has
the nationality of a certain State but is registered as “stateless” under a (former) alien
registration, merely because he or she is unable to prove his or her nationality and is
21 Shoichi Kidana, Chikujou Chuukai Kokusekihou [Commmentary on the Nationality Act] (Nihon Kajo

Shuppan, 2003), pp.212-213.
22 Shozo Sawada, “Mukokusekishawo Chichitosuru Chakushutsushitouno Shusseitodokewo Jyurisurubaaino
Toriatsukaiwo Megutte [Birth Registration of Children Born in Wedlock whose Fathers are Stateless
Persons]”, Koseki, No. 454 (1982), pp.20-21.

23

therefore considered to be of unknown nationality. In such cases, if the parents are
determined as stateless based on the fact that they are registered as “stateless” under
their (former) alien registration and the birth registration of their child is processed assuch, then the child will be erroneously processed as a Japanese national. Therefore, inthe case of a birth registration of a child born in Japan from stateless parents or of a childborn out of wedlock in Japan from a stateless mother, the head of the municipality is torequest instruction from the head of the responsible legal affairs bureau, district legal
affairs bureau, or its branch office regarding whether or not to accept such a birth
registration.23
According to this circular, even if an individual is considered stateless by the
Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice because he or she does not possess any
documentary proof of nationality, there are cases where the Civil Affairs Bureau of the
Ministry of Justice should consider the individual to have a nationality. In sum, there is apossibility that persons of unknown nationality, for whom “without nationality” isapplicable, are subject to a more narrow interpretation in family register procedures thanin immigration procedures.
Also, in administrative practice, there is an interpretation that the phrase “without
nationality” in Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act does not apply to a person who is froma region which is not recognized as a State. Before this, persons from Palestine wereinterpreted to be “without nationality”, and children born in Japan from Palestinianparents acquired Japanese nationality based on Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act.
However, this practice was changed by a government notice dated 3 October 2007,
which provides that people from Palestine are not to be treated as persons without
nationality.24
On the other hand, in the judiciary, there is a case regarding a claim for family
registration in which a family court applied Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act to a childborn from a mother whose nationality was unknown.25 In this particular case, the claim
for family registration was allowed for the reason that the claimant had acquired
Japanese nationality by birth based on Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act as a person born
23

Circular from the Director-General of Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, to directors of Legal
Affairs Bureaus and District Legal Affairs Bureaus, 6 July 1982, Ministry of Justice, Min Daini Daiyon
No.2-4-265. On the relations between the former Alien Registration System and the current Residency
Management System, see Section 2(1) below.
24
Hosaka Nobuto Shuugiin Giin “Paresuchinajinno Kodomono Kokusekitounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho”
nitaisuru, 2007 (Heisei 19) nen 12 gatsu 11 nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku Shuu Shitsu 168 Dai 280
Gou) [Government Response on 11 December 2007 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet
concerning Nationality of Palestinian Children” submitted by Nobuto Hosaka, member of the House ofRepresentatives (No.168-280, Questions in the House of Representatives, Cabinet)].
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b168280.htm.
25Tokyo Family Court Tachikawa Branch, unpublished adjudication on 5 December 2016. For detailsof the case, see Chapter 2, Category G, Case 14. On the family register, see the description in Chapter
2, Category M [Persons without a Japanese family register], 1 (1). On the creation of the family register,
see note 168 below.

24

in Japan whose legal father was unknown and whose mother was “without nationality”.
There was no evidence to prove that the mother had the nationality of a relevant State,
and there were no means to contact family members outside of Japan; therefore, thechild was assumed to be “without nationality”. In other words, the court recognized themother as a person “without nationality” under the circumstances where her nationality
was difficult to prove, and as a result it recognized the applicability of Nationality Act
Article 2(iii) to the child and granted permission for the creation of a family register.
(2) Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA)ICRRA includes provisions regarding statelessness in the deportation procedure where
the country of destination must be decided and in the immigration procedure where aforeign resident requests permission to re-enter Japan. In addition, regardless of theexistence of particular provisions such as these, the responsible immigration authorities
make decisions on the nationality (or lack thereof) of individuals as a prerequisite for
dispositions in procedures governed by the ICRRA.
Article 53(1) of ICRRA provides for deportation in principle to the country of nationality
by stating that “Any person subject to deportation shall be deported to a country of which
he or she is a national or citizen.” Alternatively, Article 53(2) states that if the person
cannot be deported to the country of which he or she is a national or citizen, such person
shall be deported “pursuant to his or her wishes” to any of the countries provided, suchas the country of residence prior to entry into Japan or the country where his or her placeof birth is located. Thus, deportation of stateless persons is based on Article 53(2)because there is no country of nationality for such persons and they cannot be deported
to the country of nationality. The means deciding the country of destination fordeportation is fundamentally different for a stateless person, as it is decided according
to his or her wishes among countries provided under Article 53(2).
In cases of re-entry permission for a foreign national residing in Japan, Article 26(2) of
ICRRA provides that, “The Minister of Justice shall … have an immigration inspector …
issue a re-entry permit pursuant to the provisions of an ordinance of the Ministry ofJustice if the foreign national does not have his or her passport and is unable to acquire
one for reason of being without nationality or for any other reason.” This is a provisionthat makes it possible to issue a leaflet-style re-entry permit (Ordinance for Enforcementof ICRRA, Annex, Format No.42) to a person who does not possess a passport for reasons
including being “without nationality” and for whom it is not possible to affix a seal ofverification for re-entry in the passport, and who is not able to utilize the special re-entry
permission.
Moreover, the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice requires foreign
individuals to claim their nationality in various procedures in relation to residence, suchas acquiring a residence permit, extending a period of stay, and changing a status ofresidence. The foreigner residence card issued to mid- to long-term residents shows the25country of nationality or the region of the individual according to the finding by the
Immigration Bureau (ICRRA Article 19-4(1)(i)).
Thus, within the Immigration Bureau, the section responsible for entry and residence
is different from the section responsible for deportation procedures, and there seems to
be no unified criteria for the determination of statelessness across various procedures
where the Immigration Bureau determines the nationality of individuals concerned.
In each procedure for entry and residence of foreign nationals, certain criteria areprovided by internal guidelines. The Manual on the Essentials of Entry and Residency
Examination, which provides internal criteria for the Immigration Bureau of the Ministryof Justice, states that, in issuing a foreigner residence card upon landing permission, “aperson who is without nationality or who cannot prove to have nationality is to be shownas ‘stateless’.”26
Also, in relation to the procedure for acquisition of status of residence, which is usedby persons, including those born in Japan, remaining beyond 60 days (ICRRA Article 222), the Manual on Essentials of Entry and Residency Examination states that the countryof nationality or region of the child shall be determined according to the following criteria
when the child does not possess a passport.27i) The country of nationality or region shown on the father’s foreigner residence cardis used if the father possesses a foreigner residence card. However, if the father is
unknown and the mother possesses a foreigner residence card, the country ofnationality or region shown on the mother’s foreigner residence card is used.
ii) If it is apparent that the child is able to acquire the nationality of both father andmother, and the child wishes to acquire the mother’s nationality, it is all right to use
the mother’s nationality notwithstanding i) above.
iii) The determination will be stateless if it is apparent that the child will be statelessaccording to the country of nationality of the parents, and the provisions of thatcountry’s nationality laws.
Thus, in considering the nationality of the child in the procedure for acquisition of
status of residence, it appears that the nationality of the child is, in principle, understood
to be the nationality of the father. Therefore, in case the country of nationality of thefather does not apply the paternal jus sanguinis principle but instead follows the jus soli
principle, there is a risk that a wrong nationality will be placed on the child’s foreigner
residence card. Chapter 2 Section 1 will examine under each category the actual cases
where the country of nationality or the region shown on the foreigner residence card wasincorrect.

26 Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Nyuukoku, Zairyuu Shinsa Youryou [Guidelines on Immigration

and Residence Inspection] (Request for Disclosure of Administrative Documents. Date for Disclosure
Decision: 4 December 2015. Houmushou Kan Jou Dai 2511 Gou [No. 2511, Kan Jou, Ministry of Justice]),
Part 6 Jouriku Shinsa [Landing Inspection], p.58.
27
Id., Part 10 Zairyuu Shinsa [Residence Inspection], pp.14-15.

26

On the other hand, with regard to the deportation procedure, it seems that there is no
document such as an internal guideline providing the criteria for determining
statelessness. In practice, nationality is determinedbased on the passport or other documents providing proof of identity if thesuspect is in possession of such documents; and in other cases, based on the
country of nationality of the parents, and the laws and regulations concerning
nationality of the country of nationality of the parents; and, when it is notpossible to confirm the fact that the suspect has a particular nationality, he or
she is considered as stateless.28(3) Act on General Rules for Application of Laws
The Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, which provides the criteria for
determining the applicable law in relation to juridical acts including those concerning
personal status such as marriage and divorce, states that, “In cases where the nationallaw of a party concerned shall govern, if the party has no nationality, the law of his or her
habitual residence shall govern,” in Article 38(2). Therefore, for stateless persons, theapplicable law regarding personal status such as marriage and divorce is the law of his or
her habitual residence. In case a stateless person undertakes a juridical act relating topersonal status in Japan, Japanese law shall be the governing law; therefore, determining
whether or not a person is stateless is important.
Looking at relevant juridical cases, one regards a claim for special adoption, where thefamily court found a minor to be stateless even though the minor’s natural mother wasof Chinese nationality, and the court was deciding the governing law for the person to be
adopted in order to determine the requirements for interstate adoption (Article 31(1),Act on General Rules for Application of Laws).29 The family court noted that, while
it can be said that the minor essentially has Chinese nationality according to
Article 5 of the Nationality Act of the People’s Republic of China … thecircumstances of the case are such that the necessary procedure is not merely
incomplete, but also, the birth registration has been rejected by the Chinese
Embassy.
Based on the above, the court found that
it is considered to be inappropriate to treat the minor as a Chinese national inthis case, given the fact that whether or not the minor has Chinese nationality is

28

See Itokazu Keiko Sangiin Giin “Wagakunino Mukokusekishano Chii Oyobi Sono Toriatsukainikansuru
Shitsumon Shuisho” nitaisuru, 2016 (Heisei 28) nen 12 gatsu 22 nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San
Shitsu 192 Dai 59 Gou) [The Government Response on 22 December 2016 to the “Memorandum on
Questions in the Diet concerning the Status of Stateless Persons and Their Treatment in Japan”
Submitted by Keiko Itokazu, Member of the House of Councillors (No. 192-59, Questions in the Houseof Councillors, Cabinet)].
29
For details of the case, see Chapter 2, Category H, Case 15 below.

27

a matter which is ultimately to be decided by China; therefore, the minor shallbe treated as stateless, and whether or not the requirements for protection are
met shall be considered based on Japanese law, which is the law of the countryof habitual residence of the minor.30(4) Inconsistent Criteria for Determination of “Statelessness”
As describe above, there are instances where the determination of whether or not an
individual is stateless is made under the Nationality Act, ICRRA, and the Act on General
Rules for Application of Laws; and under the current situation, the criteria for suchdeterminations differ depending on the procedure, the responsible agency, and thecontent of the provisions under each law. Therefore, sometimes there are gaps. For
example, on the one hand, the Immigration Bureau considers a person from Tibet as“stateless” in entry and residence procedures for the reason that the person does notpossess a document to prove Chinese nationality, and on the other hand, the Civil Affairs
Bureau of the Ministry of Justice appears to have a view that, in applying Article 2(iii) of
the Nationality Act which allows a child born in Japan from a stateless mother to acquire
Japanese nationality, a Tibetan person’s nationality should be recognized as “Chinese”
unless the person has in fact lost his or her Chinese nationality.31 Similarly, in deciding
the governing law for marriage, the nationality of such a person should be determined as“Chinese” unless the person’s Chinese nationality has been lost.32
Also, since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and China in 1972,
Japan has recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only government of China
and does not recognize Taiwan as a State; however, the administrative treatment of a
Taiwanese person’s “nationality” differs depending on the procedural situation. First, in
deciding the governing law under the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, thecivil code of Taiwan is applied, with the understanding that the individual’s “country oforigin” (i.e., nationality) is Taiwan, which is not recognized as a State.33 On the other hand,in a case where the determination of nationality was in question with regard to a childborn out of wedlock by a Taiwanese woman, the Nationality Law of China was applied,

30 Sendai Family Court, unpublished adjudication on 24 June 2016. The adjudication was made available

by the goodwill of Tazuru Ogawa, Representative of the Board of Directors, Across Japan, which is a
general incorporated association.
31
Koseki Jihou, No.349 (1987), pp.62-67. In a commentary on nationality matters by the staff of the
Civil Affairs Fifth Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, it is stated that Japan has neverrecognized Tibet as an independent State and that Tibet is considered to have become part of Chinese
territory according to Chinese documents.
32
Hiroyuki Ishii, legal specialist, Civil Affairs First Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice,“Koseki, Kokuseki Jimuwomeguru Saikinno Shomondai (1) [Recent Issues concerning the Family Registerand Nationality Matters (1)]”, Koseki, No. 854 (2001), pp.9-10.
33
Yasuhiro Okuda, Kokusekihou to Kokusai Oyakohou [Nationality Law and International Parent-Child
Law] (Yuhikaku, 2004), pp. 82-83; Koseki No. 373 (1975), p.69.

28

as “the nationality of an individual is determined by laws of a State recognized by
Japan.”34 Since the ICRRA was amended in 1998, passports issued by the Taiwanese
authorities are considered as “passports” under the ICRRA, and the “country ofnationality or region” of a person in possession of a passport issued by the Taiwanese
authorities is understood as “Taiwan”.35 Nevertheless, in practice, it has been reported
that persons who had a “nationality permit” issued by internal Taiwanese authorities prior
to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and China used to be allowed
to change their “nationality” shown on their (former) alien registration certificates from
“China” to “stateless” as persons who had lost their Chinese nationality. 36 Thus, thetreatment of the nationality of persons from Taiwan has complex aspects.37
On this issue, the Japanese government denies the necessity of unifying the criteria
for the determination of statelessness. In other words, the government indicates its
understanding that, because the procedure relating to the entry and residence of foreign
nationals, on the one hand, and the procedure of acquisition of Japanese nationality
under the Nationality Act, on the other, have the differing objectives of immigration
control and the acquisition of Japanese nationality, respectively, they are different innature. Thus, the criteria for the determination of statelessness could be different in eachprocedure, and it is not necessary to establish unified criteria for determinations ofstatelessness.38
34 Koseki Jihou No. 741 (2016), pp.78-79; Koseki Jihou No. 579 (2005), pp.57-58. The staff of the Civil

Affairs First Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, provides commentary on nationality
matters.
35 This is because Taiwan has been designated as a “region as provided for by Cabinet Order” in ICRRA’s
Article 2(v)(b).
36 Masako Aizawa, “736 Gaikokujin Touroku Shoumeishoni ‘Mukokuseki’ to Kisaisareteiru Baaino
Kokusekino Ninteinitsuite [736, Nationality Determination When ‘Stateless’ is Indicated on the Alien
Registration Certificate]”, Koseki No. 772 (2005), pp.47-48.
37 Practitioners in the administration explain that those who had obtained a certificate for loss ofnationality issued by the Government of Taiwan prior to the normalization of diplomatic relations
between Japan and China used to be treated as stateless. However, since 29 September 1972, thecertificates for loss of nationality issued by the Taiwanese authorities have no validity as documentary
proof regarding nationality; therefore, such persons should be recognized as still having Chinese
nationality. Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Fifth Division, Kokuseki Jitsumu Kenkyuukai [Study
Group on Nationality Practice], Kokuseki, Kika no Jitsumusoudan [Practical Consultation on Nationality
and Naturalization] (Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1993), p.178. It was indeed during this time of confusion when
the diplomatic relations between Japan and Taiwan was severed as a result of the normalization of
diplomatic relations between Japan and China, that Chen Tien Shi, the author of Mukokuseki [Stateless]and her family obtained Taiwanese certificates for loss of nationality and the nationality column on her
alien registration certificate in Japan was reportedly changed to “stateless”. Chen, supra note 15,
Mukokuseki, pp.35-39.
38
Fukushima Mizuho Sangiin Gin “Mukokuseki Mondainikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho” Nitaisuru 2014
(Heisei 26) Nen 6 Gatsu 20 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San Shitsu 186 Dai 127 Gou) [TheGovernment Response on 20 June 2014 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet concerning
Statelessness Issues” Submitted by Mizuho Fukushima, Member of the House of Councillors (No.186-

29

2. Existing statistics relating to statelessness
How many stateless people live in Japan? It is difficult to answer this question basedon the existing statistics. As discussed above, this is because the definition of a statelessperson is not clear and the relevance of the statelessness definition under internationallaw is not clearly recognized. Even though the Ministry of Justice, particularly the
Immigration Bureau, considers certain persons as stateless, it is not clear whether thesame persons could also fall within the definition of statelessness under international law
which this report covers. At the same time, a person could be stateless underinternational law even though that person would not be recognized as stateless by theJapanese authorities. For these reasons, it is difficult to directly clarify the number ofstateless persons under international law residing in the country based on the existingstatistics in Japan.
The nationality and the number of foreigners staying in Japan is still publicly accessible
via various official statistics, and some of the statistics include a reference to the categoryof “stateless persons”. This indicates that the Japanese government is officially aware of
the existence of certain “stateless persons”, although “statelessness” within thesestatistics may not necessary be assessed in line with its definition in international law.
This section attempts to list and analyze official statistics where the number of“stateless (persons)” is indicated. It was, however, concluded that the total number ofstateless persons could not be estimated from the official statistics since they lackconsistency in terms of the definition of statelessness, and the possibility of duplication
within the ranges of various statistics is unknown.
(1) Statistics on Foreign National Residents
The Statistics on the Number of Resident Foreigners reports the number of foreigners
in Japan and is based on a database established to record the nationality and region oforigin written on foreigner residence cards or special permanent resident certificatesissued under Article 7 of the Special Act on Immigration Control.39

127, Questions in the House of Councillors, Cabinet)], at
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/syuisyo/186/touh/t186127.htm.
39
Arakaki Report, supra note 2, p.23. Since July 2012, the Resident Record has become available forforeign residents (mid- to long-term residents); the nationality noted on the Residence Record is thesame as that on the foreigner residence card. Director-General, Local Administration Bureau, Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications, “Juumin Kihon Daichou Jimushori Youryouno Ichibu Kaiseinitsuite(Tsuuchi) [Partial Amendment of the Guidelines on Basic Resident Registration (Notice)]”, 4 June 2012,
Sou Gyou Juu No.46. Based on materials provided by the Office for Basic Resident Registration for
Foreigners, Resident System Division, Local Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications (March 2016).

30

According to these statistics, as of December 2016, 594 people among the “resident
foreigners”40 and 626 people among the “total number of resident foreigners”41 wereregistered as “stateless” persons.42 (As of December 2015, 573 people among resident
foreigners and 603 among the total number of foreigners,43 and as of December 2014,598 people among resident foreigners and 631 among the total number of resident
foreigners were registered as stateless persons.)44
The Statistics on Foreign National Residents, however, entails two issues. Firstly, thestatistics count only foreigners with residence permits. Before July 2012, Alien
Registration certificates were issued to all foreigners staying in Japan for over 90 days
regardless of whether they had residence permits or not, and the statistics on all
registered foreigners was being published.45 However, the Law for Partial Amendment
to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act and the Special Act on the
Immigration Control of, Inter Alia, Persons who have Lost Japanese Nationality Pursuant
to the Treaty of Peace with Japan entered into force on 1 July 2012. The Alien
Registration Act was abolished and the system of foreigner residence cards and special
permanent resident certificates was introduced. This resulted in the number of statelesspersons without residency permits not being reflected in official statistics. The second
problem is that the determination of nationality is conducted in an equivocal manner. It
40This is the total of mid- to long-term residents and special permanent residents. “Mid- to long-term
residents” are foreign nationals (i.e., persons without Japanese nationality) residing with a status ofresidence in Japan with the exception of the following: (i) a person who has been granted a period ofstay of not more than 3 months, (ii) a person who has been granted the status of residence of“Temporary Visitor”, (iii) a person who has been granted the status of residence of “Diplomat” or“Official”, (iv) a person provided for by an Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice as equivalent to aperson listed in any of the preceding three items (i.e., staff members of the Japanese office of the
Association of East Asian Relations or the Permanent General Mission of the Palestine in Japan, orfamily members thereof, who have been granted the status of residence of “Designated Activities”,
and (v) special permanent residents (see ICRRA, Article 19-3).
41This is the total number of zairyuu gaikokujin (resident foreigners) which includes categories (i) to(iv) in note 40.
42
Ministry of Justice, “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December
2016” (published in March 2017), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001177523. Among the 626 foreign national
residents registered as stateless in the December 2016 Statistics on Foreign National Residents, almost
20% (107) have the status of residence of “special permanent residents”, which is for persons who
originate from former colonial regions such as Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula and their descendants.
43 Ministry of Justice, “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December
2015” (published in April 2016), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001177523.
44
Ministry of Justice, “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December
2014” (April 2015), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001133760.
45 1,100 persons were registered as stateless in the last Statistics on Registered Foreign Nationals
before the system was abolished. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,“Touroku Gaikokujin Toukei 2011 Nen Nenpou [Annual Statistics on Registered Foreign Nationals 2011]”(November 2012), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001111183.

31

has been pointed out that there are cases where nationality in a real sense is not shownon the foreigner residence cards and special permanent resident certificates on which
the Statistics on Foreign National Residents is based.46 This report also contains somecases in the next chapter where the equivocality of nationality determination is inferred.
(2) National Census
One can refer to the national census to identify the number of stateless persons
without a residency permit. The census takes place every five years, based on Article 2(4)and (6), and Article 5(1) and (2) of the Statistics Act, enumerating “all the people living inJapan”47 including all the foreigners “habitually living” in Japan.48 Seventeen topics are
surveyed including “nationality”,49 which indicates that stateless persons living in Japan
without a residence permit are also counted in the census. This can lead to an
identification of the number of stateless persons in Japan regardless of whether or notthey have a residence permit. The 2010 Population Census of Japan, in particular the
results of the supplementary tabulation, lists 174,821 people as “stateless or unknown”.50
46 Ayane Odagawa, “Kokuseki, Mukokusekininteino Genjouto Kadai: Kaisei Nyuukanhouwo Fumaete [TheCurrent Situation and Challenges of Determinations on Nationality and Statelessness: Under the
Amended ICRRA]”. Imin Seisaku Kenkyuu [Migration Policy Review], No. 5 (May 2013), p. 30.
47 Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Heisei 27 Nen
Kokuseichousanikansuru Q&A (Kaitou) [Q&A regarding the 2015 National Census (Answers)] at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/qa-1.htm.
48 However, members of diplomatic missions and consular authorities of foreign governments andfamily members thereof, as well as military personnel and civilian employees of foreign armed forces
and family members thereof, are not included. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications, “Heisei 27 Nen Kokuseichousano Gaiyou [Summary of the 2015 National Census], at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2015/gaiyou.htm.
49 Ibid.
50 Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Kokuseichousa Heisei 22 Nen[National Census 2010]” (January 2013), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001044522&cycode=0.
These statistics were published as a result of additional compilation. Unlike regular compilation which isplanned in advance, additional compilation is made according to newly identified needs. With regard to
the National Census, additional compilation was made for the first time in 2010 and published in January
2013. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Chousa Kekkano Shuukei
Taikeito Kouhyou Jiki [Compilation System and Release Schedule of Survey Results]”, at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/users-g/taikei.htm. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications, “Heisei 22 Nen Kokuseichousa [2010 National Census]”, at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/index.htm.
In the regular compilation which is planned in advance, ROK, DPRK, China, Philippines, Thailand,
Indonesia, Vietnam, UK, US, Brazil, and Peru were listed in the number of foreign nationals, and 302,116
were counted as Other, which includes stateless persons and persons with “unknown” nationality.
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Heisei 22 Nen Kokuseichousa,
Jinkoutou Kihon Shuukei (Danjo/Nenrei/Haiguukankei, Setaino Kousei, Juukyono Joutainado) Zenkoku Kekka[2010 National Census, Basic Compilation of Population Data (by Sex/Age/Marital Status, Household
Structure, Status of Domicile, etc.), National Results]” (October 2011), at http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001034991&cycode=0.

32

It is difficult, however, to count the actual number of stateless persons from thesestatistics. The nationality survey in the national census is conducted by a method
whereby the respondent first selects Japanese or other nationality on a questionnaire. If
the respondent selects “other”, the respondent is asked to write down the country ofnationality. 51 This method may make a judgment difficult as to whether a particularanswer, depending on how it is written, intends to mean stateless.52 Moreover, since thenational census is conducted based on self-reporting, it is not certain whether a person
who claims to be “stateless” fulfills the definition under international law. Additionally,
the category “stateless and not reported” is combined to form one category in thenational census statistics, and no statistics sheet seems to make a distinction between
them.53 Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the 174,821 people shown in thecensus are stateless, people whose nationality is undetermined, or people whose answer
on the questionnaire is simply not provided or clear.
(3) Specified Report of Vital Statistics
The Specified Report of Vital Statistics is also relevant to the identification ofstatelessness. It reports the number of infants born in Japan by their parents’ nationality.
The report does not directly indicate the nationality of these infants; however, they could
allow us to identify infants with the possibility of being stateless by examining thenationality law of their parents’ country of nationality.
However, these statistics have only nine categories for parents’ country of nationality
besides Japan: “ROK/DPRK”, “China”, “Philippines”, “Thailand”, “United States ofAmerica”, “United Kingdom”, “Brazil”, “Peru”, and “Other Countries”.54 The questionnaire

51 The questionnaire for the National Census conducted in 2010 can be found below. Statistics Bureau,

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Kokusei Chousa Chousahyou [National Census
Questionnaire]”, at http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/pdf/chouhyou.pdf.
52
The National Census is conducted in languages other than Japanese; however, it is not clear if persons
in need of questionnaires in other languages are provided with appropriate questionnaires, andtherefore it is unclear if persons who consider themselves as stateless are in a position to indicate
themselves as “Stateless”.
53 Inquiry to the Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (26 November2015).
54
4,230 mothers and 5,776 fathers of Other Countries have been confirmed. Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare, “Heisei 27 Nendo Jinkou Doutai Toukei Tokushu Houkoku ‘Nihonniokeru Jinkou Doutai Gaikokujinwofukumu Jinkou Doutai Toukei’ no Gaikyou [Year 2014 Summary of Vital Statistics Specified
Report ‘Vital Statistics in Japan – Vital Statistics including Foreign Nationals’]” (January 2015), at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/tokusyu/gaikoku14/dl/gaikyo.pdf.

33

adopts the method of respondents selecting a nationality from the options above,55 and
it is impossible to estimate the number of stateless parents from the statistical results of“Other Countries”.
(4) Immigration Control Statistics
The Immigration Control Statistics count foreigners entering or departing from Japanby nationality and region. According to these statistics, in 2015, 967 foreigners whoentered Japan were stateless. 56 Likewise, the same number, 967 foreigners, who
departed from Japan were stateless. In 2014, 800 stateless persons entered Japan and801 stateless persons departed from Japan.57
The Statistics Relating to the Deportation and Departure Order System also officiallyindicate the number of stateless persons who illegally stay in the country. These statistics
show that in 2015, detention orders (Article 39 of ICRRA) were issued to 11 statelesspersons while a deportation order (Article 51 of Immigration Control Act) was not issued

55 Inquiry to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (26 November 2015). See below for the reportformat. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Jinkou Doutai Chousa Shusshouhyou [Vital Statistics
Report]”, at http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/chousahyo/0006661_h26_01.pdf.
Vital Statistics are compiled based on data from reports made by heads of municipalities when theyreceive notification of birth/death/still birth/marriage/divorce. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,“Jinkou Doutai Chousa [Vital Statistics]”, at http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/81-1b.html.
Registration of Birth has a column for Registered Domicile where foreign nationals indicate theirnationality; by checking this column, it may be possible to confirm the number of stateless persons.
However, statistics based on registration of birth, instead of Vital Statistics reports, do not seem to exist.
For a sample Registration of Birth, see Ministry of Justice, “Shusshou Todoke [Registration of Birth]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000011715.pdf.
56
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei
2015 Nen Nenpou, Shutsunyuu (ki) kokushasuu [Immigration Statistics, 2015 Annual Report, Number ofDeparture and Entry (Return)]” (June 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001153767.
57
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei
2014 Nen Nenpou, Shutsunyuu (ki) kokushasuu [Immigration Statistics, 2014 Annual Report, Number ofDeparture and Entry (Return)]” (June 2015), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001135406.
These statistics show that, to the extent that the Immigration Bureau is aware, the number of statelessperson entering Japan from other countries has not changed much. However, this does not necessarily
indicate that the number of stateless persons staying in Japan has not increased. That is because
stateless persons might be born in Japan or staying in Japan irregularly, such as by landing without
landing permission or by landing as a person with nationality under a different name.

34

to any stateless person.58 In 2014, detention orders were issued to 13 stateless persons
and deportation orders to 2 stateless persons.59(5) Re-entry Permit to Japan
As mentioned above, the Re-entry Permit to Japan is the document which indicatesthat a foreigner with a residency permit is admitted to re-enter to Japan when the person
cannot acquire a passport.60 If a person is a citizen of a country, the person can usuallyacquire a passport issued from the country of nationality. This means that when aforeigner cannot be issued a passport from the purported country of nationality, theperson is or may be stateless. Therefore, some of the people who have been issued a reentry permit are stateless. Although the number of re-entry permits issued is not publicly
released, 1,851 permits were issued in 2014 and 1,741 permits in 2015 according to a2016 government response to questions presented by Keiko Itokazu, a member of theHouse of Representatives.61
However, a re-entry permit is not issued to a stateless person unless he or she applies
for one, and not all people who are issued the permit are stateless. Stateless persons who
have no intention to depart from Japan would not apply for a re-entry permit, since it isissued for the purpose of leaving Japan. For these reasons, it is not appropriate to equate
the number of re-entry permits issued to that of stateless persons staying in Japan.
(6) Other statistics
Although the scope addressed is limited, the following statistics also refer to thenumber of stateless persons in Japan.62
58

Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei
2015 Nen Nenpou, Nyuukoku Shinsa, Zairyuusshikaku Shinsa, Taikyo Kyousei Tetsudukitou [Immigration
Statistics, 2015 Annual Report, Immigration Inspection, Residence Inspection, Deportation Procedures,etc.]” (June 2016), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001153786.
59 Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei
2014 Nen Nenpou, Nyuukoku Shinsa, Zairyuusshikaku Shinsa, Taikyo Kyousei Tetsudukitou [Immigration
Statistics, 2014 Annual Report, Immigration Inspection, Residence Inspection, Deportation Procedures,etc.]” (June 2015), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001135476. A Detention
Order is issued when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect is subject to deportation(ICRRA, Article 39). A Deportation Order is issued when, in accordance with the deportation procedures,a suspect is found to be subject to deportation (ICRRA, Article 24) (and when Special Permission to Stayas in note 122 below is not granted). Included in these statistics are persons who had been granted astatus of residence at the time of landing but later became (or there were reasonable grounds to believethat they had become) subject to deportation by some reason during their stay.
60
See Chapter 1, Section 1, 1(2) in the current report.
61
Government Response on 22 December 2016 to questions by Councillor Itokazu, supra note 28..
62
Although it is not directly related to the number of stateless persons, the Japan Patent Office Annual
Report: Statistics and Materials publishes the number of patent applications by nationality. According tothis report, in 2014, 293 patent applications were made by persons categorized as “Stateless, Other”.
Japan Patent Office, “Tokkyo Gyousei Nenji Houkokusho 2015 Nenban – 130 Nenno Sangyou Hattenwo

35

ItemsNumber ofstatelesspersons

Crime Statistics (National Police Agency Criminal Affairs Bureau Director for CriminalIntelligence Support 2016)63
Foreign visitors arrested for index serious and larceny offenses by
064
nationality compared to the previous year
Prosecution Statistics (Ministry of Justice 2015)65[The number of criminal cases involving suspects who are foreigners, by 8
jurisdictions among the Supreme Court, High Court, and District Public
Prosecutors Offices, by the nationality of the concerned foreigners[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreigners][Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreign 10
suspects] The number of received criminal cases involving foreigners
and the number of persons processed and pending (total number)[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreign 8
suspects] The number of criminal cases by foreign suspects by type of
charges and nationality (General)

Sasaetekita Sangyou Zaisanken Seido [Japan Patent Office Annual Report, 2015: Industrial Property
Rights Supporting 130 Years of Industrial Development]” (2015), at
https://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/nenji/nenpou2015/toukei/4-2-1.pdf, p.142.
63
National Police Agency, Criminal Affairs Bureau, Director for Criminal Intelligence Support. “Hanzai
Toukei Shiryou Heisei 28 Nen 1 Gatsu - 12 Gatsubun (Kakuteichi) [Crime Statistics, January - December
2016 (definitive figures)]” (February 2017), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001083858&cycode=0.
There appears to be no guidelines regarding nationality determinations, although reportedly the agency
has a policy on determining nationality based on a person’s passport, residence card, or special
permanent resident certificate. Interview with National Police Agency (29 March 2016).
64 Although it says “Tai Zennen Hikaku [Comparison with the Previous Year]”, it shows the number ofarrests in 2016.
65 Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Kensatsu Toukei 2015 Nen
Nenpou [Prosecution Statistics, 2015 Annual Report]” (August 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001157683.
The numbers here are reported using information provided by the Prosecutor’s Office. Hearing fromthe Statistics Office, Judicial System Division, Judicial System Department, Minister’s Secretariat,
Ministry of Justice (29 March 2016).

36

[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreign 2
suspects] The number of criminal cases that were indicted or had theindictment suspended, by criminal charge and nationality[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreign 4suspects] The number of criminal cases involving foreign visitors byjurisdiction between the Supreme Court, High Court and District Court
Public Prosecutors Office and by nationality of the foreigners involved[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreign 6
suspects] The number of cases received, processed, and pending (total)
by criminal charge and nationality[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases involving foreigners] 4
The number of criminal cases received involving foreign visitors bycriminal charge and nationality[Receipt and processing status of criminal cases by foreigners] The 1
number of criminal cases involving foreign visitors by criminal charge
and nationality (Total number of indicted cases)
Statistics relating to Corrective Measures (Ministry of Justice 2015)66[Detainees] Nationality of foreign detainees at the end of the year
(Total)[Detainees] Nationality of foreign detainees at the end of the year
(Foreign visitors & General)[Detainees] Nationality of foreign detainees at the end of the year byfacility (Total)[Detainees] Nationality of foreign detainees at the end of the year byfacility (Foreign visitors)

66

1
0
1
0

Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Kyousei Toukei 2015 Nen Nenpou[Statistics relating to Corrective Measures, 2015 Annual Report]” (July 2016), at http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001155287.
The statistics are based on information from detention centers under the jurisdiction of the Correction
Bureau, Ministry of Justice. Inquiry to the Statistics Office, Judicial System Division, Judicial System
Department, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Justice (29 March 2016). The information is transferredfrom the identification book of a detainee that has been made before the detainee comes under thejurisdiction of the Correction Bureau; the Correction Bureau does not make nationality determinations
on its own. Inquiry to the Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice (30 March 2016).

37

[New prisoners serving sentence] Nationality of new prisoners under 1sentence by criminal charge (total)[New Prisoners serving sentence] Nationality of new prisoners serving 0
sentence by charge (Foreign visitors)
Statistics on Probation (Ministry of Justice 2015)67
Parole proceedings by nationality and reasons for conclusion (Regional 1
Rehabilitation Committee) (unknown included)[Probation] Number of persons starting probation by nationality and 3
type of probation (Probation Office)Basic Survey on Schools (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology 2016)68
Foreign Students by Nationality, Region of Origin, and Field of Study 16(University) (Including Unidentified Nationality)
Foreign Students by Nationality, Region of Origin, and Field of Study 1(Graduate School) (Including Unidentified Nationality)
Foreign Students by Nationality, Region of Origin, and Field of Study 3(Upper Secondary School) (Including Unidentified Nationality)

67

Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Hogo Toukei, Chihou Kousei Hogo
Iinkai, 2015 Nen Nenpou [Statistics on Probation, Regional Parole Board, 2015 Annual Report]” (July
2016), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001155224.
The statistics are based on information from probation offices, etc., under the jurisdiction of theRehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice. Inquiry to the Statistics Office, Judicial System Division,
Judicial System Department, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Justice (29 March 2016). The
Rehabilitation Bureau makes nationality determinations based on judgments from the court and reports
from the Correction Bureau summarizing information from detention centers and if there is any doubt
based on an interview by the Regional Parole Board while under detention in a penal institution. Inquiry
to the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice (12 April 2016).
68 Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Gakkou Kihon Chousa, Heisei 28
Nendo [Basic Survey on Schools, Year 2016]” (December 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011528.
Nationality is determined based on the passport, Alien Registration Certificate, or Foreigner Residence
Card. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Heisei 28 Nendo Gakkou Kihon
Chousa no Tebiki [Guide to Year 2016 Basic Survey on Schools]”, at
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/04/05/1355976_1_1.p
df, p.27.

38

Section 2: The definition of statelessness in international law
1. Definition and legal requirements of statelessness in the 1954 Convention(1) Overview
As already mentioned, there is no provision that defines a stateless person in Japaneselaws or regulations. However, the United Nations International Law Commission has
concluded that the definition of a stateless person provided by the 1954 Convention has
acquired the nature of customary law.69 Japan has not acceded to the 1954 Convention,
but it is required to observe customary international law in the same way as national law
based on Article 98(2) of the Japanese Constitution. Therefore, this report bases its
analysis on the definition of a stateless person provided by Article 1(1) of the 1954
Convention, i.e., “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under theoperation of its law.” In the case analysis in Chapter 2, whether or not a concerned
individual is a stateless person is to be determined by applying the 1954 Convention
definition.
Regarding the criteria for interpreting the definition of a “stateless person”, in 2014
UNHCR, which has been designated as the international agency with a mandate to assist
stateless persons, published the Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons: Under the1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (hereinafter the “Handbook”).70
The Handbook was completed based on the three guidelines on statelessness released
by UNHCR in 2012. While there has been some accumulation of practice and judicial
decisions relating to refugee status determination, there are not enough examples of caseassessments relating to statelessness determinations in the international community.
Therefore, regarding the standards for interpretation of the definition of statelessness,
the UNHCR Handbook, which has a mandate for the protection of stateless persons,provides the foundation.
In earlier discourse relating to stateless persons, the terms “de jure stateless persons”
and “de facto stateless persons” were often used, with an interpretation that “de facto
stateless persons” do not fall within the scope of the 1954 Convention. However, theterm “de jure stateless persons” is not used within the 1954 Convention, and the line
between “de facto stateless persons” and “de jure stateless persons” is not necessarily
clear. Therefore, care must be taken so that the concept of “de facto stateless persons” is69

International Law Commission, Draft Article on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries (2006), at
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf, p. 49.
70
UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons: Under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Statusof Stateless Persons (UNHCR, 2014), at http://www.unhcr.org/53b698ab9.html. (On the contents, see
Kaneko, supra note 17d, “Commentary on UNHCR’s New Handbook and Guidelines Relating toStatelessness”.)

39not thoughtlessly expanded, resulting in the scope of the protection under the 1954
Convention being inappropriately narrowed.71
In the case analysis in Chapter 2, the following may arise as interpretational issues, inconsidering whether or not the individual concerned falls within the definition of the1954 Convention.
(2) “by any State”“Any State” does not mean all the States in the world but is limited to the States withwhich a person enjoys a relevant link, in particular by birth on the territory, descent,marriage, adoption, or habitual residence.72 Because it is common to have nationality
granted based on such factors, normally it is deemed adequate to limit the investigation
to that extent in considering nationality.
Regarding the definition of “State”, the criteria set forth in the 1933 Montevideo
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States are adopted. 73 According to thisconvention, a State is constituted when an entity has a permanent population, defined
territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other States. For an entity
to be a “State” for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention, it is not necessary
for it to have received universal or widespread recognition of its statehood by otherStates or to have become a member State of the United Nations.74(3) “not considered as a national… under the operation of its law”
Who is a national is normally defined by each State by its law. Therefore, it is necessary
to consider the law of the State in question in order to determine whether or not an
individual is its national. The “law” in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention encompasses
not just legislation enacted by the parliament, but also ministerial decrees, regulations,orders, judicial case law in countries with a tradition of precedential jurisprudence, and,
where appropriate, customary practice.75
Depending on how the laws are operated, there are cases in which an individual is nottreated as a national even though he or she meets the criteria for acquiring nationality
provided by a country’s laws and should have acquired its nationality. Since the 1954
Convention defines a stateless person as someone “not considered as a national… under
the operation of its law”, it is necessary in statelessness determinations to consider notjust the country’s law but the “operation of its law” as well.
To determine which cases actually fall under the definition of “not considered as anational… under the operation of its law”, it is necessary to identify which institution(s)71 Id, para. 7. On the changes in the concept of “de facto statelessness”, see Kaneko, supra note 17d,

“Commentary on UNHCR’s New Handbook and Guidelines Relating to Statelessness”, pp. 47-48.
72
Id, para. 18.
73 Id, para. 19.
74 Id, para. 20.
75
Id, para. 22.

40

is/are the competent authority(ies) for nationality matters, and the position of such
authorities.
For example, when the law of the relevant State provides for automatic acquisition ofnationality, the fact that an individual is not registered by the State does not necessarilymean that he or she is stateless. Nevertheless, an individual becomes recognized by theState only through registration. If there is no registration, there is a possibility that theindividual may not be able to enjoy treatment by the State as its national. When thenational authorities refuse to accept the registration of an individual without legal
grounds even though such registration should normally be accepted, it is inferred thatsuch an individual is not treated or considered as a national.
Thus, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the “competent authorities”
responsible for handling nationality matters are operating the legal provisions in an
appropriate manner. The Handbook states that,
Where the competent authorities treat an individual as a non-national eventhough he or she would appear to meet the criteria for automatic acquisition ofnationality under the operation of a country’s laws, it is their position rather thanthe letter of the law that is determinative in concluding that a State does notconsider such an individual as a national. This scenario frequently arises wherediscrimination against a particular group is widespread in government
departments or where, in practice, the law governing automatic acquisition atbirth is systematically ignored and individuals are required to prove additionalties to a State.76
The “competent authority” for nationality matters need not be a central State body but
could also be a local administrative body or a consular office, and there may exist several
such authorities.77
In particular, when confirming the nationality or lack thereof of a foreign person staying
in Japan, it is useful to confirm the position of the consular office of the country withwhich the individual has a relevant link. A consulate can be a “competent authority” as
the consul is normally requested to express a view on an individual’s nationality within
the scope of consular protection in case an individual wishes to extend his or her passport
or to confirm his or her nationality.
There may be cases where an individual has never come into contact with a State’s
competent authorities. In such cases, it is important to assess the State’s general attitudein terms of the nationality status of persons who are similarly situated. If identification
documents issued only to nationals are routinely denied to a group to which an individual
belongs, this may indicate that he or she is not considered as a national by the State.78

76 Id., para. 37.
77 Id., para. 28.
78

Id, para. 38.

41

In the case analysis in Chapter 2, when an individual appears to have automaticallyacquired the nationality of a State according to its nationality laws but is denied birth
registration or an issuance or renewal of a passport by the consulate in spite of theindividual having taken actions normally expected in such a case, the individual would be“not considered as a national… under the operation of its law” and therefore would bestateless. In considering the “actions normally expected”, the provisions for acquisitionof nationality in the nationality laws of the relevant State would be the basis, and therationality of any requirements requested by the authorities in addition to such provisions
must be assessed. Specifically, an individual would be considered a stateless person incases where birth registration and passport issuance or renewal was denied for reasons
unrelated to provisions in the nationality law, such as ongoing or past asylum applications
by the individual or his or her parents, non-payment of tax by the parents, being a childborn out of wedlock, or originating from an area which has become independent fromthe concerned State.
Also, in cases where an individual is not in possession of official documents issued bya relevant State which are necessary as proof of meeting the requirements for acquisitionof the State’s nationality, and where it is objectively clear that it is difficult to obtain such
documents in reality, the individual would be considered stateless by meeting thedefinition “not considered as a national… under the operation of its law.”

2. Burden of proof in establishing statelessness
Even with the understanding of statelessness offered by the definition andrequirements as described in the preceding section, there remains the practical issue ofestablishing the extent to which an individual should prove his or her claim that he or shemeets the criteria within the statelessness definition and relevant requirements inspecific procedures.
With regard to the burden of proof in statelessness determination procedures, theHandbook states that the burden of proof is in principle shared in that both the applicant
and examiner must cooperate to obtain evidence and to establish the facts. 79
Considering the difficulties inherent in proving statelessness, a high standard of proof
should not be required, and it is advised to adopt the same standard of proof as that
required in refugee status determination, namely, “to a reasonable degree.”80
It is usually very difficult for an individual to research and provide proof on thenationality laws and practice. Therefore, the determination authority is also required toobtain and present evidence relating to the law and its operation.

79 Id, para. 89.
80

Ibid.

42

In determinations of statelessness in the case analysis which follows in Chapter 2, thenationality laws and regulations of a country with which an individual has a relevant link
were researched using documentary evidence as well as the search engine on nationality
laws and so on operated by UNHCR. The assessment of the operation or implementationof the law is based on media reports and hearings from relevant parties, supporters, andauthorities.

43

Chapter 2: SAMPLE CASE ANALYSIS
Section 1: Categories of persons whose statelessness or risk ofstatelessness arose while in Japan
Category A [Conflict of laws] Persons who did not acquire by birth the nationality of
their parents or the nationality of their country of birth due to conflict of laws (Sample
cases from Paraguay and Myanmar)
Category A is statelessness that is caused by the fact that the nationality law of the countryof nationality of the parents adopts a strict jus soli principle or a paternal and maternal jus
sanguinis principle.
< Case 1 > Paraguay is a State which adopts a strict jus soli principle; therefore, a child bornin Japan from Paraguayan parents cannot obtain Paraguayan nationality by birth. On theother hand, the child cannot obtain Japanese nationality by birth either, and there are cases
where such children become stateless.
< Case 2 > Myanmar adopts a strict paternal and maternal jus sanguinis principle; a childcannot obtain Myanmar nationality by birth if only one of the parents is a Myanmar
national. At the same time, the child cannot obtain Japanese nationality by birth either, andthere are cases where such children become stateless.
1. < Case 1 > Children born in Japan from parents with Paraguayan nationality(1) Case summary
A was born in 2001, and B was born in 2003, both in Japan from second-generation
Japanese parents with Paraguayan nationality.81 A, B, and their parents live in Japan withthe status of permanent residents.
The (former) alien registration certificates of A and B, who were born in Japan, showed“Paraguay” as their nationality. When the alien registration certificates were replaced byforeigner residence cards,82 they also showed “Paraguay” as their nationality. However,81

The facts of Case 1 are based on a hearing of A and B’s parents and their counsel on 22 March 2016.
A and B’s grandparents are Japanese nationals who migrated from Japan to Paraguay with A and B’s
great-grandfather and others after World War II.
82
On the relations between the former Alien Registration System and the current Residency
Management System, see Chapter 1, Section 2, 2(1) of this report.

44

A and B had not acquired Paraguayan nationality by birth under Paraguayan law and werethus stateless.
When A was in the seventh grade, A wished to go to Australia for language training but
had to give up because a passport could not be obtained.
According to the statistics on residence provided by the Ministry of Justice, there were1,976 people who had “Paraguay” on their foreigner residence cards at the end of
December 2016.83 However, according to the Embassy of Paraguay in Japan, 44 children
born in Japan were found to be stateless by a survey of Paraguayan residents in Japan
conducted in October 2011. Also, based on the 2011 survey results, the Embassy doublechecked the birth registrations in March 2015, and found that 72 people were expected
to be stateless.84 Among these individuals expected to be stateless, a significant number
had “Paraguay” shown on their alien registration certificates and foreigner residencecards. The Embassy of Paraguay provides notices on its website that a child born in Japan
from parents with Paraguayan nationality does not acquire Paraguayan nationality bybirth in order to provide accurate information and to avoid misunderstandings in relation
to a child’s acquisition of Paraguayan nationality.85(2) Background
The Constitution of Paraguay adopts the jus soli principle. A child born outside of
Paraguay with a father or mother with Paraguayan nationality cannot become aParaguayan national unless he or she becomes a permanent resident of Paraguay(Constitution of Paraguay, Article 146(3)).
In order to acquire Paraguayan nationality, A and B must submit an application to thecourt of first instance in civil and commercial affairs in the jurisdiction of their residence
in Paraguay and go through the procedure for acquiring nationality (Law No. 582/95,
Articles 2 and 3). The court procedure usually takes six months to one year. 86 The
parents of A and B have a job and family life in Japan and have no plans to permanently
reside in Paraguay. A and B therefore have no plans to permanently reside in Paraguay
and cannot obtain Paraguayan nationality.
83

The number of total foreign national residents, Statistics on Foreign National Residents, supra note
42. Among the 1,976 persons, the total number of persons with the status of residence of “Long-term
resident”, such as spouses of Japanese nationals and permanent residents is 1,863; many of them aresurmised to have Japanese origin.
84
Inquiry to the Consular Section, Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay in Japan (“Inquiry to Paraguay
Embassy in Japan”), 31 March 2015. It is not known if there is any overlap between the “44” and “72”persons.
85 On the website of the Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay in Japan, the following statement is foundin Japanese as well on acquisition of nationality: “It is not possible to acquire Paraguayan nationality fora child born outside of Paraguay from a father and/or mother with Paraguayan nationality, by submitting
to this Embassy a registration of birth. (See the Constitution and Law No. 582/85 on Nationality)”. The
Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay in Japan, “Miseinennitsuite [Regarding Minors]”, at
http://www.embapar.jp/ja/sc/menores/#.
86
Inquiry to Paraguay Embassy in Japan, supra note 81.

45

At the time of A and B’s birth, Paraguayan law allowed the mother’s passport to provide
the children’s identity information along with their photographs. The mother and thechildren were able to leave Japan using this passport and return to Paraguay. However,the practice of providing children’s information on the mother’s passport was abolishedat the end of March 2015. As a result, the identity information of the children was nolonger shown on the mother’s passport, and it became impossible for the children to
travel abroad using the mother’s passport.
The Constitution of Japan adopts the jus sanguinis principle. As both of the parents of
A and B have Paraguayan nationality, Article 2(iii) of the Japanese Nationality Act, which
provides for acquisition of Japanese nationality by birth, does not apply to A and B.
Therefore, A and B are stateless persons, as they did not acquire the nationality of any
State by birth, and they are not considered as a national by any State.
(3) Acquisition of nationality
If A and B live permanently in Paraguay and apply for and are granted nationality by acourt in Paraguay, there is a possibility that they acquire Paraguayan nationality.
However, A and B have been stateless since birth and have been residing in Japan for
more than three years. Therefore, they applied for naturalization in January 2016 basedon Article 8(iv) of the Japanese Nationality Act; their applications were granted; and theyacquired Japanese nationality in January 2017.
(4) Administrative response by Japan
The parents of A and B were confused by the discrepancies in nationality, as A and B
were considered as non-nationals by the Embassy of Paraguay, but their foreigner
residence cards in Japan showed “Paraguay” in the “Nationality/area of origin” column.
The mother of A and B consulted the legal affairs bureau located in the Kanto region on
several occasions regarding naturalization, but she was never informed that it waspossible to apply for naturalization under the assumption that Article 8(iv) (the so-called“simplified naturalization”) would be applied, which eases the normal requirements fornaturalization for stateless persons born in Japan. It was only when she consulted an
attorney-at-law that she learned that her children would be able to make suchapplications, and she proceeded to go through the procedure.
First, she made an application to the regional immigration bureau located in the Kanto
region to correct the information shown on her children’s foreigner residence cards, i.e.,
to change their nationality from “Paraguay” to “Stateless”; however, she was told that theregional immigration bureau was not in a position to make a determination, and thecorrection was made only after more than four months had passed.
In addition, C, who is the cousin of A and B on their father’s side, was also stateless; C’s(former) alien registration certificate as well as foreigner residence card showed46

“Stateless” in the “Nationality/area of origin” column. 87 C’s mother also consulted adifferent legal affairs bureau located in the Kanto region on her own regarding
naturalization and C’s acquisition of nationality. However, the official in charge did not
explain facilitated naturalization and gave a misleading explanation giving the impressionthat stateless persons could not be naturalized at all.
Later, the legal representative of A, B, and C contacted each legal affairs bureau byphone to make an appointment for consultation regarding naturalization. However, theattorney was told that naturalization of the minors could not be processed and that foreach legal affairs bureau, it was necessary for the lawyer to indicate the provision in
Article 8(iv) of the Nationality Act and the stateless status of the concerned child under
the law of Paraguay in order to make an appointment. In one legal affairs bureau, it took
several days of internal confirmation before an appointment for consultation was
accepted.
2. < Case 2 > A child whose mother is from Myanmar and father is unknown
D, a Myanmar national who was studying in Japan, gave birth to E in Japan in 2015. D
had had relations with more than one man at the time she became pregnant with E, andit was not clear who was E’s (biological) father was. According to Article 7 of the 1982
Citizenship Law of Myanmar, a child cannot acquire Myanmar nationality by birth unless
both of the parents are Myanmar nationals. 88 E was not able to acquire Myanmar
nationality because E did not meet the criteria of having parents who are both Myanmar
nationals, with the father being unknown. In fact, after E’s birth when a staff member ofthe general incorporated association Across Japan, which assisted E’s special adoption,accompanied D on her visit to the Embassy of Myanmar in Japan and tried to register E’s
birth, the officer in charge demonstrated discriminatory conduct for the woman having
had a child out of wedlock, and the birth registration was denied.
The Nationality Act of Japan adopts the principle of jus sanguinis, and because thenationality of the mother D is Myanmar, there was no room for E to acquire Japanesenationality by birth. Therefore, E was a stateless person who did not acquire thenationality of any State by birth and was not considered as a national by any State.
The mother D was young and financially unstable and had no wish to raise a child. D
consulted the general incorporated association Across Japan about adoption. Since theseventeenth day after birth, E has been raised by an American and Japanese married
couple. When E applied for residential status at a local immigration bureau located in the
Kanto region, E’s nationality was determined as “Stateless” and E was granted the statusof short-term resident. Later, when their request for special adoption (Civil Code Article
87

The facts of Case 2 are based on a hearing from the parents and their counsel (28 August 2015). C
applied for naturalization in August 2015 and was granted Japanese nationality in May 2017.
88
Burma Citizenship Law (15 October 1982). Reference was made to the following English translation:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html.

47

817-2 and following)89 was granted by the family court, the court also determined E’snationality as stateless.90 E is currently an adopted child of a Japanese national. In the
future, E plans to apply for naturalization to obtain Japanese nationality based on Article
8(ii) of the Nationality Act (simplified naturalization), which simplifies the normal
requirements for naturalization for an adopted child of a Japanese citizen when the childhas had a domicile in Japan for one year or more.91
3. Possible Size of Category A(1) Possible cases of conflict of nationality laws
Cases 1 and 2 show a traditional pattern of statelessness where there is a clash ofprovisions for the acquisition of nationality by birth. For example, in the past when the
Nationality Act of Japan followed paternal jus sanguinis, the so-called Amerasian children,
who were born in Japan from a Japanese mother married to an American soldier, werestateless.92 Also, as Brazil followed the jus solis principle in the past, children born in Japan
from parents with Brazilian nationality sometimes became stateless.93
The granting of Japanese nationality by birth, according to the Nationality Act, is based
primarily on jus sanguinis, but it also follows jus solis to complement it, thereby preventing
statelessness to some extent. However, in addition to the cases mentioned above, a childborn in Japan may become stateless by a clash of laws regarding the acquisition ofnationality by birth. The following four general patterns can be found in such cases, namely,
for the acquisition of nationality, the country concerned requires: (a) residency, (b) that theparents are nationals of the country, (c) registration in case of births outside of the country,or (d) paternal lineage following the jus sanguinis principle.

89 “Special Adoption is a form of adoption established by a ruling of a family court, by which the legal

relationship between a child and his or her natural relatives is extinguished, and a stable relationship isestablished between the child and his or her adoptive parent similar to that between a real parent andchild, when there is a special need for the welfare of the minor, in principle below the age of 6. For thispurpose, the person to be an adoptive parent, needs to have a spouse, be 25 years old or above inprinciple, and the couple must jointly make the adoption. Also, divorce is prohibited in principle.”
Homepage of the Courts, at http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_06_09.
90 Yokohama Family Court, Yokosuka Branch, adjudication on 10 November 2015 (Heisei 27 Nen (Ka)No. 203), unpublished. It was kindly made available by Tazuru Ogawa, Representative of the Board of
Directors, Across Japan, which is a general incorporated association.
91
Asahi Shimbun, 9 January 2016 evening edition, “Mukokusekino Akachan Sukueru: Youshiengumi
Sureba Nihon Kokusekini Michi [Stateless Baby Can Be Saved: Road to Japanese Nationality ThroughAdoption]”(reportedbyEriGoto),
athttp://www.asahi.com/articles/ASHDV4W4JHDVUHMC002.html.
It was widely reported that there is a way for a stateless child to acquire Japanese nationality at an earlystage through Special Adoption, and it drew much attention.
92
Also see Abe Report, supra note 2, p.32.
93
Also see Arakaki Report, supra note 2, p.56.

48

Below, the 36 main countries concerning which a child born in Japan may not be able toacquire the nationality of the parent are categorized into patterns (a) through (d), and theStates are listed in the order of the number of residents in Japan, with the first one having
the greatest number of residents.
(a) The main States that have residency requirements, etc.
As described in Case 1, when the country of nationality of the parents requires residency
in the country, including travel to such country, a child will not be able to acquire thenationality of the parents if the child has never left Japan. When the parents are citizens ofsuch a country, it is necessary to confirm if the necessary residency requirements havebeen met for the child to acquire the nationality of the parents.
• US94• UK95• Paraguay96• Republic of Ecuador97• Oriental Republic of Uruguay98(b) The main States that require the parents to be their citizens
As described in Case 2, among the States that have adopted the jus sanguinis principle,
some require both of the parents to be their citizens in order for the child to acquire theirnationality. If a child is born from a national of such a State, under a complete dual-lineage
jus sanguinis as it were, and if the other parent is not its citizen, then the child is not able toacquire the nationality of the country.
• Myanmar99

94 U.S. Embassy in Japan, “Shusshouniyoru Beikokusekino Shutoku [Acquisition of American Citizenshipat Birth]”, at
https://jp.usembassy.gov/ja/u-s-citizen-services-ja/citizenship-services-ja/acquisition-americancitizenship-ja/.
95
British Nationality Act, Article 2.
96
Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay in Japan, “Paraguayan Nationality”, at
http://www.embapar.jp/ja/sc/menores/nacionalidad-paraguaya/.
97
Continuous Reports System on International Migration in the Americas, “Ecuador - Nationality andcitizenship”, at
http://www.migracionoea.org/index.php/en/sicremi-en/273-ecuador-2-3-nacionalidad-y-ciudadania-2.html.
98
Continuous Reports System on International Migration in the Americas, “Uruguay - Nationality andcitizenship”, at
http://www.migracionoea.org/index.php/en/sicremi-en/310-uruguay-2-2-nacionalidad-y-ciudadania-2.html.
99
Burma Citizenship Law, Article 7. Reference was made to the English translation available at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html.

49

(c) Main States that require registration in case of birth outside of the StateA child born in Japan from parents with the following nationalities can acquire thenationality of the parents if he or she is registered at the country’s consulate, etc. However,if the child is not registered with the country of the parents’ nationality, then the childcannot acquire the nationality of the parents. Thus, a child will become stateless if theparents are citizens of the following States and the child is not registered with either of theStates of nationality of the parents or if one of the parents is a national of one of thefollowing States, the child is not registered, and the child is unable to acquire the nationalityof the other parent. This risk is greater in cases of children of refugees or asylum seekers.
As many of the refugees and asylum seekers have a risk of being persecuted by theircountry of origin, it is difficult in practice for them to contact their national authorities forbirth registrations. (See Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)] and Category D[Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)].)• Peru100 (registration before reaching majority)• India101 (birth registration at a consulate within a certain period after birth)• Sri Lanka102 (registration within one year after birth)• Commonwealth of Australia103 (registration within 25 years after birth)• Russia (registration at a consulate in case one of the parents is a foreign
national)104(d) Main States that have adopted the paternal jus sanguinis principle105

100 Oliver Vonk, Nationality Law in the Western Hemisphere: A Study on Grounds for Acquisition and Lossof Citizenship in the Americas and the Caribbean. (Leiden and Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2014), p. 304.
101
Government of India, “Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division”, at
http://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/citizenshipact1.htm.
102
Department of Immigration and Emigration, Sri Lanka, “Citizenship Registration of Children Born
Outside of Sri Lanka”, at
http://www.immigration.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&id=149&Itemid=188.
103 Australian Embassy Tokyo, “Citizenship by Descent”, at
http://japan.embassy.gov.au/tkyo/citizen_descent.html.
104
Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship, Article 14 (6)(a). See this link for an English
translation: http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4189.
105
This is based mainly on the following document published in March 2017: UNHCR “Background
Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2017”, at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/58aff4d94.html.

50

If a child with a mother who is a national of a State that has adopted paternal jus
sanguinis106 cannot acquire the nationality of the father,107 then the child may become
stateless in Japan. Also included below are States whose nationality cannot be passed onto
the child through the father unless the father meets certain requirements. Even if the father
is a national of one of the States below, the child cannot acquire the father’s nationality
unless the father or the child meets certain requirements; in such cases, if the child cannot
acquire the mother’s nationality either, he or she becomes stateless.
• Nepal• Malaysia• Iran• Saudi Arabia• Syria108• Sudan109• Jordan110• Iraq111• Lebanon112• Brunei• United Arab Emirates113
106

Many of the States that adopt the paternal jus sanguinis principle make exceptions in certain
circumstances, for example enabling acquisition of the mother’s nationality in the case of a child bornout of wedlock or in case the father is unknown (or in the case the child is born in the State with aforeign father, although the number of States making exceptions in such cases is low). UNHCR,“Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2017” (8 March 2017), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/58aff4d94.html, p.3. Nevertheless, in many States, the provisions for
exceptions are not implemented or it is not clear if they are implemented. Betsy Fisher, “Why NonMarital Children in the MENA Region Face a Risk of Statelessness”, Harvard Human Rights Journal
Online (January 2015), at
http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Fisher_HRJ_01-05-15.pdf, p. 4.
107 Cases when a child “cannot acquire the nationality of the father” would include, for example: where
the father is stateless; where the laws of the father’s State do not permit conferral of nationality incertain circumstances (such as when the child is born abroad); where the father is unknown or notmarried to the mother at the time of birth; where the father has not recognized a child born out of
wedlock; where the father’s recognition of a child born out of wedlock is not linked to acquisition ofnationality; or where the father is unable or unwilling to undertake the necessary procedures to confer
his nationality or acquire proof or confirmation of nationality for his child. Also see UNHCR,“Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2017” (8 March 2017), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/58aff4d94.html, p. 1.
108 Syria Nationality, “Resource library”, at
http://syrianationality.org/nationality-documentation-and-statelessness-in-syria/syrias-nationality-law.
109
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/502cc1b92.pdf.
110
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ea13.html.
111
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b1e364c2.html.
112
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/44a24c6c4.html.
113
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/3fba182d0.html.

51

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Libya114
Kuwait115
Qatar
Oman
Togo
Liberia
Bahrain116
Barbados
Mauritania
BurundiThe Bahamas
Somalia
Kiribati
Swaziland(2) Possible Size of Category A
The number of “total foreign residents in Japan”117 with a nationality among the 36
countries under (a) to (d) above is 386,543 as of the end of December 2016.118 There is
no apparent way to grasp accurately how many children are born in Japan from thesepeople and what percentage of such children encounter conflict of nationality laws.
However, given the fact that there should be a significant number of marriages and birth
involving citizens of the 36 States above, there should be a considerable amount of risk ofstatelessness being produced and various ways in which statelessness arises under
Category A.
4. Solutions for Category A(1) Prevention
One way to prevent statelessness arising from conflicts of laws regarding the acquisitionof nationality may be to adopt internationally uniform criteria for the granting of nationality,
but it would not be possible in practice. Moreover, in cases 1 and 2, it became clear that itis difficult in practice to persuade Paraguay or Myanmar to amend their laws regarding the114

For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4e2d8bf52.pdf.
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ef1c.html.
116
For English translation of relevant laws, see http://www.refworld.org/docid/3fb9f34f4.html.
117
For the definition, see supra note 41.
118
Total number of foreign national residents in the “Statistics on Foreign National Residents”(December 2016), supra note 42.
115

52

granting of nationality. Japan cannot neglect taking measures within Japan in the
expectation that other States would revise their laws.119
From the perspective of preventing statelessness, for example, it might be possible tointroduce a new provision as Article 2(iv) of the Nationality Act: “a person born in Japan
who does not acquire the nationality 120 of his or her father or mother’s country ofnationality.”121(2) Protection
Under the current framework, there is no system for the protection of the rights ofstateless persons. Therefore, from the perspective of protection of stateless persons, asystem for statelessness determinations and protection should be introduced; and if an
individual is recognized as a stateless person after an appropriate assessment in accordancewith the definition in the 1954 Convention, he or she should be granted a residential status
and a travel certificate. In each case above, the child was able to obtain a stable residential
status thanks to the existence of a natural or adoptive parent. However, had the special
adoption with a Japanese national not taken place in Case 2, the child might have become
an irregular resident without any legal status. Upon recognition as a refugee, he or she is
granted the status of “long-term resident”. Similarly, it would be desirable to have a system
under which a stateless person is granted the status of “long-term resident” uponrecognition as such.
As an interim measure until a system is in place for statelessness determinations andprotection, “He or she is without nationality”, for example, should be included under ICRRA
Article 50(1) as a ground for granting special permission to stay,122 or at the least, “being
119

The number of signatories to the 1961 Convention, which requires States Parties to prevent
statelessness, has also sharply increased in recent years, reaching 70 as of 21 September 2017. See
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&clang=_en.
Also, the European Convention on Nationality, which was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1997,
calls on States Parties to provide internal law for nationality under the principle that statelessness shallbe avoided (Article 4b); however, states are allowed to choose how to grant nationality in its law (Article
6(2)a,b), and the legal obligation only applies to States Parties. Yasuhiro Okuda and Akiko Tateda, “The1997 European Convention on Nationality”, Hokudai Hougakuronshuu [Hokkaido University Legal
Studies Journal], 50(5), pp. 93-131, at
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/14986/1/50(5)_p93-131.pdf.
Moreover, the number of States Parties to the 1961 Convention requiring prevention of statelessness
remains at 70 as of 21 September 2017. See
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&clang=_en.
120 This is meant to include cases where the child cannot acquire nationality nor confirm his or her nationality under
the letter or implementation of the provisions of the nationality law, even though the parents do possess nationality.
121
In France, Italy, and Spain, “cases where the child does not acquire nationality according to the nationality actof the country of nationality of the parents are listed as cases where the child acquires nationality bycomplementary jus solis.” Okuda, supra note 33, p.136.
122
Article 50(1) of ICRRA provides that, even in case an individual is subject to deportation, the Minister of Justice“may grant… special permission to stay in Japan” if the Minister finds grounds to grant permission to stay; and53

without nationality” should be included in the Guidelines as a positive factor for granting
special permission to stay.123
In addition to the above, needless to say, it is important to provide access to experts with
sufficient knowledge of statelessness for rapid and effective protection.
(3) Reduction
Under the current framework, statelessness arising in Category A is not being prevented;
therefore, from the perspective of reducing statelessness, providing Japanese nationality
through application for naturalization would be a solution. Specifically, it is important toensure that Article 8(iv) of the Nationality Act is appropriately implemented.
Nevertheless, under the current circumstances as described in Case 1, it is possible thatthe understanding of officials in charge of receiving applications for naturalization is notnecessarily adequate and that an eligible individual is unable to apply for simplified
naturalization under Article 8(iv) in a smooth manner. Therefore, legal affairs bureaus
should collect accurate information on the nationality laws and practice of various States,
deepen their understanding of such information, and establish and maintain a system underwhich simplified naturalization is applied in an appropriate and consistent manner.
Category B [State succession] Persons whose country of previous nationality has gone
through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality of thesuccessor State or the predecessor State confirmed (Sample cases from Ethiopia andEritrea)
Category B is statelessness arising when the country of nationality goes through State
succession.
The individual in < Case 3 > is from an area which is part of Eritrea’s territory today. Eritrea
was annexed by Ethiopia when he was young and later became independent. In theprocess, he fell into a situation where he is not considered as a national by either Eritrea or
Ethiopia.
provides the following as such grounds: “(i) He or she has obtained permission for permanent residence; (ii) He or she
has had a registered domicile in Japan as a Japanese national in the past; (iii) He or she resides in Japan under thecontrol of another due to trafficking in persons; and (iv) The Minister of Justice finds grounds to grant special
permission to stay, other than the previous items.” With regard to asylum applicants, similar decisions are made within
the refugee status determination procedure (ICRRA, Article 61-2-2 (2)). Further, in recent years, the guidelines
specifying the criteria for granting special permission to stay have been made public. Ministry of Justice, “Zairyuu
Tokubetsu Kyokani Kakawaru Gaidorain [Guideines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyukan_nyukan85.html.
123 Under the present circumstances, there may be cases where continued residence in Japan is considered onhumanitarian grounds if the individual is stateless and has effectively lost his or her country of origin and it is difficult
to establish domicile outside of Japan; however, it is not sufficient as a criterion for protection, as such decisions
appear to be made with consideration of various other circumstances and not based solely on the fact thatthe individual is stateless. Arakaki, supra note 2, p.72.

54

1. < Case 3 > Case summary
A is a man who was born in 1961 in Asmara, a city in the territory of Eritrea, which at
the time formed a federation with Ethiopia. Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia in 1962, but
after a referendum in April 1993 on the secession and independence of Eritrea, it became
independent in May 1993.
After the annexation by Ethiopia, A moved from Asmara to Addis Ababa, the capital of
Ethiopia, when he was about eight. The aforementioned referendum took place when A
was in his 30s, but A did not vote because he did not support Eritrea’s independence.
Later, A arrived in Japan in 1996 with an Ethiopian passport, and a border dispute arose
between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1998 during his stay in Japan. In 2000, A thought about
returning and applied to renew his passport at the Embassy of Ethiopia, but his
application was denied. A applied for refugee status in 2001, and while he was notrecognized as a refugee, he was given special permission to stay (under then ICRRA
Article 50). Today, he resides in Japan with wife and children with the status of“permanent resident”.124
A has a sense of belonging to Ethiopia, and he requested the Embassy of Ethiopia toconfirm that he is a national of Ethiopia. However, his application for passport renewal
was again rejected in 2015 for the reason that he was born in Eritrea. Today, A does notpossess any document showing that he is a national of Ethiopia or that he is a national of
Eritrea. He is not considered as a national by any State.

2. The possibility of acquiring nationality of the relevant States(1) Ethiopia
A’s parents are also from Asmara in Eritrea’s territory. As a prerequisite for determining
whether or not A still has Ethiopian nationality, it is necessary to consider the contentsof the provisions and practices in implementing the nationality laws of Ethiopia andEritrea, as well as the background to Eritrea becoming a State.
Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia in 1962, and all the people residing within Eritrean
territory became Ethiopian citizens, with the exception of those who had foreign
nationality. 125 Therefore, A became an Ethiopian citizen one year after his birth.

124 The facts of Case 3 are based on a hearing from A and A’s counsel on 17 November 2015. On Special

Permission to Stay, see supra note 122.
125
Human Rights Watch, Eritoria & Ethiopia The Horn of Africa War: Mass Expulsions and the Nationality
Issue (June1998-April 2002) (2003), at
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/ethioerit0103/ethioerit0103.pdf, p. 12.

55

However, there was a referendum on the secession and independence of Eritrea in April
1993, and as a result, Eritrea became independent in May 1993.
With Eritrea’s referendum and its subsequent official independence, there arose theissue of the nationality of Ethiopians with Eritrean descent who were staying in Ethiopia,
such as A.
The 1992 Eritrean Nationality Proclamation adopts the jus sanguinis principle. 126
However, the new Constitution of Ethiopia, which was promulgated in 1995, also adopts
the jus sanguinis principle and prohibits deprivations of nationality.127 Ethiopians with
Eritrean descent were considered to have the nationality of both countries, and it
appeared that the two governments attempted to solve the issue of nationality througheach individual’s choice.
However, when a border dispute occurred between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1998, theEthiopian authorities forcibly expelled approximately 75,000 Ethiopians with Eritrean
descent from Ethiopia into Eritrea. The government of Ethiopia announced that the
subjects to be expelled were those who became Eritrean citizens by way of voting for
Eritrean independence in the referendum. Later, in December 2003, the Ethiopian
authorities announced the Proclamation on Ethiopian Nationality, which states that any
Ethiopian who voluntarily acquires another nationality shall be deemed to havevoluntarily renounced his or her Ethiopian nationality with certain exceptions. Also, inJanuary 2004, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia issued an order regarding
decisions on the residency eligibility of Eritrean nationals residing in Ethiopia. 128
According to this order, people with Eritrean descent who had not selected Eritrean
nationality by that time were deemed to have decided to maintain Ethiopian nationality,
and their Ethiopian nationality was to be guaranteed.
Based on such treatment regarding nationality, it appears that A acquired Ethiopian
nationality after birth and maintains Ethiopian nationality because he did not participate
in the referendum on Eritrean independence and has not selected Eritrean nationality tothis day.
Nevertheless, as described earlier, when A, who had been staying in Japan since 1996,
thought about returning, he went to the Embassy of Ethiopia in 2000 for renewal of his
passport, filled out a passport application, paid the fee, and submitted the application
along with his expired passport; the application form and his old passport were then later
mailed back to his home.
126 Id, p. 15.
127 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (21 August 1995). Reference has been

made to the following: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5a84.html.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ethiopia, “Directive Issued to Determine the Residence Status of
Eritrean Nationals Residing in Ethiopia” (January 2004), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd56c0.html.
According to this Directive, a person having an Eritrean passport or any document conferring Eritrean
nationality or a person serving the Eritrean Government in a sector reserved exclusively for Eritrean
nationals is considered to have Eritrean nationality.
128

56

Furthermore, in November 2015, A again visited the Embassy of Ethiopia with a legal
representative and requested a passport renewal, but he was told that his passport could
not be renewed because he was born in Asmara, and his renewal application was not
accepted. He also asked about the possibility of being issued a travel document for onetime use to go to Ethiopia, but he was told that it could be issued only to a “national”, andhis application for a travel document was not accepted either.
(2) Eritrea
According to the 1992 Eritrean Nationality Proclamation, people who were residing in
the Eritrean region in 1933 are of Eritrean descent, and those born from parents of
Eritrean descent are Eritrean citizens. The 1997 Constitution of Eritrea also provides thatany person born of an Eritrean father or mother is an Eritrean by birth.129
It is reported that on 27 January 2004, the UK Home Office received a letter from theEritrean Embassy in London which stated that a person who has an Eritrean father ormother would be eligible for Eritrean nationality as long as the person provides threewitnesses.130 A British fact-finding mission report published on 29 April 2003 contains
details about the acquisition of nationality with three witnesses. 131 While it is notnecessarily clear whether the ‘three witnesses’ method is a condition for the acquisitionof nationality or merely a procedure to confirm nationality already acquired, the Eritrean
government treats a person as an Eritrean national with verification by three witnesses.
A has his parents and six siblings, but their whereabouts are unknown except one
younger sister. Also, A himself and his parents do not possess any Eritrean identification
documents showing them to be of Eritrean origin, and they do not have any
acquaintances who could serve as three witnesses for their Eritrean nationality. Thus, itwould be difficult for A to acquire Eritrean nationality with three witnesses.
(3) Japan
A procedure for the acquisition of Japanese nationality is an application for
naturalization. The Nationality Act does not prescribe Japanese language proficiency as
a condition for naturalization; however, in practice, a certain level of Japanese language
proficiency is required. It is highly likely that A would not be granted naturalization even
if he applied because he does not meet this part of the criteria.
129

Constitution of Eritrea (23 May 1997). Rerefence has been made to the following:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8aa904.html.
130 United Kingdom Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report – Eritrea (2010), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c286cfa2.html, p. 106.
131 Id. An applicant can choose any three Eritreans in the world as long as he or she knows them
personally and call on them to verify that the applicant is an Eritrean national. If the person is abroad,he or she must go to the Eritrean embassy of that State in order to answer questions. The threewitnesses must be Eritreans who hold an Eritrean identification card or passport. Although every adultis supposed to have a national ID card, and anyone holding an Eritrean passport would be in possessionof that card, identity records are not centralized.

57

(4) Statelessness
Based on the above, in consideration of A’s nationality, first, it is established that A
acquired Ethiopian nationality in 1962. Although Eritrea became independent in 1993, A
was issued a passport from the Ethiopian government in 1996, and it is confirmed that A
had Ethiopian nationality at least until the time of his departure. After the border conflict,according to the Constitution of Ethiopia and its nationality laws, it appears that those
who have not selected Eritrean nationality maintain their Ethiopian nationality. According
to these laws, A seems to maintain his Ethiopian nationality because he has not selected
Eritrean nationality and does not possess any documentary proof of Eritrean nationality.
However, the Embassy of Ethiopia rejected A’s application for passport renewal on
several occasions. In 2015, the embassy staff told him that his passport could not be
renewed because he was from Asmara, and it did not issue a travel document which wasa one-way ticket to Ethiopia. Such a treatment is understood to demonstrate that A is
not considered as a national under the operation of the law and that he is not considered
as a national by the Ethiopian authorities.
With regard to Eritrean nationality, while A seems to meet the eligibility criteria for theacquisition of nationality, there is no document to indicate his Eritrean nationality.
Regarding the ‘three witnesses’ method, A is unable to provide three witnesses and isthus not considered as a national by the Eritrean authorities.
Therefore, A is a stateless person who is not considered as a national by any State
under the operation of its law.
3. Administrative and Other Responses by Japan
A’s foreigner residence card shows “Ethiopia” in the “Nationality/area of origin” column,
and the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice considers him to be of Ethiopian
nationality. However, there is no sign that the possession of nationality in a real sense
was specifically considered in detail in preparing the card.
Also, although it is not limited only to stateless persons, it is common for statelesspersons to have problems with the date of birth shown on their foreigner residence cards.
For example, A’s foreigner residence card lists “Year 1961 Month 00 Day 00” as the dateof birth. This seems to be due to the fact that the expired passport only states 1961,
which is unrelated to the unique circumstances of A’s actual nationality. However, A has
faced various difficulties in daily life due to the fact that such a date, which does not exist
in reality, has been listed on his foreigner residence card. For example, A was unable toopen a bank account, and he was not hired by a company at the last minute for the reason
that the company could not process someone without a date of birth. A has faced
considerable hardships in his public life, with the date of birth causing problems in his
application for national health insurance, his request for city housing, his application fora nursery school for his children, etc.
58

Also, A considered travelling to Italy in order to meet his younger sister who was later
found to be residing in Italy; however, A does not possess a passport of any State, andonly possesses a re-entry permit132 issued by the government of Japan. Because Italy
does not allow issuance of a visa for travel using a re-entry permit, A is not able to travel
to Italy and meet the sister.
4. Possible size of Category B(1) Cases of possible loss of nationality due to the division or collapse of States
Case 3 is a case where nationality was lost due to a division or collapse of a State and issimilar to Category J [State succession II] below. A became unable to renew the passportof his pre-independence nationality because he had been born within the territory of a
newly independent State. Having no means to prove that he was a national of the newly
independent State, he is an example of someone who lost his original nationality and isunable to acquire a new nationality due to changes in the form of the State. There is oftensome tension between the original State and the newly independent State, and various
issues are likely to arise in relation to nationality which determines the membership of thenation. A may appear to maintain Ethiopian nationality according to its laws, but he isstateless because he is not considered as a national in the practice of the authorities.
In addition to such cases where nationality is not recognized by the pre-independenceState due to discriminatory application of its law, there are often cases of statelessness
arising from the fact that certain groups of people are explicitly excluded from “citizens”
under the law of the new State at the time of the division or collapse of a State. In particular,
it is said that many stateless people were produced when the former Soviet Union
collapsed. For example, in the newly born nation of Latvia, people of Russian descent who
had migrated from today’s Russia to Latvia under the Soviet Union were unable to acquire
Latvian nationality because they were excluded from Latvian citizenship. As a result, in
Latvia there is a group of stateless people who do not have the nationality of any State andwho have the legal status of “non-citizen”.133
When considering matters of nationality related to the division or collapse of a State, itis necessary to grasp the history of the relevant country and clarify its relations with otherStates. Below is a list of States which have become independent since around 1990; when
there are issues of nationality for persons originating from these territories in particular, it

132 See Chapter 1, Section 1, Sub-section 2(5) of this report.
133

Whereas UNHCR recognises non-citizens as stateless, the Government of Latvia has clarified its
position that it does not regard them as stateless because the status of non-citizen is temporary. Also,
although non-citizens were expected to acquire Latvian nationality by naturalization, not many haveactually done so. This issue was raised in Mārtiņš Mits’ report entitled “Stateless People and Non-citizens
in Latvia”, in an international symposium on “Stateless People and Non-Citizens: Dialogue with Latvia”
held in Tokyo on 23 May 2015.

59

is necessary to research firstly the provisions of the laws of the relevant State, secondly toresearch the practice of how these laws are operated, and then to clarify whether such
persons possess the nationality of the new State and the former State before
independence.134• Eastern European countries (gaining independence from the former Soviet Union)• Georgia (gaining independence from the former Soviet Union)• East Timor (gaining independence from the Republic of Indonesia)• Serbia (gaining independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)• Montenegro (gaining independence from Serbia)• Republic of Kosovo (gaining independence from Serbia)• Republic of South Sudan (gaining independence from Republic of the Sudan)(2) Possible size of Category B
With the recent destabilization of international affairs, one cannot deny the possibility
that there may be a new collapse of States in the future; in such a case, there will be evenmore relevant countries and regions included in this category.
There are 460 “total number of foreign residents” in Japan with the nationality of the six
States starting with Georgia in the list above. In addition, there are 448 foreign residents
with the nationalities of Eastern European States that became independent from theformer Soviet Union (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan,
Belarus, and Moldova).135
5. Solutions for Category B(1) Prevention
In order to prevent statelessness arising from division or collapse of a State, one must beable to either maintain the nationality of the predecessor State or to newly acquire thenationality of the successor State. However, there has not been global agreement withregard to the prevention of statelessness arising from State succession, and it is probably
not possible to completely prevent statelessness accompanying State succession.136
134

By July 2016, Japan has recognized as States all the countries listed here which have become
independent since around 1990.
135
Total number of foreign national residents in “Statistics on Foreign National Residents” (December2016), supra note 42.
136
In 2006, the “Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State
Succession” was adopted with a provision for prevention of statelessness. It provides that the State
concerned shall take all appropriate measures to prevent persons, who at the time of the State
succession had the nationality of the predecessor State, from becoming stateless as a result of the60(2) Protection
The current situation is similar to Category A [conflict of laws], in the sense that there isno system for the protection of the rights of stateless persons, a system for statelessness
determinations and protection should be introduced, and stateless persons uponrecognition should be granted residential status and travel documents. In the caseintroduced above, the individual was granted permission to stay on humanitarian grounds
as a result of his application for refugee status; however, there is a possibility that he might
have become an irregular stayer depending on the circumstances. Upon a person’srecognition as a refugee, he or she is granted the status of “long-term resident”. Similarly,
it would be desirable to have a system under which a stateless person is granted the statusof “long-term resident” upon recognition as such.
As in Category A, there should be a policy to routinely consider “without nationality” asa ground for granting special permission to stay as an interim measure until a system is inplace for statelessness determinations and protection.
(3) Reduction
From the perspective of reducing statelessness in this category, one solution is to havethe stateless persons acquire Japanese nationality through application for naturalization incase they cannot acquire the nationality of any other relevant State.
However, it is not necessarily possible to acquire Japanese nationality because, inpractice, a certain level of Japanese language proficiency is required in addition to theconditions for naturalization specified in law (Article 5 of the Nationality Act), and theMinister of Justice has wide discretion. Article 8(iv) of the Nationality Act, which simplifies
the conditions for naturalization, limits its application to stateless persons born in Japan.
At the least, statelessness can be reduced further by amending this provision so thatwhether or not an individual was born in Japan would not be an issue. For example, theprovision can be amended to read, “A person not having any nationality and continuously
having a domicile in Japan for three years or more.”

succession (Article 3); however, only the States Parties to the Convention bear legal obligations. Kozue
Niwa and Kaoru Obata, “Kokka Shoukeini Kansuru Mukokusekino Boushini Kansuru Yooroppa Hyougikai
Jouyaku Oyobi Setsumeihoukokusho [Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness inrelation to State Succession and Explanatory Report]”, Nagoya Daigaku Housei Ronshuu [Nagoya
University Journal of Law and Politics], v.218 (2007), at
http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/2237/8962/1/267-283.pdf, pp.267-283.
The 1961 Convention also provides that “Every treaty between Contracting States providing for thetransfer of territory shall include provisions designed to secure that no person shall become stateless asa result of the transfer” (Article 10(1)); however, as mentioned in supra note 119, the number of States
Parties to the Convention is 70. Furthermore, the International Law Commission’s Articles on
Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States have not been adopted.

61

Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)] Persons unable to have their birth registeredor a passport issued, etc., due to rejection by relevant consular authorities (or inability
to pursue such assistance) for refugee related reasons (Sample cases from Myanmar,
Cameroon, and China)
Category C of statelessness or the risk of statelessness is caused when an individual, who
is a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention, is unable to have his or her birth
registered or passport issued, etc., by the authorities of his or her country of origin such asat the consulate located in Japan.
< Case 4 > considers Myanmar refugees who, under the Myamarese government’s policy
regarding the loss of nationality, are unable to register their nationality or obtain passports
even after the change of circumstances in Myanmar.
In < Case 5 >, an asylum seeker from Cameroon requested the Consulate Section of the
Embassy of Cameroon in Japan to reissue her passport due to the loss of her previous one.
Her request was denied for the reason that she was applying for asylum, and furthermore
the birth registration of her child was also denied.
In < Case 6 >, an asylum seeker from China applied for renewal of his passport, which was
about to expire, at the Consulate Section of the Embassy of China in Japan. The passport
was invalidated immediately on site.
1. Introduction
According to the Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person who, “owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membershipof a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality
and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of thatcountry.”
As apparent from the definition above, refugees and asylum seekers are generally
highly unlikely to be able to avail themselves of diplomatic and consular protection as
nationals, even though they are nationals of their respective countries of origin. Even if
refugees and asylum seekers, after fleeing from their country of origin, give birth tochildren in the country of asylum, they might be likely to hesitate to voluntarily get intouch with the embassy or consulate of their country of origin for fear of the risk ofpersecution. As a result, such children remain unregistered at birth with their country oforigin and may, depending on the circumstances of individual cases, be at risk of
becoming stateless. Moreover, even at a point when refugees and asylum seekers
recognize the situation in their country of origin to have improved, there are cases where
they have been denied the issuance of passports or birth registrations of children, upon
visiting the embassy or consulate in Japan and applying for such procedures.
62

2. < Case 4 > Refugees with Myanmar nationality and their children(1) The Myanmar government’s approach
It has been known to the authors that from 1982 to 2016, the number of people from
Myanmar who applied for asylum in Japan was 6,856, and among them, 329 wererecognized as refugees.137 In addition, there are greater numbers of people who are notrecognized as refugees but are given protection on humanitarian grounds.138
Article 16 of the 1982 Citizenship Law of Myanmar provides that a citizen who leaves
the State permanently, or who acquires the citizenship of or registers himself as a citizenof another country, or who is issued with a passport or a similar certificate of anothercountry ceases to be a citizen. It was reported in the media that in June 2013, the Director
General of the Bureau of Immigration and National Registration of Myanmar stated thatpeople who had previously obtained a certificate of registration (citizenshipscrutiny card) and whose passports have expired while overseas, and those
without passports, and those who possess foreign passports, automatically lose
their status as a national of Myanmar and their previous certificate ofregistration is null even if they do not possess another nationality.
It was then announced that they must make an application at the Bureau of Immigration
and National Registration in order to reinstate their status as nationals.139 However, thedetails are not clear.
If this media report is true, many of the recognized refugees from Myanmar would be
likely to be treated as having lost their nationality under the above-mentioned policy of
the Myanmar government and would have difficulty in regaining their nationality unlessthey return to Myanmar and undertake certain procedures.
In fact, many of the Myanmar refugees who have been recognized in Japan so far haveavoided contact with the Embassy of Myanmar. Therefore, it would be difficult for themto take the necessary procedures for regaining nationality. Moreover, many of theirchildren born in Japan have not been registered with the Embassy of Myanmar.
With the recent significant changes in the situation in Myanmar, there are newdevelopments since 2012 among Myanmar refugees in Japan, such as that some of them
have obtained “social visas” (which are issued to foreigners who had previously possessed
137

Zenkoku Nanmin Bengodan Renraku Kaigi [Japan Lawyers Network for Refugees], “Nanmin Nintei
Shinseisuu Oyobi Ninteino Suii, Chiiki Betsu/Shusshinkoku Betsu [Applications and Recognition of Refugee
Status by Region and Country of Origin]”, at
http://www.jlnr.jp/stat/2014/rsd_stat_japan_2014_02.pdf; Ministry of Justice, “Heisei 28 Nenniokeru
Nanmin Ninteishasuutounitsuite, Beppyou 1, Kokuseki Betsu Nanmin Nintei Shinseisuuno Suii [Refugee
Recognition in 2016, Table 1, Applications for Refugee Status by Nationality]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001221345.pdf.
138
People from Myanmar constitute the largest group of refugees in Japan since the 1990s.
139 Myanmar Daily Post, “Kokusekiwo Futatabi Shinseishita Mononouchi 10 Meini Hajimete Kyokagaderu[Ten Obtain Permission for the First Time among Those Who Have Re-applied for Nationality]” (27December 2013, original in Myanmar).

63

Myanmar nationality) and returned to Myanmar, even on a temporary basis. Nevertheless,
it is assumed that a significant number of Myanmar refugees remain in Japan without
having taken the procedure for “regaining their nationality.”
It is no surprise that individuals who have been recognized as refugees for being at riskof persecution from the government authorities of their country of origin avoid contact
with such authorities or are unwilling to return to their country of origin. In light of theabove and the Myanmar government’s reported practice with regard to the loss ofnationality, there is a possibility that a significant number of Myanmar refugees havebecome stateless “who are not considered as a national under the operation of the law.”(2) Administrative response by Japan
Most Myanmar refugees are considered by the Japanese authorities to have Myanmar
nationality, with “Myanmar” shown in the “Nationality/area of origin” column on their(former) alien registration certificates and foreigner residence cards. With regard to legal
actions relating to the personal status of refugees in Japan, such as marriage or filiation,
the applicable law is Japanese law (see Article 12 of the Refugee Convention), and the
difficulties in obtaining various documents from the country of origin are reduced. On
the other hand, Myanmar law is applied to those who are not recognized as refugees but
are given legal status based merely on humanitarian grounds, and they must submit
certificates issued by the Myanmar government.
Under Category D [Persons similarly situated as refugees] it is explained that in thenaturalization procedure, the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Justiceconsiders a child born in Japan from a Vietnamese refugee to be of Vietnamese
nationality. Similarly, it is understood that the nationality of a child born in Japan from a
Myanmar refugee will be considered to be of Myanmar unless there are other exceptional
circumstances. As a result, it has been found that a child born in Japan from a Myanmar
refugee will be considered not to be “stateless” since from the time of his or her birth,and thus the child will fall outside the application of Article 8(iv) (simplified naturalization)of the Japanese Nationality Act and will not be able to obtain Japanese nationality unlessthe regular conditions for naturalization are met.
3. < Case 5 > Asylum seeker from Cameroon and her child(1) Response from the Embassy of Cameroon
A, who is a national of Cameroon, applied for asylum in Japan in 2009 for reasons
related to her religion. She claimed that the agent of persecution was not the State itself,
but there was a lack of protection by the State of origin.140 In the same year, A had her
passport stolen in Japan, so she went to the Embassy of Cameroon in Japan and asked to140

The facts of Case 5 are based on a hearing from A on 25 September 2015 and 17 March 2017.

64

have her passport reissued. However, she was later denied the reissuance of passport byan embassy official for the reason that she had applied for refugee status.
Still later in Japan, in 2015, A gave birth to child B, whose father was a Cameroonian
who was not in marital relationship with A. The Cameroon Nationality Code provides, inSection 6(b), that Cameroon nationality is acquired by an illegitimate child whose natural(biological) parents are both Cameroonians.141 In the same year, A went to the Embassyof Cameroon in Japan in order to register B’s birth. A received the application form, filled
it out, and mailed it to the embassy. However, at a later date, she was told by an embassy
official that B’s birth registration as well as A’s passport reissuance would not be
permitted because she was applying for asylum. B remains unregistered to this day anddoes not possess any document to prove Cameroonian nationality.
A and her child B ostensibly should have obtained Cameroonian nationality under the
Cameroon Nationality Code. However, under the treatment of the Embassy of Cameroon
in Japan, they remain unable to have a passport issued or birth registered. It may bepossible for them to have a passport issued or birth registered if there were a change inthe embassy’s position, but the possibility for such change is not clear at this moment.
Thus, A and B are considered to possess Cameroonian nationality according to the law,
but they might not be treated as nationals under the implementation of the law by theembassy. It is possible that they might not be considered as nationals by any State under
the operation of its law and are at risk of statelessness.
(2) Administrative response by Japan
A and B’s foreigner residence cards display “Cameroon” in the “Nationality/area oforigin” column, indicating that the Immigration Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Justicerecognizes them as persons possessing Cameroonian nationality.
4. < Case 6 > Asylum seeker with Chinese nationality
C, who is a well-known pro-democracy activist with Chinese nationality, was in Japanas a student when the Tiennanmen Square incident occurred in 1989. He played a central
role in pro-democracy activities in Japan in protest of the incident and applied for asylum.
In December 1997, C attempted to renew his passport (which was to expire in January1998) at the Consular Section of the Embassy of China in Japan. An official of the141

Law No. 1968-LF-3 of the 11th June 1968 to set up the Cameroon Nationality Code (15 July 1968).
Reference was made to the following:
http://www.refworld.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6b4db1c&skip=0&query=nationality%20code&coi=CMR.

65

Consular Section invalidated C’s valid Chinese passport immediately on site by cutting off
the passport’s right-hand corner and applying a cancellation mark.142
The country with which C has relations is China; however, by invalidating C’s passport,
the Embassy of China in effect made it impossible for C to return to China. The official
invalidation of the passport of a national who is overseas and the prohibition of his returnmeans that the right to return to one’s country of origin, which is a core right of a national,
is denied, and it can be interpreted that the authorities made it clear that they do nottreat C as a national in practice. Therefore, it is possible that C became stateless, notbeing considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.
On the other hand, the Japanese government had considered C as a Chinese national
even after his passport was cancelled, and it has placed China as his nationality on his(former) alien registration certificate and in various procedures.
5. Possible size of Category C(1) Current State of Japan’ Refugee Status Determination System
As stated above, refugees and asylum seekers may, depending on the circumstances ofindividual cases, be at risk of not being treated as nationals by their State of origin andhaving their nationality lost arbitrarily.
Even so, if recognized as a refugee in Japan, one can benefit from various advantages(protections) such as the following: (a) in principle, the status of a “long term resident” (valid
for five years and renewable, according to recent practice) is granted; (b) a refugee travel
document is issued (Refugee Convention Article 28, ICRRA Article 61-2-12); (c) the
conditions for a permanent residence permit are relaxed; 143 (d) an assistance program
including Japanese language education is offered at a facility for supporting long-term
residents; 144 and (e) various difficulties are reduced in public life as a result of having
Japanese law as the law applicable to the personal status of refugees.
However, the number of refugee recognitions in Japan has remained at a quite low level
for many years, varying from a few per year to some tens per year.145 Since the refugee
142

Later, C was recognized as a refugee by Japan in December 2001. For details of Case 6, see Sosuke
Seki, “Chounan Jiken [Zhao Nan Case]”, Ito Kazuo Bengoshi Zaishoku 50 Shuunen Shukuga Ronbunshuu:
Nihonniokeru Nanmin Soshouno Hattento Genzai [Collection of Papers in Celebration of Attorney Kazuo
Ito’s 50 Years of Work: Development of Asylum Litigation in Japan and Where We Are Today] (Gendai
Jinbunsha, 2010), pp.51-62.
143
For recognized refugees, the requirement for the period of residence is eased, and the requirement
for ability to support oneself is waived. Ministry of Justice, “Eijuu Kyokanikansuru Gaidorain [Guidelines
on Permission for Permanent Residence]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyukan_nyukan50.html.
144
See Agency for Cultural Affairs, “Nanminni Taisuru Nihongo Kyouiku [Japanese Language Education
for Refugees]”, at http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/kokugo_nihongo/kyoiku/nanmin_nihongokyoiku/.
145
The total annual number of recognitions, including first instance and appeal, was 46 in 2005, 34 in
2006, 41 in 2007, 57 in 2008, 30 in 2009, 39 in 2010, 21 in 2011, 18 in 2012, 6 in 2013, 11 in 2014,66

status determination system was established in 1982, for 35 years up to the end of 2016,
41,046 people applied for asylum and 699 were recognized146 (557 in the first instanceand 131 on appeal).147 Compared to those recognized as refugees under the 1951 Refugee
Convention, those permitted to stay in Japan with a residential permit on humanitarian
grounds are relatively greater in number. The reality is that there is a considerable numberof people who are not able to enjoy the above-mentioned benefits available to recognizedrefugees.
The political situation in a refugee’s country of origin can change with the passage oftime. There are cases where the political situation in a country that had once produced
refugees has improved, and the government encourages refugees who had fled overseas
to return and reconfirms their status as nationals (or has their status reinstated if
denationalized). However, changes in political circumstances take a long time, and one
cannot deny the fact that especially the children born in Japan during such a period areplaced in situations where their nationality status remains unclear for a long period of time.
Similar to Category D [Persons similarly situated as refugees], second-generation children
born in Japan from refugee parents are normally understood by Japanese administrative
authorities to be foreign nationals on the assumption that they have inherited thenationality of their parents, but they do not receive treatment as nationals of that State.
(2) Possible size of Category C
As stated in Section (1) above, the number of persons recognized as refugees remains at
688 (557 in the first instance and 131 on appeal) over the 35 years since the introductionof the refugee status determination system. Moreover, even though the number is 688,
there exist no statistics that have accurately followed their situation after their recognition.
There is no clear data about, for example, how many among the 688 above still remain in
Japan, how many have obtained the nationality of Japan or another country, or how many
have given birth, etc.

35 in 2015, and 28 in 2016 (based on press releases from the Ministry of Justice in each year, as well as
Ishibashi Michihiro Sangiin Giin “Wagakuniniokeru Nanmin Ninteino Joukyounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho”
Nitaisuru 2015 Nen 8 Gatsu 18 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San Shitsu 189 Dai 233 Gou)
[Government Response on 18 August 2015 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet concerning
Recognition of Refugee Status in Japan” Submitted by Michihiro Ishibashi, Member of the House ofCouncillors (No. 189-233, Questions in the House of Councillors, Cabinet)].
146
Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, “Heisei 28 Nenniokeru Nanmin Ninteishasuutounitsuite,
Beppyou 3, Wagakuniniokeru Nanmin Higono Joukyoutou [Refugee Recognition in 2016, Table 3, Situationof Asylum in Japan]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001221347.pdf.
147
Also, as described in Category D below, Japan has been accepting not only Convention refugees
through refugee status determination but also refugees through resettlement and Indochinese refugees
as “teijuu nanmin [settled refugees]”.

67

On the other hand, if we were to include asylum seekers into this category, the number
of applicants has risen sharply in the few years leading up to 2016.148 With the rise inapplications, the number of pending cases (i.e., the number of individuals who have thestatus of applicants) has become more than 10,000.149
Therefore, if we were to include asylum seekers, the number of those who would fallunder Category C would be sharply on the rise.
Given the instability of the global situation, one cannot deny the possibility that the
number of persons who come to Japan for asylum will continue to increase further for thetime being.
6. Solutions for Category C(1) Prevention
First, for recognized refugees regardless of whether or not they have a nationality,
naturalization procedures should be put in place and implemented in accordance with
Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (“The Contracting States shall as far as possible
facilitate the… naturalization of refugees”). If the easy and rapid acquisition of Japanesenationality can be secured for the first-generation refugees, then the prevention ofstatelessness for the subsequent generations born in Japan can be achieved as well.
In cases where refugee parents are still stateless at the time of the birth of their children
in Japan, the children should acquire Japanese nationality by the application of Article 2(iii)of the Nationality Act. Furthermore, similar to Category A [Conflict of laws], in response tocases that cannot be covered by Article 2(iii), it is possible to create a new provision, i.e.,
Article 2(iv) which provides Japanese nationality when a person, for example, is “born inJapan who does not acquire the nationality of his or her father or mother’s country ofnationality.”150 (In this regard, see also Category G [Unknown or stateless parents].)
148 The number of applications for refugee status (in the first instance) is sharply on the rise, with 384

in 2005, 954 in 2006, 816 in 2007, 1,599 in 2008, 1,388 in 2009, 1,202 in 2010, 1,867 in 2011, 2,545
in 2012, 3,260 in 2013, 5,000 in 2014, 7,586 in 2015, and 10,901 in 2016. (See supra note 146.)
149
As of the end of June 2015, the number of pending applications for refugee status was 4,590 in thefirst instance and 6,240 on appeal, the total being 10,830 (Kyodo Tsushin, 19 February 2016, “Nanmin
Shinsa Machi, Ichimannin Koe Saitani Shinseiga Kyuuzou, 15 Nen 6 Gatsu Matsu [Over 10,000 Waiting for
Refugee Status Determination, Highest Number with Sharp Increase in Applications, End June 2015]”).
150
In addition, as recommended by the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No.4, from the perspectiveof preventing statelessness, it would be effective to introduce legislation to enable children born inJapan from refugee parents to acquire Japanese nationality, depending on the concerned individuals’
choices, even in cases where they should have normally acquired the parents’ nationality under the textof the applicable law, in light of the fact that they would normally be unable or unwilling to avail
themselves of the protection of the parents’ country and would presumably become long-term residents
in Japan in the future. See UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No.4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right toAcquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness(21 December 2012), II f) “Special Position of Refugee Children”, at68

(2) Protection
First of all, if Japan pursues the further stabilization of the status of asylum seekers andenhances the specific protection policies after recognition as refugees in line with theobject and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention, stateless refugee persons fallingunder Category C would naturally be protected.
Furthermore, from the perspective of the protection of stateless persons, introducing astatelessness determination and protection system would ensure that such persons would
be protected to some extent even if they are not recognized as refugees. (Refer to the
proposals under Category A in terms of the desirable contents of a statelessness
determination and protection system, as well as of relevant systems relating to residential
status and special permission to stay.)(3) Reduction
As mentioned in (1) above, first, facilitated naturalization procedures should be put inplace and implemented in accordance with Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention forrefugee parents.
Also, under the current circumstances in which the addition of Article 2(iv) to the
Nationality Act has not yet materialized, if facilitated and rapid acquisition of Japanesenationality is made possible based on Article 8(iv) for stateless refugees born in Japan, thena steady reduction of statelessness would be possible.
Moreover, in parallel with the above, from the perspective of actively reducing
statelessness, the introduction of legislation to facilitate the naturalization of statelesspersons regardless of their place of birth would open the way for first-generation refugees
to acquire Japanese nationality and further reduce statelessness, as explained under
Category B [State succession I].

http://www.refworld.org/docid/50d460c72.html (in English) andhttp://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=548996e74 (inJapanese), para. 28.
Also, for the latest discussions relating to nationality and the statelessness of refugee children, see
Gabor Gyulai (for European Council on Refugees and Exiles), “The right to a nationality of refugee
children born in the EU” (February 2017), at
https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/refugee-children-nationality-LEAP-leaflet.pdf.

69

Category D [Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)] Persons unable
to have their birth registered or a passport issued, etc., due to rejection by relevant
consular authorities (or inability to pursue such assistance) for reasons related to theirstatus being similar to refugees (Sample cases from Vietnam and Myanmar)
Category D covers statelessness or risk of statelessness which is caused when persons who
are not recognized as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention but are accepted inJapan as “settled refugees” or on “humanitarian grounds” cannot have their birth registeredor passport issued, etc., by the consular authorities of the country of origin.
< Case 7 > involves a second-generation Indochinese refugee who has remained unable toregister herself as a national with the Vietnamese embassy in Japan, as her parents may
possibly have lost their Vietnamese nationality and are without documents to prove theirnationality.
< Case 8 > involves a second-generation Myanmar refugee who was born in Japan after
his or her parents arrived in Japan through third country resettlement but is highly likely tobe refused birth registration with the Myanmar embassy due to the fact that his or her
parents are without a valid Myanmar passport.
1. Introduction
In addition to refugees who have been recognized as such under the 1951 Refugee
Convention, Japan has admitted so-called “settled refugees (teijuu nanmin)”. Before andafter the end of the 1975 Vietnamese war, a mass-exodus of people occurred from thethree Indochinese countries, i.e. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Japan also started toreceive so-called "boat people" and admitted 11,319 Indochinese refugees from theabovementioned three countries between 1978 and 2005.151
Thirty years later, Japan introduced what is now referred to as a third country
resettlement program to admit persons staying temporarily in places like refugee camps
outside Japan. In the seven years between 2010 to 2016, Japan admitted a total of 123
refugees from Myanmar staying in refugee camps in Thailand or in Malaysia as "resettled
refugees" by accepting some dozens consisting of several families every year. 152 The
151

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Kokunainiokeru Nanminno Ukeire [Acceptance of Refugees into Japan]”(October 2016), at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/nanmin/main3.html.
152
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Daisangoku Teijuu Nanmin (Dai 7 Jin) Nitaisuru Teijuu Shien Puroguramuno
Kaishi [Settlement Assistance Programme Begins for Resettled Refugees (7th Group)]” (October 2016),
at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/press4_003777.html.

70number of persons who have been given special permission for residency on humanitarian
grounds, while not being recognized as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention,amounted to 2,543 persons between 1991 to 2016.153
These teijuu nanmin, such as Indochinese or resettled refugees, are granted residency
permits like those of long-term residents, but they would not be granted refugee statusunder the 1951 Refugee Convention unless they separately apply for refugee status andare subsequently recognized as such. Persons granted humanitarian status are granted
residency permits either for long-term residency or for "designated activities", but they do
not hold a formal status as refugees.
Children who are born to these "settled refugees" may be, depending on thecircumstances of individual cases, at risk of becoming stateless for reasons including that
their parents, seeking refuge in Japan and fleeing their country of origin, generally do notregister their birth at the consular authorities in Japan. (This may include cases where they
avoid visits to the consulate or they lack documents proving their identity or the nationalityof their parents.)
2. < Case 7 > Indochinese refugees
A was born in Japan in 1981 of parents who are (supposed to be) Vietnamese nationals.
A's parents and sisters came to Japan in 1982 via a refugee camp in the Philippines, fleeing
persecution after their area of residence in South Vietnam had fallen under the control ofthe socialist regime.154 A's parents did not have any documents proving their nationality,
and they did not register A's birth with the embassy of Vietnam in Japan.
(1) Laws and regulations of Vietnam
Decree No. 53/SL on Vietnamese citizenship, signed on 20 October 1945 by the thenpresident, provided for the acquisition of nationality by jus sanguinis from paternal descent

153 Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, supra note 146.
154

See below for the details of Case 7. Nguyen Thi Hong Hao, “Mukokuseki Joutaitoshite Ikirukoto –Kojinno Keikenkara [Living in Statelessness: From a Personal Experience]”, Tien Shi Chen, ed.,Sekainiokeru Mukokusekishano Jinkento Shien – Nihonno Kadai – Kokusai Kenkyuu Shuukai Kiroku [Human
Rights and Assistance to Stateless People in the World – Challenges in Japan – Record of International
Workshop] (Kokuritsu Minzoku Hakubutsukan Chousa Houkoku [National Museum of Ethnology Research
Report] 118, 2014), pp.97-99.

71

only. 155 Article 7 of the Decree provided that Vietnamese nationals will lose theirnationality if: they have been naturalized in foreign countries; they decline to resign frompositions they have held overseas even though they have been warned by theGovernment; or they have committed acts infringing upon the independence and thedemocratic republican regime of Vietnam.
A’s father is a Vietnamese national, and according to the 1945 Decree, A had acquired
Vietnamese nationality at the time of birth unless the father had lost his Vietnamese
nationality by the time A was born. It is not necessarily clear whether the fact that persons,
including A’s father, which had fled Vietnam after the socialist regime’s takeover of thearea of origin was considered to fall within the ground for nationality loss under 1945
Nationality Law, i.e., that they “committed acts infringing upon the independence and thedemocratic republican regime of Vietnam,” and whether the Vietnamese authorities had
implemented the law to have these refugees lose their nationality.
(2) Responses of Vietnamese embassy
Nevertheless, at the age of 15, A travelled to Vietnam as a non-national by obtaining
a visa through a visa application agency in order to visit relatives with family members,
with the visa issued on the re-entry permit which was issued by the Japanese government(and which could be used in lieu of a passport).156 Furthermore, at the age of 17, A again
visited Vietnam as a foreigner by obtaining a visa with which A was able to stay for threemonths for language study purposes. In the 1990s, some Vietnamese refugees andchildren wished to return even temporarily to Vietnam, with the understanding that thecircumstances had changed in the country of origin. However, even if they went to theVietnamese Embassy in Japan and claimed to be nationals, they could not have passports
issued. All they could obtain were visas, and there were actual cases of persons who
returned with such visas. According to A, in the 2000s when A traveled to Vietnam, it
was common knowledge within the Vietnamese community in Japan that refugees could
not have their children registered at the embassy and that neither the parent nor the childcould obtain a passport.157
As for the reasons for not registering birth or not issuing a passport, there was anunderstanding that some Vietnamese refugees in Japan had been told that it was“because there were no documents to prove Vietnamese nationality (of the parents).”
Therefore, A gave up on the birth registration and passport without ever visiting the155

Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lam, “A History of Vietnam’s Citizenship Laws” (1 July 2009), at
http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/a-history-of-vietnams-citizenship-laws-4519.html.
156
Based on a hearing from A, on 17 September 2016. A’s re-entry permit (see Chapter 1, Section 1,
Sub-section 1(2) of this report) with a Vietnamese visa attached was verified.
157
Ibid.

72

embassy, as A did not have any documents to indicate Vietnamese nationality of A’s
parents.158
Thus, A does not have any documents proving A’s parents’ nationality, has notundertaken any procedure to register with the embassy of Vietnam, and is unable toprove the possession of Vietnamese nationality. Therefore, A may possibly have been astateless person who was not considered a national by any State under the operation ofits law.
(3) Administrative response by Japan
The “nationality or area of origin” column of A’s previously-issued alien registration
certificate or the subsequently-issued foreigner residence card stated “Vietnam”.
Furthermore, when A visited a legal affairs bureau in the Kansai area to consult it abouta naturalization application, A emphasized to the officer in charge of the case that theJapanese Nationality Act contained a provision to facilitate naturalization of a statelessperson born in Japan. However, the officer in charge of A´s case judged A to be
Vietnamese and not stateless. While A was a graduate student at that time, the officer
refused to receive A´s naturalization application, stating that A was not qualified to apply
for naturalization as A lacked financial stability, which is required for normal
naturalization applications.
As demonstrated in this case, children of Vietnamese refugees in Japan, while they
have not been registered with the Vietnamese authorities and have not received
treatment as nationals, they have nevertheless been treated by the Japanese authorities
as Vietnamese nationals.
(4) Nationality acquisition
A subsequently gained employment with a private company and applied fornaturalization at a legal affairs bureau in the Kanto area. A was exempted from submitting
the normally-required certificate of having lost Vietnamese nationality by providing
instead a written statement explaining the reasons why A cannot acquire such acertificate from the Vietnamese authorities. A’s naturalization was granted in 2014.159
3. < Case 8 > Refugee admitted through resettlement
All refugees admitted through third country resettlement to Japan so far are originally
Myanmar people. The birthplace of such admitted refugees can be Myanmar or a refugee
158

Based on a hearing of A by Ms. Mai Kaneko (16 April 2013).

159 Since A’s birth was not registered with the Vietnamese authorities and A was unable to confirm hernationality, the prerequisites might have been missing for acquiring a certificate for loss of nationality.
Considering the fact that A had submitted a certificate of residence record (teijukeireki shomeisho) issued
by Refugee Assistance Headquarters, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and had
provided evidence about her inability to obtain proof of nationality, it would have been excessive todemand A to produce a certificate for loss of nationality.

73

camp in Thailand. Some families have had their children born in Japan after being
admitted to Japan. For example, a married couple, B and C, admitted to Japan throughresettlement had a child born in 2012, hereinafter referred to as D .
(1) Acquisition of Myanmar nationality
D, however, has never been registered with the embassy of Myanmar. B and C wereborn in Myanmar but were previously in a refugee camp in Thailand, and they came to
Japan with a travel document issued by the Japanese authorities. B and C do not possessa Myanmar passport.
Under the 1982 Citizenship Act of Myanmar, a child of parents who are both
Myanmar nationals is supposed to acquire Myanmar nationality by birth. However, theembassy of Myanmar in Japan has certain requirements such as the submission of theparents’ valid Myanmar passports in order for the children’s birth to be registered. B andC, as stated above, do not have a valid passport. Furthermore, as they have been admitted
to Japan as refugees fearing persecution in Myanmar, they are afraid of approaching theembassy of Myanmar. B and C have not gone to the embassy and D has not been able tobe registered as a Myanmar national.
In light of the above circumstances, D is at risk of becoming a stateless person who
is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.
(2) Administrative response by JapanThe Japanese authorities consider them all—including B, C, and their children born ina refugee camp in Thailand and in Japan, including D—to be equally of Myanmar
nationality. The “nationality etc.” column of their alien registration certificate (issued
before the law reform relating to alien registration) and the “Nationality/area of origin”
column of their foreigner residence card (issued after the law amendment) both list
“Myanmar”.
4. Possible size of Category D(1) Circumstances of the persons who have not been (able to be) recognized formally as
refugees
The persons in the above cases 7 and 8 are not treated as 1951 Convention refugees
because they have not formally been recognized as refugees by the Japanese
authorities.160 They represent those who, in reality and substantively, have (or used tohave) qualifications as Convention refugees at least to a certain extent, and for thisrefugee-related reason, they may possibly not be recognized as nationals by the State ofwhich they are supposed to have nationality. Persons within this category are in principle
160 There are some Indochinese refugees who applied for and were granted refugee status, although

the number is small.

74

unable to have Japanese law applied in their legal actions affecting their civil status, as
Article 12 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which provides that “The personal status ofa refugee shall be governed by the law of the country of his domicile (or residence)”, isnot considered to apply to them.161 Thus, persons falling within Category D are similar
to those falling within Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)] in the sense that they
are possibly not recognized as nationals by the purported countries of nationality, butthey differ in the sense that the former cannot benefit from the application of Article 12of the 1951 Refugee Convention designating the law of the country of residence forrefugees’ personal status.
Thus, persons falling within Category D often face difficulties in procedures related
to their legal actions changing their personal status such as marriage or recognition of
their children as they are requested to submit certificates issued by their countries of
purported nationality. This category of persons may have an easier time with themunicipal offices in the areas where settled refugees are concentrated, which may accept
documents such as written statements that the persons concerned are settled refugees.
However, when it comes to municipal offices without experiences of dealing with thiscategory of persons, they may be simply denied processing of their applications for lackof the required documents.
Furthermore, as under the current implementation of the relevant legal provision,
persons in this category are not considered able to benefit from facilitated naturalization.
In order to acquire Japanese nationality, they must fulfill the normal naturalization
requirements; i.e., they cannot naturalize unless they turn 20 and qualify themselves asfinancially stable, and so on.

(2) Possible size of category D
This category includes (i) so-called “settled refugees” (i.e., Indochinese refugees),(ii) persons granted special permission for residency on humanitarian grounds,162 and(iii) persons who arrived in Japan via third country resettlement.
“Settled refugees” under (i) above cumulatively amount to 11,319 persons, as stated in
sub-section (1) above. 163 Persons who have been granted special permission for
161

However, there are some cases including divorce cases, where the law of Japan, the place of habitualresidence, was recognized as the applicable law, providing that the family court should giveconsiderations similar to Convention refugees when deciding on the applicable law.
162 “Persons granted special permission for residency on humanitarian grounds” are persons whose
application for refugee status was rejected (including on appeal) but who were granted the status of
mid- to long-term resident on humanitarian grounds; they include individuals with Special Permission to
Stay, and change of residential status to “Long-term Resident”, “Designated Activities”, etc.
163
The total number of Indochinese refugees accepted into Japan from 1978 to the end of 2005 was
11,319 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 19 October 2016, “Kokunainiokeru Nanmin Ukeire [Refugee
Acceptance in Japan]”, at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/nanmin/main3.html.

75

residency on humanitarian grounds under (ii), as stated in sub-section (1), number 2,543
persons. The number of persons who arrived in Japan through third country resettlement
under (iii) above is 123, as also stated in sub-section (1).164 This category of persons canbe considered, depending on their individual circumstances, to be at risk of statelessness.
However, as in Category C it is unknown how many persons falling within (i), (ii) and (iii)still reside in Japan. It cannot be known how many persons among them have acquired
Japanese or another nationality or how many have given birth to how many children.
(Nevertheless, for Indochinese refugees under (i), a certain number of them applied forrefugee status after their arrival in Japan and were subsequently recognized, and thus acertain number of them has moved from Category D to Category C.)
5. Solutions for category D(1) Prevention
Measures to prevent statelessness of persons falling within Category D, consisting of
persons similarly situated as refugees, are in principle the same as those proposed forCategory C [Refugees] above.
(2) Protection
It is essential that refugee status determination procedures are conducted in accordancewith the object and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention and that persons who qualify
as refugees are duly recognized as such and are protected. This would result in persons
recognized as refugees currently falling within Category D being “transferred” to Category
C and benefitting from protection as Convention refugees.
It is desirable that persons remaining within Category D be given protection as close asthat for 1951 Convention refugees, considering that their status and circumstances are
similar to refugees, including by applying Chapter 2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention byanalogy wherever possible.
Apart from the above, the establishment of a system to determine statelessness statuses
and to protect stateless persons will ensure protection to some extent irrespective of theperson’s status as a refugee. (C.f., Category A on how exactly the statelessness
determination and protection system or the relevant systems related to residency statusor special permission for residency should be.)(3) Reduction
From the point of view of reducing statelessness, reforming the law to facilitate
naturalization of stateless persons regardless of their place of birth will enable this164 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website; ibid. A total of 123 Myanamarese refugees (31 families) havebeen resettled from camps in Thailand over seven years, including the pilot period.

76

category of persons to acquire Japanese nationality ending their statelessness. This
proposal is common with Categories B and C.
Furthermore, as in (2) above (Protection), recognizing that this category of persons
should be treated in the same or similar manner as refugees, the application of Article 34of the 1951 Refugee Convention by analogy (facilitated naturalization) should bepositively considered.

77

Category E [Change of personal status] Persons who had acquired Japanese nationality
at birth but due to a subsequent change in legal parentage “lost” such nationality
retroactively going back to the time of birth (Sample cases from ROK/Japan,
China/Japan)
Category E consists of persons who had acquired Japanese nationality, the nationality of aparent at birth following the jus sanguinis principle, but due to a subsequent court decision
denying their parentage, were denied Japanese nationality retroactively going back to thetime of their birth, consequently making them stateless.
< Case 9 > involves a person born in Japan to a female of ROK nationality married to a
Japanese male and acquired Japanese nationality at birth. After attaining the age ofmajority, his father under the family register filed a lawsuit denying his legal paternity for
not being the biological father, and he was considered to have lost his Japanese nationality
retroactively going back to the time of birth and was removed from the family register,
thereby becoming stateless.
< Case 10 > involves a person who had been a foundling found in China and was
subsequently registered as a biological child of a married couple of Japanese and Chinese
nationals. The family subsequently came to Japan. After coming to Japan, his parentage
was denied through litigation to confirm the non-existence of a parent-child relationship,and he was considered to have lost his Japanese nationality going back to the time of birthand was rendered stateless.
1. < Case 9 > A person born in Japan who acquired Japanese nationality at birth, but
subsequently was denied Japanese nationality going back to the time of birth as aresult of litigation denying the parent-child relationship(1) Case summary
A is a male born in the late 1970s in Japan. The mother who gave birth to A (referred
to as B, who was of ROK nationality at that time) had been living with C, a male ofJapanese nationality since before A was born. B, however, had previously registered her
marriage with D, another male of Japanese nationality. Thus, A was registered under the78

family register with D listed on the top of it with the presumption that165 he had acquired
Japanese nationality by birth as a legitimate child of D and B.166 (A’s family name is thefamily name of D.)
A had thus been, in reality, raised by C and B as the couple’s child while carrying D’s
family name since birth. On a separate note B, the mother, acquired Japanese nationality
by naturalization after A’s birth. A graduated from elementary/junior high/high school
and university near Tokyo as a “Japanese national”. During his university studies, A
obtained various national licenses, and he even visited several foreign countries with apassport under D’s family name. A also studied abroad, including in ROK as a Japanese
student.
In the late 2000s, after A had turned 30, a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of aparent-child relationship was filed against D in order to reflect the actual father-childrelationship between A and C while also reflecting C and B’s wish. When A was in his
early 30s, the court decision to deny his current paternal descent from D was finalized.
However, against the expectations of A and others involved, A was considered to havenever possessed Japanese nationality going back retroactively to the time of birth, as theprerequisite for acquiring Japanese nationality based on Article 2(i) of the preamendment Japanese Nationality Act was lost due to the severed father-childrelationship with D. A was deleted from D’s family register.
C recognized his paternity over A as soon as the court decision to deny D’s paternity
over A was finalized. However, A’s Japanese nationality was not recovered even withanother Japanese male’s recognition of paternity over him, in accordance with Supreme
Court case law ruling that recognition of paternity does not have a retroactive effect inrelation to the acquisition of nationality.167

165 Article 2 (i) (paternal jus sanguinis) of the Nationality Act, before the 1984 amendment (which cameinto force in 1985).
166 On the family register (koseki), see the description in Category M: Persons without a Japanese family

registry, 1. (1). On children born in wedlock, see note 180; on the creation of the family register, seenote 168; and on the procedure for confirmation of the non-existence of a parent-child relationship, seenote 181 below.
167 “Article 2 (i) of the [Nationality] Act adopts both a paternal and maternal jus sanguinis principle inrelation to the acquisition of Japanese nationality at birth; it does not mean that the blood line, whichmerely shows the biological origin of a human being, is held in absolute view; the provision aims to grantnationality when there is a legal parent-child relationship between the child and a Japanese father or motherat the time of birth, for it means that the child has a close link with Japan. And, whereas it is desirable to
make a definite decision on the acquisition of nationality as much as possible at the time of birth, andwhether or not the child would later be recognized by the father is unconfirmed at the time of birth,
there would be reasonable grounds for Article 2 (i) not to retroactively recognize a legal father-childrelationship at the time of birth based on a later recognition by a Japanese father, and not to recognize
acquisition of Japanese nationality at birth through a later recognition by the father alone” [italics added by
the author]. The Supreme Court (Petty Bench II), Judgment, 22 November 2002 (Heisei 14 Nen), Shuumin
Vol. 208, p. 495.

79

As a result, A suddenly started to be treated as an “illegally staying foreigner” and not
as a Japanese national as soon the court decision to deny his previous paternal descent
was finalized.
A filed a lawsuit arguing that such an unfair treatment cannot be accepted and began
litigation with the Tokyo District Court to confirm his possession of Japanese nationality,and he simultaneously filed a petition with the Tokyo Family Court to be newly registeredunder the family register.168 At the same time, to cover all the bases, A approached theTokyo Immigration Bureau and explained his situation, but the Bureau then started toprocess A under the deportation procedure, considering him to be a so-called “illegallystaying” foreigner.
At the end of the deportation procedure, the Minister of Justice, while recognizing
the fact that A had indeed “illegally stayed” in Japan, decided to grant Special Permission
to Stay (Article 50, ICRRA). With this decision, A became a “regularly staying alien”. A
immediately applied for naturalization with the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau, and theMinister of Justice permitted his naturalization by processing his case faster than normalcases. A became a Japanese national once again by naturalization.
Meanwhile, A’s petition to the family court for registration under the family register
was dismissed, and this result did not change when he appealed to the Tokyo High Court
and the Supreme Court. With regard to the litigation to confirm A’s possession ofJapanese nationality, it had to be withdrawn from the District Court due to A’s compellingpersonal circumstances.169(2) Possibility to acquire the nationality of a relevant countrya) Japan
Article 2(i) of the pre-1984 amendment (which came into force in 1985) provides thata child acquires Japanese nationality at the time of birth “When, at the time of its birth,the father is a Japanese national.” The “father” here, in practice, is understood to refer tothe child’s legal father (and not the biological father). It is interpreted that the acquisition

168 Family Register Act, Article 110(1). It is a procedure to request the family court to make an entry

into the family register in case the concerned individual is not listed in the family register even though
he or she has Japanese nationality. “The court procedure for the permission of creation of a family
register is a procedure to create a registered domicile for someone who does not have one, and to makean entry in the family register, by permission of the family court.” “The family court grants permission
for creation of a family register, if it is found through the court proceedings that the concerned person
without a family register is a Japanese national, and that he or she is found to be “a person who has noregistered domicile” as provided in Article 110 (1) of the Family Register Act. See the website of the
Ministry of Justice, “Mukosekino Kataga Mizukarawo Kosekini Kisaisurutameno Tetsudukitounitsuite[Procedures to Register Oneself in the Family Register]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji04_00047.html#q3-6.
169
None of them has been published.

80

of Japanese nationality by birth under article 2(i) cannot be confirmed retroactively justbecause a child was recognized by a Japanese male (father) after birth.170
As stated above, A had been treated as having had acquired Japanese nationality under
Article 2(i) of the Nationality Act by birth with his legal father being D. This was because
A’s mother (who was of ROK nationality at the time of delivery) was legally married to D
(a Japanese national) at the time of A’s birth and the presumption of legitimacy had once
been effective for some time.171 However, 30 years later, the court decision denying thefather-child relationship between A and D had been made and finalized. The fact that A
did not have a legal father at the time of birth was confirmed.
It is noted that A was recognized after birth by C (a Japanese national); however, as
stated above, the current interpretation of the law is that recognition of parentage cannot
have retroactive effect so as to enable the acquisition of Japanese nationality by birth
under Article 2(i). A thus could not acquire Japanese nationality based on his establishedlegal descent from C.172
As a result, A was subjected to quite severe treatment by being considered to haveretroactively lost his Japanese nationality at the time of his birth and being processed as
an illegally staying foreigner as stated above.
b) ROKB, the mother who gave birth to A, was of ROK nationality at the time of delivery.
ROK’s nationality law before the amendment coming into force on 14 June 1998 adopted
the paternal jus soli principle, as with Article 2(i) of the pre-amendment Japanese
Nationality Law. One did not acquire ROK nationality just because he or she was born toa mother of ROK nationality.
Thus, A did not acquire ROK nationality by birth under the law of ROK.173
In practice also, even if A—who had been living as a Japanese national for more than
30 years—suddenly claimed that he “has been of ROK nationality retroactively since the170

See supra note 168; Supreme Court judgment, 22 November 2002.
On presumption of birth in wedlock and its denial, see note 180 below.
172
By the 2008 amendment of the Nationality Act Article 3 (i), it became possible for a child who has
been recognized by a Japanese father before the age of 20 to acquire Japanese nationality even if theparents are not married. However, A in Case 9 would not have been saved even after the amendment
because A was already in his 30s at the time of recognition by C.
173
According to Article 2 (iii) of the Korean Nationality Act effective at the time of A’s birth, “when thefather is unknown… a person whose mother is a national of the Republic of Korea” acquires Koreannationality. However, A, at the time of birth, had a legal father who was a Japanese national, although
this legal father-child relationship was later denied, A was recognized by C, who is the natural father,and therefore already has a legal father. Based on the fact that recognition of a child has a retroactive
effect under the Japanese Civil Code, A would have had a legal father-child relationship with C since thetime of birth. Also, A’s mother naturalized in Japan shortly after A’s birth and no longer has Koreannationality. Under such circumstances and after more than 30 years had passed, there would have beenvery little possibility that A would have been treated as having had acquired Korean nationality at birth
based on Article 2 (iii) of the Korean Nationality Act.
171

81

time of birth”, it could not at all be expected that the ROK authorities would affirm sucha claim. Indeed, A himself approached ROK authorities in the process of his
aforementioned deportation procedures with the Immigration Bureau, but A states hewas simply not taken seriously. Thus, the ROK authorities have never treated A as anational.
Based on the above, it is clear that A was treated by the Japanese authorities as anillegally staying foreigner (ROK national or stateless), and was not recognized as a ROK
national by the ROK authorities. Thus, it should be concluded that A became statelesswhen the court decision to affirm the non-existence of a father-child relationship was
finalized.
(3) Administrative response by JapanAs stated above, C immediately submitted the notification to recognize his paternity
over A as soon as the court decision to affirm the non-existence of a father-childrelationship between A and D was finalized. A appears to have expected that he would betransferred from D’s family register to C’s family register. However, the officers in chargeof family registers in the relevant municipality office within Tokyo removed A from D’s
family register and denied A’s request to be registered under C’s family register, whileconsidering A to have retroactively lost his Japanese nationality.
The Tokyo Immigration Bureau, as if echoing the position of the other agencies,
treated A as an illegally staying foreigner and subjected him to deportation procedures.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Immigration Bureau was attentive to some extent174
to the very unique circumstances in which A was placed, demonstrated by the Bureau’s
attempt to substantively remedy his situation by speeding up the processing of A’s casewhile providing a provisional release permit175 without actually detaining him (Article 39
of ICRRA), as well as by granting him special permission to stay.176
Furthermore, A’s naturalization application that A filed at the Tokyo Legal Affairs
Bureau after being granted special permission for residency was rapidly approved afteran expedited processing as compared to normal cases.
The usual practice is that when a foreigner with a history of illegally staying applies fornaturalization, the application is not granted unless ten years or so have passed after the
regularization of his or her stay. In contrast, A was granted naturalization within one year
174

The Immigration Bureau seems to have undertaken the deportation procedure for A as a Koreannational; it is not clear why A was determined as a national of the Republic of Korea and not stateless.
175 ICRRA Article 54. This is a system provided by ICRRA for temporary release, for an individual who
has been issued a Detention Order or Deportation Order; it is similar to bail in the criminal procedure.
It is necessary to appear once every 1-3 month(s) at the Immigration Bureau and obtain confirmation of
appearance (in case of provisional release under Detention Order) or renewal of permission (in case ofprovisional release under Deportation Order). In immigration practice, strict prohibition of work has
become apparent recently, in addition to limiting the area of movement to within a prefecture.
Meanwhile, the welfare system does not apply to a person under provisional release.
176
ICRRA Article 50 (1). On Special Permission to Stay, see supra note 122.

82

of being regularized, i.e., A was granted special permission to stay. The Legal Affairs
Bureau also appears to have paid particular attention to the severe circumstances into
which A fell.
Notwithstanding the above, within the series of administrative procedures there wasno trace of the administrative bodies showing any doubt as to the substantive andfundamental point of view of treating a person who has been living as a Japanese nationalfor 30 some years since birth as an illegally staying foreigner by considering him to havesuddenly and retroactively “lost” his nationality and thus unilaterally removing him fromhis Japanese family register.
Furthermore, as stated above, A eventually re-acquired Japanese nationality bynaturalization, but it was an acquisition starting from the time of the naturalization grant.
Thus, this acquisition does not change the government’s legal position that A has neverpossessed Japanese nationality (and has always been a foreign national or a statelessperson) from the time of birth until the naturalization grant.
Consequently, a serious question arises as to how to reconcile such a legal position
with the series of facts, including that A has been exercising his right to vote in national
elections ever since he turned 20 years old, has visited foreign countries dozens of times
using his Japanese passport, and has acquired various national licenses under thepresumption that he was a Japanese national. However, the view of the Japaneseadministrative authorities on this matter is unknown.
2. < Case 10> A person born in Japan who acquired Japanese nationality by birth but
was denied his or her nationality retroactively going back to the time of birth after acourt decision denying the existence of a parent-child relationship
Case 9 above involved an individual born in Japan. Case 10 introduces, in summary, aperson born outside Japan who has gone through similar experiences as the person inCase 9. In this case, E, a husband of Japanese nationality, and F, a wife of Chinese
nationality, whose residence was in Japan were not blessed with children. E and F
registered G, who had been found as a foundling near F’s family home in China, and they
had registered G’s birth in China falsely claiming that G was their biological child,
subsequently undertaking the process of “reserving” his Japanese nationality at theJapanese embassy in China (as Chinese nationality law does not allow dual citizenship;
the moment one “reserves” Japanese nationality he or she loses Chinese nationality). As
a result, G arrived in Japan as a Japanese national and had since then been living as a childof E and F.
However, at the time when F underwent a renewal procedure of her residency permit
in Japan, it was revealed that F was in Japan during the very time when G was born. E
and F confessed that G was not their biological child. E and F subsequently had to file alawsuit to confirm the non-existence of the parent-child relationship between G andthemselves with G being the defendant. The decision to confirm the non-existence of G’s
83

descent from E and F was finalized. G was no longer a child of E and F, and consequently
not a child of a Japanese national. As in Case 9, G was considered to have lost his
Japanese nationality retroactively and was rendered stateless.
The Chinese Nationality Act contains a provision which enables a foundling found in
China to acquire Chinese nationality. 177 However, in practice, it would be extremely
difficult for G to undertake any procedure to confirm his Chinese nationality, such as byproving that he had previously been a foundling abandoned in China, as G had alreadybeen living in Japan.
In this case, E and F had a desire to have G become a Japanese national again andcontinue to live in Japan as their child. E and F filed a petition with a family court to adopt
G through the special adoption process178 and obtained the court’s approval, and G was
subsequently granted special permission to stay by the Immigration Bureau. G, being an
adopted child of a Japanese national, applied for facilitated naturalization (Article 8(ii),Japanese Nationality Act) and acquired Japanese nationality once again.
3. Possible size of Category E(1) The risk of retroactively losing Japanese nationality due to a change in personal status
The subjects in Cases 9 and 10 both “lost” the Japanese nationality that they wereconsidered to have previously possessed (i.e., they were deemed to have never possessed
Japanese nationality since birth) because of having been denied such nationality
retroactively due to a change in their personal status. In this sort of case, if a person has
not acquired Japanese nationality, he or she can be rendered stateless. Even if the person
is considered to possibly or theoretically possess another nationality, statelessness canarise due to a retroactive loss of Japanese nationality in cases, for example, where theperson concerned has been based in Japan, and he or she has not contacted theauthorities or the consulate of the relevant foreign country for many years.179
Furthermore, Case 9 poses two additional questions.
The first regards the appropriateness of having Japanese nationality “lost”
retroactively for a person who has been living as a Japanese until reaching the age ofmajority. In this case, a person who had been living as a Japanese national for more than
30 years was retroactively denied his Japanese nationality due to a change in his personal
status, and he “lost” his nationality. A person being denied his or her nationality that he

177 Article 6 of the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that, “Any person bornin China whose parents are stateless or of uncertain nationality and have settled in China shall have
Chinese nationality”. “Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China”, in Nihon Kajo Shuppan Hourei
Hensanshitsu, ed., Koseki Jitsumu Roppou (Heisei 29 Nenban) [Laws for Family Register Practice (2017edition)].
178 On Special Adoption, see supra note 89.
179 For a case that has fallen under similar circumstances, see note 202 below, Yokohama Family Court
Adjudication, 18 September 2003, which is analyzed in Category G [Unknown or Stateless Parents].

84

or she had been holding after reaching adulthood has serious effects not only against theperson concerned, but also against society itself, causing especially significant confusion
in relation to one’s right to vote, to run for election, or to assume the position of a public
servant. Furthermore, if the person concerned has already been married and has had
children or grandchildren, then it can be predicted that his loss of nationality will affectthese offspring’s nationality by a “domino effect” under the jus sanguinis principle.
Second, it is problematic that recognition of parentage is currently interpreted so as
not to have a retroactive effect in relation to nationality. In this particular case, theparent-child relationship forming the basis for A’s nationality acquisition was denied
retroactively at birth, and thus his or her Japanese nationality was retroactively denied.
A’s biological father immediately recognized him or her. However, while recognition ofparentage indeed has a retroactive effect under the Civil Code (Article 784 of Civil Code),
his or her Japanese nationality was still denied due to the official interpretation denying
a retroactive effect in relation to the acquisition of nationality.
(2) Possible size of Category E
There are no statistics that directly show the number of persons who retroactively lose
Japanese nationality due to a change in personal status.
Thus, an attempt is to be made to identify the number based on the number of cases
which have undertaken a procedure to change personal status (such as a denial ofpaternity) possibly causing a loss of nationality.
Realistically, the typical scenario where this category of stateless persons arises iswhere a person acquires Japanese nationality through his or her father by birth via jus
soli, but then such a father-child relationship is subsequently denied and the Japanesenationality that he or she (is supposed to have) received from the father is retroactively
lost. The legal procedures which may cause such situation include: (i) denial of legitimate

85

child status,180 (ii) confirmation of the non-existence of a parent-child relationship,181
and (iii) a petition for recognition of parentage.182 Among the cases where the petitions(i), (ii), or (iii) are approved, the cases where statelessness can arise are limited to scenarios
in which, e.g., the mother is stateless or the mother’s country of nationality adopts a strict
jus soli principle. However, it is extremely difficult to speculate about the ratio of suchcases among all the cases above.
Next, an attempt is made to identify the possible number of cases where this categoryof statelessness arises by looking at the number of deletions among family registers, anaction which necessarily follows the retroactive loss of Japanese nationality.
Within the statistics relating to family registers, approximately 700-900 cases havebeen reported every year in recent years related to Family Register Act Article 103(notification of loss of nationality) and Article 105 (reports of nationality loss when it
comes to the attention of a public office).183
It is unknown how many among the above cases are those for whom the loss ofJapanese nationality is highly likely to result in statelessness (such as when the mother is
180 Civil Code, Article 772: “A child conceived by a wife during marriage shall be presumed to be a childof her husband. A child born after 200 days from the formation of marriage or within 300 days of the
day of the dissolution or rescission of marriage shall be presumed to have been conceived during
marriage.”“A child born during marriage or within 300 days of divorce is presumed to have been conceived
during marriage (a child born in wedlock); therefore, even if the father of the child is another man, upon
submission of the birth report, the child is registered in the family register as a child of the mother andher husband. In order to deny this presumption that the child is fathered by the husband, the husband
must make a claim to the family court for mediation for denial of birth in wedlock, which denies the factthat the child is his own.” “In this mediation, when both parties agree that the child is not a child of thehusband, and when such agreement is deemed just by the family court having conducted the necessary
research on the facts, then the court will make an adjudication in accordance with the agreement.” Court
website, “Chakushutsu Hinin Choutei [Mediation for Denial of Birth in Wedlock]”, at
http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_15/.
181 “Even in case a child is born during marriage or within 300 days of divorce, if it is objectively clearthat the wife has no possibility of becoming pregnant with a child of her husband, for example when thehusband did not have any sexual relationship with the mother of the child due to long-term absence onan overseas mission, imprisonment, separation, etc.; in such cases, it is possible to make a claim to thefamily court for mediation to confirm the non-existence of parent-child relationship.” Court website,“Oyako Kankei Fusonzai Kakunin Choutei [Mediation to Confirm Non-existence of Parent-child
Relationship]”, at http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_16/.
182
In recent practice, when certain conditions are met, it is common to file a claim for mediation or alawsuit to seek child recognition with the biological father being the other party, and to have adetermination within such procedure denying the parent-child relationship between the child and thefather listed in the family register, instead of filing a lawsuit against the legal father to confirm the nonexistence of a parent-child relationship. Court website, “Ninchi Choutei [Mediation for Child
Recognition]”, at http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_18/.
183
711 in 2012, 767 in 2013, 899 in 2014, 921 in 2015, and 1,058 in 2016. Ministry of Justice website,“Kako 5 Nenkanno Kokueki Soushitsushasuuno Suii [5 Year Trends in Number of People Losing
Nationality]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/toukei_t_minj03.html.

86stateless or her country of nationality adopts a strict jus soli principle). However, thesestatistics indeed give some indications.
4. Solutions for Category E(1) Prevention
From a prevention point of view, it is necessary to have changes in legislation andimplementation of the current law which take into account, as a priority, the principles toavoid statelessness and to ensure legal certainty with regard to nationality, which are
fundamental values unique to nationality law.184 Article 5(1) of the 1961 Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness provides that loss of nationality as a consequence of any
change in the personal status of a person, such as marriage, termination of marriage,
legitimation, recognition, or adoption, shall be conditional upon the possession or
acquisition of another nationality. Such a “change in personal status” includes situations,e.g., where the family relationship which constituted the basis of a child’s acquisition ofnationality was registered erroneously.185 Thus, a new legal provision should be createdor the current law should be implemented such that the change in a person’s legal descentfrom a father or mother of Japanese nationality will not result in the him or her losing his
or her Japanese nationality if such a loss consequently leads to statelessness.
Furthermore, even if it does not lead to statelessness, the loss of nationality should be
subject to certain restrictions. While there may be room for discussions as to what shouldbe the point in time beyond which the loss is restricted, it is reasonable to prevent a lossof nationality at the least after a person has reached the age of majority. (To make theage of majority, 20 years of age, the time limit in legislation is consistent with the factthat acquisition of Japanese nationality under Article 3 of the Nationality Act is limited
to persons less than 20 years of age. Restricting nationality “loss”186 for adults is also
consistent with laws of many other States.) 187 Alternatively, if the avoidance of a184

See the Supreme Court judgment on 22 November 2002, supra note 168. (“The call for preventionof uncertainty making it desirable for nationality acquisition to be decided as definitely as possible…”)
185
See Arakaki, supra note 2, p.58.
186 This kind of loss of nationality which is not specified by law is called “quasi-loss”, and it has been
discussed internationally in recent years. That it should not lead to statelessness goes without saying;
the retention of nationality should be continued in accordance with the principle of the prohibition ofarbitrary deprivations of nationality, legitimate expectations, and the principle of proportionality. At theleast, the loss should not be given a retroactive effect. Gerard-René de Groot and Patrick Wautelet,
Chapter 4, “Reflections on quasi-loss of nationality from comparative, international and European
perspectives”, in Sergio Carrera Nuñez and Gerard-René de Groot eds., European Citizenship at the
Crossroads: The Role of the European Union on Loss and Acquisition of Nationality (Wolf Legal Publishers,2015).
187
According to the European Convention on Nationality Article 7(1)(f) as well, a person’s nationality is
not lost after reaching majority (18 years of age in many countries) even in cases where thepreconditions for the automatic acquisition of nationality are no longer fulfilled. This is reflected in theinternal law of many Contracting States. (Some countries designate a period even shorter than 18 years.)87

disadvantage to the person concerned is to be emphasized, the age for restricting
nationality loss should be lowered even further. From the point of view of these
considerations, paragraph (2), for example, should be added to the current Article 2 of
the Nationality Act to perhaps state “a person who has acquired Japanese nationality
under each item of the previous paragraph of this article shall retain such nationality if it
becomes clear, after he or she has reached 20 years of age, that he or she does not fulfill
the requirements under the abovementioned items” or something to that effect.
A solution from a different point of view than the above includes giving retroactive
effect to the recognition of parentage in relation to the acquisition of nationality if aperson’s descent from a parent which formed the basis for his or her acquiring Japanesenationality is denied and such denial has retroactive effects. This would require a change
in Supreme Court jurisprudence or new legislation, but this proposal is also significant interms of ensuring a consistent interpretation of the effects that parentage recognition
have. However, this change would only be effective in situations like theabovementioned case where the biological father (who recognized the person concerned)
is also of Japanese nationality, where Japanese nationality is temporarily lost andretroactively re-acquired. In cases where, e.g., the biological parent of the person who
has lost Japanese nationality is unknown, the person will remain without a Japanesenationality. Thus, this measure is not sufficient as a preventative measure.
(2) Protection
As is clear from the sample cases in Category E, if a retroactive loss of nationality occurs
due to a change in a person’s personal status, the person concerned would be in practicetreated as an illegally staying foreigner in a retroactive manner. However, this treatment ishighly unreasonable and harsh in light of the fact that the person concerned has been living
as a Japanese national up to that point of time. At least the person’s status as a regularstayer should be ensured by changing the Immigration Bureau’s practice so as to allow theperson to acquire residency status (as a foreigner) if he or she is within 30 days of a loss ofJapanese nationality.188
188

It is an issue of interpretation of the starting point in ICRRA Article 22-2 (2), which provides that “[aforeign national] … shall apply to the Minister of Justice for the acquisition of a status of residence inaccordance with the procedures pursuant to the provisions of an Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice
within 30 days, on and after the date of his or her renouncement of Japanese nationality, birth, or othercause.” For example, if the timing of the final court decision on non-existence of parent-childrelationship (by which Japanese nationality is treated as having been lost retroactively) is interpreted as
the “date of other cause”, then it would be possible to acquire a status of residence by application within
30 days from that date.
On the other hand, in immigration practice, sometimes a status of residence is granted even after the
30 days by “special acceptance”, without undergoing the deportation procedures; a flexible approach
including “special acceptance” would be most desirable. Concerning this issue, a case was reported in
the 25th Statelessness Workshop held on 16 June 2017 at Yotsuya Hoken Center (Tokyo), in which the
Immigration Bureau in the 1980s granted a status of residence by special acceptance to an individual88Separately, the same recommendations are applied as in Category A, B, C, D in terms ofthe need to ensure a certain level of protection by establishing a statelessness
determination and protection system or streamlining the system relating to residency
permits and special permission for residency.
(3) Reduction
In the sample cases of Category E, the persons concerned were rapidly granted
naturalization. However, this favorable treatment is not based on a legal provision. It is
unclear whether the same treatment is generally guaranteed for similar cases.
Until changes in legislation or case law such as those proposed in (1) above actuallymaterialize, treatment reflecting the spirit of Article 32 of the 1954 Convention upon aperson’s naturalization application should be ensured for persons who retroactively lose
their Japanese nationality due to changes in their personal status.

whose Japanese nationality had been denied at age 22 with retroactive effect going back to the time ofbirth.

89

Category F [Failure of naturalization and restoration of previous nationality] Persons whorenounced their previous nationality in the naturalization or nationality restoration process
who nevertheless failed to acquire another nationality (Sample cases from Pakistan,
China/Bolivia）
Category F is statelessness that arises from situations where persons apply fornaturalization or nationality restoration and in the process renounce their previous
nationality with the expectation that their application would be accepted, but neverthelessthey fail to acquire another nationality.
In < Case 11 >, a couple and their child with Pakistani nationality applied for naturalizationin Japan and renounced their Pakistani nationality based on an instruction by a legal affairs
bureau at the time when their grant of naturalization had been informally decided.
However, immediately thereafter, it became apparent that the husband had a history of
having been deported from Japan and that his (re-)entry to Japan and naturalization
application were made under a false name; consequently, the entire family had theirnaturalization application denied and became stateless.
In < Case 12 >, an individual who had Chinese nationality acquired Bolivian nationality
through naturalization and renounced his Chinese nationality in his 40s, but later he had achange of mind and wished to restore his Chinese nationality. He renounced his Bolivian
nationality during a short-term stay in Japan according to an instruction by the Consular
Section of the Chinese Embassy in Japan; however, his application for restoration ofChinese nationality was not granted later, and he became stateless.
1. < Case 11 > A person who, after renouncing the original nationality, was not granted
the expected Japanese nationality by naturalization
A, who has Pakistani nationality, came to Japan in the late 1990s as a student. However,A quit school and continued to stay in Japan despite the fact that his residence permit asa student had expired; he was deported to Pakistan.
In the 2000s, A re-entered Japan with a false passport under a false name and wasstaying in Japan with the status of a long-term resident. Later, his wife also came to Japan,
and they had a child in Japan. In 2001, in the process of applying for naturalization, A andhis family renounced their Pakistani nationality and became stateless, as they were
instructed to submit a certificate of renunciation of Pakistani nationality.
Subsequently, A’s period of stay in Japan expired, but he thought it was unnecessary
to extend his period of stay because his naturalization procedure was underway. Without
the extension of the period of stay, he became a so-called over stayer. When this fact
was pointed out by the legal affairs bureau, A appeared at an immigration bureau. When90

the regional immigration bureau checked A’s background for an assessment of residential
status, it came to light that he had been deported in the mid-1990s and that the passport
he used to re-enter Japan had been forged. With these facts, the legal affairs bureau
explained to A that his application for naturalization was not likely to be granted andadvised him to withdraw his application.
Under these circumstances, A renounced his Pakistani nationality, withdrew his
application for naturalization, and had no prospect of acquiring Japanese nationality.
However, A was given special permission to stay, and he and his family were allowed tocontinue their stay in Japan.
A’s wife and child do not have Pakistani nationality because they have renounced it.
They do not have Japanese nationality either because they had withdrawn theirapplication for naturalization. There is no other State whose nationality they might haveacquired; they have become stateless.
However, A’s renunciation of nationality made under a false name may be invalid, andtherefore he may have not lost his Pakistani nationality. Even so, in order to confirm his
nationality under his real name, he will need to explain in his home country that he left
the country using a false passport and has renounced his nationality under a false name.
There is a legal issue of the Pakistani government’s interpretation about who the actor isfor the purposes of the renunciation of nationality. It is not clear if A was later able toconfirm his Pakistani nationality, and it is possible that he has become stateless.
2. < Case 12 > A person who renounced his or her Bolivian nationality while staying inJapan and failed to restore his or her Chinese nationality
B was born in China in 1952 and had Chinese nationality. B renounced his or her
Chinese nationality and acquired Bolivian nationality by naturalization in 1993 because
the Chinese government had the policy of preferential treatment for foreign investors
and because it would be easy to travel abroad. However, the validity of a Bolivian
passport was for one year, and it was necessary to renew it in Bolivia; feeling thisinconvenient, B thought about restoring his or her Chinese nationality. In 1995, while B
was in Japan with the status of a short-term stayer, B went to the Chinese Embassy inJapan and applied for restoration of Chinese nationality. As China does not recognize
multiple nationalities, it was necessary for B to renounce his or her Bolivian nationality;
based on instructions by the Chinese Embassy, he or she renounced his or her Bolivian
nationality in advance. However, later, B was told by the Chinese Embassy that his or her
application for restoration of nationality was denied by the authorities in China for thereason that he or she did not have the residential status of a long-term resident in Japan.

91Thus, B became a stateless person without a nationality of any State.189 While waiting
for contact from the Chinese Embassy, B’s period of stay in Japan also expired.
B was overstaying for more than 10 years but voluntarily appeared at a regional
immigration bureau in 2007 and requested special permission to stay. In 2010, B was
granted special permission to stay with nationality noted as “Stateless”. After obtaining
the permission to stay in Japan, B proceeded to restore B’s nationality at the Embassy ofChina, and B currently holds Chinese nationality.
When B became stateless in Japan, having already lost residential status, B could notreceive any social welfare benefits including health insurance and was not allowed towork. 190 B was in a predicament with the tightened immigration control of irregularstayers under the “Five year plan to reduce irregular stayers by half”, which began in 2004
with the Immigration Bureau and the Police Agency.
Before obtaining permission to stay in Japan and restoring Chinese nationality, B tried
to open a bank account at a local bank by showing B’s (former) alien registration
certificate; however, B was unable to open an account because B’s alien registration
certificate, which showed “Stateless” in the nationality section, was regarded withsuspicion.
3. Possible size of Category F(1) The risk of statelessness in undertaking procedures to change (renounce) nationality
Category F covers statelessness that arises temporarily or lasts for a long-term when aperson renounces his or her previous nationality for the purpose of naturalization or anationality recovery process which then fails and the person cannot acquire a newnationality immediately. Case 11 (hereinafter referred to as “naturalization failure case” inthis section) is a typical case in terms of naturalization-related ones. It occurs for example
when a person applies for naturalization to country α which does not allow dual nationality,
he or she is requested to renounce the nationality of country β, and when he or sherenounces country β’s nationality, naturalization permission is suspended or disapprovedfor circumstances that arose or are revealed before the formal grant of naturalization.
Under the current naturalization related practice in Japan, applicants are urged throughthe relevant legal affairs bureau to acquire a certificate of having renounced their current
nationality when their naturalization is about to be approved, i.e., has “informally” been
approved. They are requested to submit this document by the formal notification of
approval of naturalization.

189

On details about how B became stateless, see the case of Lee Man-Biu below. Chen Tien Shi,
Wasurerareta Hitobito, Nihonno “Mukokuseki” Sha [Forgotten People: “Stateless” in Japan] (Akashi Shoten,2010), pp. 74-77.
190 In reality, however, the control of irregular stayers from the late 1990s to early 2000s was not as
strict as it is today, and B was able to make a living by running his own business.

92This practice has long been in place. This means that potentially there arises a risk ofstatelessness for all cases where naturalization is about to be approved. Even if theprevious country of nationality allows for cancellation of the loss of nationality or forrecovery of nationality, statelessness would arise at least temporarily. On the other hand,as in Case 12 (hereinafter the “failed restoration of nationality” type in this section), there
can be cases where persons concerned believe that their previous nationality β can berestored or that they still possess country β’s nationality, and at their own will they
renounce their current nationality α; but against their expectation they fail to have β’snationality recovered and fall into statelessness.
(2) Possible size of Category F
Despite this, it is quite difficult to identify the number of cases where this these sortsof “naturalization failure” or “nationality restoration failure” cases occur. While it isassumed that the majority of “naturalization failure” cases are those who fail to naturalize
as Japanese persons, these should not be exhaustive of the category. Even if the focus isput on the cases arising from naturalization as Japanese nationals, it is not possible toidentify how many cases of persons who have been “informally approved” fornaturalization indeed get rejected at the end, as the statistics relating to the cases thathave been “informally approved” is not publicly available.
Furthermore, the number cannot be estimated based on the number of cases ofrejected naturalizations.191 This is because the number of rejections may not cover allcases of “failed naturalization” as it also happens that applicants are requested by theofficials in charge to withdraw their applications upon having their informal naturalization
approvals cancelled.
Additionally, with regard to the “nationality restoration failure” cases, it is unknown
how these cases arise in relation to which cases. It is quite difficult thus to estimate thenumber of cases falling within this category.
5. Solutions for Category F(1) Prevention
First, in order to prevent statelessness from arising out of cases involving“naturalization failure”, it is most crucial to rectify the current practice of requesting
naturalization applicants to renounce their current nationality before naturalization isformally approved.

191 As a reference, the number of rejected applications for naturalization was 332 in 2013, 509 in 2014,

603 in 2015, and 607 in 2016; the number of applications for naturalization was 10,119 in 2013, 11,377
in 2014, 12,442 in 2015, and 11,477 in 2016. Ministry of Justice, “Kika Kyoka Shinseishasuu, Kika
Kyokasha, Oyobi Kika Fukyokashano Suii [Number of Applications, Grants and Rejections on
Naturalization]” (12 May 2017, corrected version), at http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001180510.pdf.

93This issue comes down to, in the end, whether to prioritize the prevention of multiple
nationalities (even temporarily) or the prevention of statelessness. For the persons
concerned, the disadvantage of statelessness occurring is more serious, and so its
prevention should be prioritized.
In this context, the Japanese Nationality Act requires, as a condition for naturalization,that an applicant “has no nationality, or the acquisition of Japanese nationality will resultin the loss of foreign nationality” (Article 5(1)(v)). Thus, renunciation of nationality prior
to naturalization is not a requirement. Rather, it is acceptable under the law that theperson loses his or her current nationality by acquisition of Japanese nationality. There is
no legal basis for requesting applicants to renounce their present nationality.
In this regard, there was a case where a child was born after the parents renounced
their previous nationality for the purpose of naturalization but before their naturalization
was granted. In this case, the government acknowledged the acquisition of Japanesenationality for the child by birth under Article 2(iii) of the Japanese Nationality Act,
recognizing that the parents were stateless.192 While the case is indeed remedied, thisissue would not have to have arisen if the parents had not become stateless.
(2) Protection
As apparent from cases 11 and 12, when statelessness cases arise out of “naturalization
failure” or “nationality restoration failure” the Immigration Bureau should allow the affected
persons to acquire residency permits, at least during the 30 days of loss of nationality, andensure at least the lawful stay.193 This is a common recommendation, as it is in Category E[Change of personal status].
Apart from this, as for the other categories, streamlining the systems to determine
statelessness and to protect stateless persons would be useful.
(3) Reduction
Especially with regard to “nationality restoration failure” cases, as stated in relation toCategory B [State succession I], it is desirable to utilize humanitarian considerations toresolve statelessness in a rapid manner by facilitating the naturalization of stateless persons
regardless of their birth in or outside Japan.

192

Osamu Akiba, “Nihoneno Kikano Kyokawo Shinseishi, Kikano Joukenwo Sonaerutameni Jyuuzenno
Kokusekiwo Houkishita Kotoniyori Mukokusekishato Natteiru Gaikokujin Fuufunitsuki, Kikaga Kyokasareru
Maeni Koga Shusseishita Baainiokeru Shusshou Todokeno Shori Oyobi Tougaishiwo Kika Kyokagono Fuufuo
Kosekini Douseki Saserutameno Tetsudukinitsuite [Procedures regarding the birth report of a child born toa foreign couple who has become stateless due to the fact that they applied for naturalization in Japanand renounced their former nationality as a precondition for naturalization, before the parents’naturalization was permitted; and the procedure to enter the child into the family register of the couple
after the permission of the parents’ naturalization”, Koseki, No. 923 (2016), pp. 11-13.
193
ICRRA Article 22-2. See supra note 189.

94

Category G [Unknown or stateless parents] Persons whose parents are unknown or arestateless (Sample cases from Philippines, Thailand/China)
Category G covers statelessness of children that could arise when their parents are
unknown or stateless and they cannot acquire the nationality of their parent(s) (and theiracquisition of Japanese nationality by birth is not recognized by the Japanese authorities).
< Case 13 > involves a person born in Japan out of wedlock to a woman who appears to
be Filipino and who ended up in statelessness as the woman/the biological motherdisappeared after delivery and he or she cannot establish his or her legal descent from thewoman.
< Case 14 > is about a person who was born in Japan to a woman of unknown nationality
who was rendered stateless as he or she could not have his or her biological father ofJapanese nationality recognize his paternity over him or her before turning 20 years old,
and the nationality of his or her mother remained unknown.
1. Case summary（1）< Case 13> A Child born in Japan whose parents cannot be identified
A was born in Japan out of wedlock to a woman who appeared to be Filipino, but themother disappeared when he or she was small, and A had been under the care of a friendof his or her mother. Subsequently, A came under the care of a child welfare institution
through the Child Custody Centre and has been living there since then. A had been living
without a resident permit, but at age 17 A appeared at an immigration bureau andreceived special permission to stay,194 with the nationality indicated by the bureau being“Filipino”. However, it is almost impossible to definitively identify A’s biological mother,
who is likely Filipino, at this point in time; thus, A cannot confirm his or her Filipino
nationality at the Filipino embassy and remains stateless.
（2）< Case 14 > A person born in Japan whose legal father is unknown and mother’snationality is unknown
B was born in Japan to C, the father of Japanese nationality, and D, the mother whose
nationality is unknown. C and D were not legally married, and C had not formallyrecognized his paternity over B.
D, B’s mother, has heard from her parents that she was born in Yunnan province in
China and migrated to the north-east area of Thailand when she was small. However, thefamily had no documents whatsoever to prove the Chinese nationality of D’s parents or
D herself. D’s family had been living as foreigners in Thailand with a temporary permit to194

ICRRA Article 50 (1). On Special Permission to Stay, see supra note 122.

95

stay. D arrived in Japan with a forged passport in early 1990, met C, and gave birth to B
in Japan. However, C at that time was married to another woman, and D was irregularly
staying and did not have any document to prove her identity. The notification of B’s birth
was also not submitted to a Japanese municipality office. B was raised by C and D, butgrew up not going to an elementary school or junior high school. The family fell intopoverty upon C losing his job and was even temporarily homeless. The family
subsequently started to receive assistance from the local government.
B is biologically a child of a Japanese national. However, as C is not his or her legal
father, B could not acquire Japanese nationality jus sanguinis (Article 2(i), Japanese
Nationality Act).
Furthermore, as D’s nationality is unknown, B is also unable to acquire nationality in areal sense from his or her mother. B’s legal representative/attorney sought acceptanceof the notification of B’s birth, with the nationality of the mother being stateless, but themunicipality office refused to accept it. B thus filed a petition with a family court in 2016
requesting its permission to have his or her family register created based on having
acquired Japanese nationality by birth under Article 2(iii), as B was born in Japan, the legal
father was unknown, and the mother does not have a nationality.195
In this case, whether the mother, D, possessed Chinese or Thai nationality was disputed.
Based on the facts, including that the consulate section of the Chinese embassy in Japan
responded to D that “there was nothing that the embassy can do for you,” the Tachikawa
Branch of the Tokyo Family Court ruled that: “there is no document certifying theclaimant’s mother’s possession of Chinese or Thai nationality. The details of the place
where the claimant’s mother had been living in Thailand with her family are unknown, andthere is no means for her to contact her family.” The court determined the mother’snationality status to be stateless, and it issued an authorization for B’s family register to becreated, stating that B has acquired Japanese nationality by birth under Article 2(iii).196
Later, in November 2017, the mother D was granted Special Permission to Stay (ICRRA
Article 50(1)), given a status of residence as “spouse of Japanese national, etc.”, and her
foreigner residence card issued at the time lists “Stateless” in the “Nationality/area of origin”
column.
2. Significance of Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act
When a father and mother are stateless or unknown, a child born in Japan would bestateless had there been no specific legislative measure, in light of the Japanesenationality law framework adopting the jus sanguinis principle. For this purpose, theJapanese Nationality Act allows for the acquisition of Japanese nationality by birth forthe purpose of preventing statelessness. This is Article 2(iii), which provides that “If born

195 Family Register Act Article 110 (1). See supra note 169.
196

Tokyo Family Court Tachikawa Branch, unpublished adjudication on 5 December 2016.

96

in Japan and both of the parents are unknown or without nationality”, a child acquires
Japanese nationality by birth.
Under the case law, administrative practice, and authoritative academic theory, “father”
in Article 2(iii) is understood to refer to the “legal father” and not the factual (biological)
father of the child. (This means that which country’s “law” should be considered in thisregard varies by individual. Under Japanese law, for example, while the legal mother-childrelationship is considered to have been automatically established by the mere fact ofdelivery, 197 the legal father-child relationship is to be only established with thecompletion of the legal action, i.e., the parents’ marriage and, with regard to a child bornout of wedlock, the father recognizing his paternity.)Thus, even if the biological father is known, as long as there is no legal parent-childrelationship between that father and the child, and the mother is also unknown or isstateless, the person born in Japan can acquire Japanese nationality under this provision.
3. Developments in the application of Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act(1) Trends in the application of Article 2(iii)With regard to family court adjudications up to around the 1970s, there are several
cases where a person who has been raised by a third person as a result of being separated
from his or her biological parents due to the war or other reasons petitioned for thecreation of his or her family register after reaching the age of majority, where even his or
her memory as to the identity and place of birth of his or her biological mother and father
was uncertain.198 In such cases, the courts used to previously authorize the creation of
the family register after examining the facts—such as the concerned person’s appearance,
the fact that he or she only speaks Japanese, and the credibility of the person’s statementwith regard to how he or she has been raised—and concluding that the persons concerned
were “born in Japan of unknown parents.”
However, subsequently, Japan started to receive a larger number of foreigners, which
resulted in the increase of persons who stay in Japan irregularly after their residency
permit expires. The number of incidents increased where a biological mother who
appears to be a foreigner leaves behind her child at a hospital or other places. Even inthis sort of case, if it is a typical case of a foundling where the parents’ whereabouts arecompletely unknown, he or she will be granted Japanese nationality under Article 2(iii).
However, the issue is when there is fragmentary and inaccurate information available
about the mother. In this regard, the so-called “Baby Andrew” 199 case is one whichclarified the way to measure how “unknown” parents are, as well as the burden of proof
to establish it.
197

The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 April 1962 (Showa 37 Nen), Minshu Vol.16, No. 7, p. 1247.

198 Okuda, supra note 33, pp.121-125.
199 The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 January 1995 (Heise 7 Nen), Minshu Vol.49, No.1, p. 56. See also

the Abe Report, supra note 2, pp. 36-37.

97

(2) The so-called “Baby Andrew” caseBaby Andrew’s (hereinafter E) mother disappeared after giving birth to E at a hospitalin Nagano prefecture in January 1991 without submitting a notification of birth to themunicipality office. The hospital personnel had an impression that E’s mother was aFilipino based on the hospital record carrying information such as the mother’s family andgiven name and date of birth. E’s notification of birth was initially accepted with the“country of nationality: Philippines.”
However, the Philippine embassy in Japan responded to an inquiry that “as long as themother is missing, E’s Filipino nationality cannot be recognized.” E was subsequently
registered as a foreigner whose nationality status was “stateless”. F and G, who adopted
E and became his adoptive parents, filed a suit to confirm E’s Japanese nationality due tothe fact that his “parents are unknown.” While the court of first instance affirmed E’s
petition, the high court overturned the district court’s decision.
The Supreme Court in this case stated the following in light of the object and purposeof Article 2(iii), which is to prevent statelessness:
This requirement (‘both of the parents are unknown’ in Article 2(iii)) should beconsidered to be satisfied where, even if a particular person is highly likely to be
the father or mother, it is not sufficient to definitively identify the father or mother.
This is because, even if there is a high possibility that a person is the child’s father
or mother, the nationality of the child cannot be determined on the basis of such aperson’s nationality, and it is not until that person is definitively identified that thechild’s nationality can be determined on the basis of his or her nationality.
Furthermore, the court confirmed E’s nationality stating thateven if the party disputing the child’s acquisition of a Japanese nationality proves
the existence of “circumstances indicating the high probability that a specificperson is the claimant’s father or mother,” as long as it is not sufficient to“definitively identify that the person is indeed the father or the mother of theclaimant,” it cannot overturn the court’s determination that “both of the parents
are unknown.”(3) The trends in practice after the Baby Andrew case
It once appeared that this Supreme Court decision opened the path for children of
unknown parents to acquire Japanese nationality. However, in practice, even after thiscase, the practice is to determine the mother’s nationality and other details based on ahearing from the persons concerned or the entry/exit record held by the Immigration
98

Bureau.200 There is a concern that the mother is being deemed to be known even if theinformation cannot be cross-checked with the mother herself, merely based on theexistence of information relating to the mother on paper. In fact, there have been reportsthat the application of Article 2(iii) has been denied in cases similar to Andrew’s.201(4) 2003 Adjudication by the Yokohama Family Court
It is notable that the Yokohama Family Court actually authorized the creation of afamily register by ruling that “both parents are unknown” in a case where the motherdisappeared after having submitted a notification of her child’s birth to a municipal
office.202 Details of the case are as follows:
H was born in Japan as the eldest son of I, a mother who appeared to be Filipino andJ, a Japanese father. I and J were legally married. I submitted the notification of birth, andH entered into J’s family register. The column on the personal status in the family register
carried the record of the marriage and divorce between the father J and the Filipino
woman I and the fact that I was given custody upon divorce.
However, the mother I disappeared after asking her acquaintance to take care of H. H
grew up in a child welfare institution. Meanwhile, after the divorce of J and I, the father
J filed a lawsuit, with H being the defendant, to deny his paternity over H.203 A decisionruling that H is not the child of J was finalized. As a result, H was completely removed
from the family register. I’s whereabouts were meanwhile still unknown, and it was
impossible to obtain I’s national passport or birth certificate. Therefore, H was unable toprove that his or her mother was a Filipino national, and H could not acquire Filipino
nationality. H filed a petition with a family court seeking the creation of a family register
asserting that he or she was “born in Japan” of “unknown parents.”
The family court approved the creation of H’s family register stating that H had
acquired Japanese nationality by birth under Article 2(iii) upon a comprehensive
assessment of the facts, such as that H’s mother’s nationality cannot be confirmed andthat his or her father cannot be identified.
In sum, H “lost” Japanese nationality retroactively and became stateless due to thedenial of legitimate child status by the father (as he was no longer a child of a Japanesenational). 204 The Filipino nationality law adopts a paternal/maternal jus sanguinis
principle as Japan does. If H’s descent from his mother I and I’s Filipino nationality could
be proven, H would have been able to acquire Filipino nationality in a real sense. However,200

Masao Ohno, “Kokusekihou Dai 2 Jou 3 Gouno Kiteini Motoduku Shusshouniyoru Nihon Kokusekino
Shutokunitsuite [Acquisition of Japanese Nationality at Birth under Article 2 (iii) of the Nationality Act]”,
Koseki, No. 730 (2002), pp.9-10.
201
See Okuda, supra note 33, p.8.
202
Yokohama Family Court, Adjudication, 18 September 2003 (Heisei 15 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou[Monthly Bulletin on Family Courts], Vol.56, No.3, p.68.
203
On presumption of children in wedlock and denial of legitimacy, see supra note 181.
204
On issues relating to “loss”, see Category E, 3. (1).

99the mother I’s whereabouts were unknown, and H could not obtain any documents
proving I’s possession of Filipino nationality. Thus, the court decided to authorize thecreation of H’s Japanese family register considering that, while the information relating
to H’s mother was available to some extent, the case still met the requirement that “bothof the parents are unknown.”205
4. Possible size of Category G(1) Breakdown of cases to which Article 2(iii) of the Japanese Nationality Act has been
appliedNo statistics are available relating to the cases where Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act
has been applied. With regard to how a family register is created when one acquires
Japanese nationality at birth under Article 2(iii), the possible avenues are: (i) submission ofa notification after the adjudication by a family court authorizing the creation of theperson’s family register (Article 110(1) of Family Register Act) and (ii) submission of a
notification of birth (Article 49 of the same Act). While there are no legal provisions as towhich avenue should be used in what circumstances, it appears to be the practice thatwhen there are persons present who are legally obliged to submit a notification of the birthof the person concerned, avenue (ii) is to be taken, and in other cases (i) is to be taken.206(2) Possible size of Category G
This means that the number of cases where article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act is applied
can be calculated by totaling: (i) the number of cases where Article 2(iii) of the Nationality
Act has been applied among the number of adjudications approving the creation of a family
register and (ii) the number of cases where the Nationality Act Article 2(iii) has been appliedamong the number of notifications of birth submitted. With regard to (i), it is known thatthe number of family court decisions approving the creation of a family register isapproximately 100 cases a year.207 It is unknown how many cases there have been among
these in which Article 2(iii) has been applied. With regard to (ii), it is practically impossible
205

Regarding this adjudication, some criticize that the application of the Article should have beendenied, because inter alia, unlike the Andere Case, the mother had submitted a birth report before herdisappearance and the Japanese authorities had made a determination on nationality, and because
whether or not the child would acquire Filipino nationality was unrelated to the interpretation of the
Article. Okuda, supra note 33, pp. 136-141.
206 Ministry of Justice, Koseki Seidoni Kansuru Kenkyuukai [Study Group on Family Register System], 6th
Meeting (12 March 2015), distributed material 6, at:
http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji04_00042.html, p.6.
207 According to Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shihou Toukei
Nenpou, Kaji Hen, Dai 3 Hyou, Kaji Shinpan Jikenno Juri, Kisai, Misai Tetsuduki Betsu Kensuu, Zen Katei
Saibansho [Judicial Statistics Annual Report, Family Relations, Table No.3, Number of Adjudication Cases
on Family Relations: Received, Decided, and Undecided Cases”, the number of decided cases for thecreation of family registers was 166 in 2015, including 94 approvals. See
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/toukei/697/008697.pdf.

100

to identify the number of cases where Article 2(iii) has been applied among all the
notifications of birth, which amount to 1 million a year.
4. Solutions for Category G(1) Prevention
As stated earlier, a child is to acquire Japanese nationality by birth under Article 2(iii)of the Japanese Nationality Act if he or she is born in Japan and his or her parents are
unknown or stateless.
However, the guidance provided in the Supreme Court’s Baby Andrew case or the
Yokohama Family Court adjudication is not systematically implemented in practice. There
have been continuous reports of cases where infants have been registered as “foreigners”
based on inaccurate information (of the parents). The causes for this may include the factthat officials in charge in the relevant administrative bodies do not have sufficientknowledge about statelessness, and the stateless persons themselves are not aware of
the fact that they (or their parents) are stateless. As a result, unfairness arises where only
persons who have the means to receive adequate assistance from experts and to resort
to litigation in courts of law manage to find remedies.
It is necessary to systematically dissiminate the standards contained in the Supreme
Court ruling on the Baby Andrew case in relation to the interpretation of the phrase “bothof the parents are unknown” under Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act, and to ensure thatpractice is in line with these standards.
That being said, the criteria have not been fully established as to what kind of
circumstances relating to the father and mother need to be established in order for the
person to qualify under the phrase “both of the parents… are without nationality” in
Article 2(iii).
Thus, attention is called for so that the scope of “statelessness” is not narrowlyinterpreted in an arbitrary manner in each administrative procedure. If the above is
implemented systematically, this category of statelessness should be prevented to asignificant extent.
(2) Protection and reduction
As stated in (1), with regard to this category, there is an established legal provision, i.e.,
Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act. If this is adequately implemented, this category ofstatelessness will be resolved to a significant extent.
However, it is expected that there may be cases that fall outside the application of
Article 2(iii) even if the provision is properly implemented. For example, in cases in which
information about the father or mother’s identity is sufficiently available but they are bothmissing, the child cannot go through the procedure to acquire (confirm) nationality of theparent(s) with the relevant country.
101Thus, even if these cases are considered to extend beyond the coverage of Article 2(iii),
if such persons cannot be treated as nationals by the relevant countries, measures should
be taken to provide them with protection by recognizing them as stateless persons and to
reduce statelessness in the future. (As for how protection and reduction should be
implemented, see Category A [Conflict of laws].)
Furthermore, in some cases, a certain period of investigation is necessary to determinethat Article 2(iii) is to be applied, even for an eligible case. Efforts need to be made so thatsocial welfare measures are adequately administered for the persons concerned during
such period to ensure their receipt of assistance, such as mother-child health care.

102

Category H [Consulate denial III (Others)] Persons understood to have acquired thenationality of the country concerned according to the text of the nationality law of thatcountry, for whom nevertheless the relevant consular authorities refuse birth
registration or the issuance of a passport (Sample cases from China, Myanmar)
Category H covers statelessness or risks of statelessness that could arise for persons
understood to have acquired the nationality of the country concerned according to the textof the nationality law of that country, for whom nevertheless the relevant consularauthorities refuse birth registration or the issuance of a passport.
< Case 15 > involves a person born in Japan out of wedlock to a woman of Chinese
nationality while the man of Chinese nationality considered to be the biological father went
missing. The person requested the Consular Section of the Chinese Embassy in Japan forbirth registration and the issuance of a passport. While under the text of Chinese law he or
she is considered to have acquired Chinese nationality at birth, the person concerned wasdenied both services due to being an illegitimate child, which put him or her in the situationof statelessness.
< Case 16 > involves a person born in Japan out of wedlock to a female of Myanmar
nationality whose biological father of Myanmar nationality went missing after the person’sbirth. The person concerned approached the Embassy of Myanmar to register him or
herself as a national of Myanmar. Even though under Myanmar law the person concerned
is understood to have acquired Myanmar nationality by jus sanguinis, he or she was denied
registration due to the fact that the abovementioned male, i.e., her biological father, had
not completed his payment of tax during his stay in Japan. As such, the person can beunderstood to be stateless.
1. < Case 15 > A person born out of wedlock to a mother of Chinese nationality who has
been denied birth registration by the Embassy of China in Japan208
A was born in 2015 in Japan to a mother, B, of Chinese nationality out of wedlock. B
considered the male of Chinese nationality with whom she was in a relationship at thetime she got pregnant to be A’s (biological) father. B then lost touch with the man, whodisappeared after she told him of her pregnancy. B consulted the Chinese Embassy inJapan but “was told that in such cases where a child is born in Japan without the parents
being married, the Chinese government can grant neither Chinese nationality nor apassport.” Furthermore, when asked by a staff member of Across Japan, a general
208

This is the same case as the one introduced in Chapter 1, Section 1, Sub-section 1(3) of this report.

103

incorporated association which facilitated A’s adoption through a special adoption
process, the embassy “responded that the Chinese government would not receive thenotification of the minor’s birth.”209
Chinese Nationality Law allows both the father and mother to pass on Chinese
nationality. Article 5 states “Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese
nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.
But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or
one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired
foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality.”
In accordance with this text of the law, it can be understood that A has indeed acquired
Chinese nationality, which is the nationality of B, A’s mother. However, the embassy(consulate section) clearly refused to receive A’s birth registration. This likely means thatthe embassy, which is the competent authority on nationality matters, applies the law insuch a way that a child born out of wedlock is not to be considered a national by refusing
to register his or her birth registration. A is thus considered to be stateless.
A was put under the care of a Japanese couple soon after his or her birth, and thedecision was made for A to be adopted by the couple through a special adoption process.
Indeed, A’s nationality status was assessed as “stateless” by the relevant regional
immigration bureau when an application for A’s residency permit in Japan was made after
the decision for A to be adopted.
Furthermore, the relevant family court, in considering whether the legal requirements
for adoption were met in the context of the petition to confirm the adoption arrangement
through the special adoption procedure, determined A to be stateless, and it decided thatJapanese law, which is the law of A’s habitual residence, was the relevant law to A’s
personal status.210 The family court concluded so by taking into consideration facts suchas that A’s birth registration was denied by the embassy of China and that “thepossession/non-possession of Chinese nationality of the minor (A) is a matter essentiallyto be determined by the Chinese authorities.” A, by being adopted by Japanese nationals,
is eligible for facilitated naturalization as long as A meets the residency requirement of
one year in Japan (Article 8 (ii) of the Nationality Act).

2. < Case 16 > A child born out of wedlock from a father and mother of Myanmar
nationality who could not have his or her birth registered by the Myanmar embassy inJapan(1) Case summary

209 Sendai Family Court, Adjudication, 24 June 2016 (Heisei 28 Nen), supra note 30.
210

Ibid.

104

D came to Japan in 2007 with a student visa and began overstaying from 2008. D was
temporarily co-habiting with E of Myanmar nationality while they were not legallymarried. D gave birth to C, a child from D’s relationship with E.
C was born in Japan in 2011, but as her mother D was not able to support her
financially, C lived in an infant care institution from shortly after birth and was latertransferred to a child care institution. After C’s birth, E started to live separately from D,
and D lost touch with him. C’s mother D had not yet registered C’s birth with the Embassyof Myanmar at that time. In 2013, D was detained at a regional immigration bureau anda deportation order was issued to both D and C, with “Myanmar” listed as their “countryof nationality” and “the destination country for deportation”.
(2) Administrative response by JapanThe relevant regional immigration bureau detained D, and in July 2014 it shared with
D a one-page document in Japanese language carrying information about the documents
and other items required for one to be registered as a national, which was verified with
the Embassy of Myanmar in Japan (hereinafter referred to as the “document on national
registration”). The regional immigration bureau instructed D to carry out the process toregister C as a national with the embassy of Myanmar in Japan upon the grant of aprovisional release permit211 to D.212
The abovementioned document carried information about the documents to besubmitted213 and the need to pay tax, and it also stated “registration as a national can bedone even if the parents are unmarried.” With regard to tax, the document stated: “all
Myanmar nationals are required to pay tax for the duration they are away from Myanmar.
The tax amount is 10,000 Japanese yen per month from the time when they leave
Myanmar until the end of 2011.”214

211 ICRRA Article 54. See supra note 176.
212 The letter stated “This is to notify about documents required for national registration, as confirmedby the Embassy of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in July 2014” and was provided by Nobuya
Takai, the attorney who was the legal representative for this case.
213 The following is listed as requirements: parents’ passports (even if expired), parents’ ID cards orcolored copies of them, a letter from parents to the Ambassador of Myanmar stating under oath thatthey are the parents of the child, facial photographs of the parents and child, certified translation of
the birth certificate in Japan, tax payment by the mother, and a visit to the Embassy by the child andone of the parents. It is noted that if it is difficult to submit the father’s passport, it would be
acceptable to submit the mother’s passport, a colored copy of the father’s passport, and a colored
copy of the father’s ID card.
214
As for tax reduction, it is stated as follows: “In case there are circumstances during the period subject
to taxation such as being a student, illness, having a family, paying national health insurance in Japan,
etc., and if documents can be submitted to prove such circumstances, the tax might be reduced or
exempted. It is possible to pay tax upon return to Myanmar, but the amount of tax must be calculated
before return.”

105

As stated above, D had lost contact with E, and D did not even have a copy of E’s
passport. However, D was provided by the staff of the regional immigration bureau with
documents such as a photocopy of E’s passport and E’s facial photo.215(3) The response of Myanmar embassy
D, the mother of C, tracked down the whereabouts of E through her attorney/legal
representative and sought his cooperation in completing the required paperwork. D, after
her provisional release was granted, visited the Embassy of Myanmar several times with
her legal representative and other persons and attempted to register C as a national of
Myanmar by furnishing the embassy with the amount of tax D was requested to pay as
well as the requested documents. However, the Embassy of Myanmar asserted that the“payment of tax by the father” was also necessary, which they did not initially mention
to D and which was also not written on the abovementioned document relating tonational registration. C’s registration as a Myanmar national could thus not be achieved.
E’s unpaid tax amounted to 530,000 Japanese yen, which E refused to pay due to his
financial inability. D has been an irregular stayer without permission to work, and it isdifficult for her to raise such a high amount, i.e., 530,000 Japanese yen. Thus, C has been
unable to be registered as a national up to today.
(4) Statelessness
Article 7 of the 1982 Nationality Law of Myanmar states that persons born of parents,
both of whom are citizens, are Myanmar citizens. The text of the abovementioned law
does not clarify whether the parents need to be legally married or not. The Embassy of
Myanmar, in fact, has stated to the Japanese Immigration Bureau that unmarried parents
can register their child as a national and that the submission of a written statement by
the biological parents declaring themselves to be the parents of the child suffices for thispurpose. Thus, C is supposed to have acquired Myanmar nationality under the law bybirth as she is born of parents, although unmarried, who are both Myanmar nationals.
However, the Embassy of Myanmar refused C’s registration as a national by assertingthat the biological father’s payment of tax was required, without which C cannot beregistered as a national, which is separate from the requirements for national registration
about which they had previously informed the relevant regional immigration bureau. As
a consequence, C has not been able to register as a national of Myanmar. This manner oftreatment by the embassy may possibly be considered an “operation of law” by thecompetent authorities on nationality matters, indicating that they do not recognize C asa national, and C could thus be considered to be stateless.
On the other hand, the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, as stated above,
designated C’s country of nationality under the deportation order as well as thedestination country of deportation to be “Myanmar.” However, in reality, C is neither
215

Hearing from Nobuya Takai, attorney-at-law, on 24 May 2016.

106

registered as a national of Myanmar or issued with a Myanmar national passport. As alogical consequence, the execution of a deportation order (forcible deportation to
Myanmar) cannot be achieved. C has been in a situation of irregular stay for a prolonged
period of time.
3. Possible size of Category H(1) Where this category fits within the whole context
This category covers persons born in Japan who are supposed to have acquired thenationality of a relevant country under the text of the law of that country, who however
do not appear to be considered nationals by the demonstrated treatment of the relevant
consular authorities. In particular, this category specifically covers persons whose
treatment by the consulate or embassy may be influenced by their discrimination againstchildren born out of wedlock. Categories B, C and D [State succession I, Consulate denial
I (Refugees), and Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)] havecommon characteristics with Category H, as the treatment by the consulate or embassy
either indicates the statelessness of the persons concerned, or it has led or is leading totheir statelessness.
When the person concerned is outside the territory of the purported country ofnationality, how he or she is treated by the consulate or embassy of that country becomes
crucially important. If the relevant consulate or embassy denies the person’s registration
as a national, the person ends up without any measures to confirm his or her possessionof that nationality. Thus, the treatment of the person concerned by the consulate orembassy can be considered an “operation of law” by the competent authorities, and if itdemonstrates that the person is not considered a national, he or she may possibly beconsidered to meet the statelessness definition.
(2) The possible size of category H
This category of persons covers cases which are caused by the responses of the relevant
consulate or embassy in Japan. In order to identify the number accurately, it is necessary
to grasp how many cases of similar treatment occur by all consulates and embassys in Japan.
However, in reality, it is difficult to obtain an overview of all embassies’ responses.
In Case 15, the abovementioned treatment by the Chinese embassy (presumably the
consulate section) was accepted as a fact within the context of the family court
adjudication. Some points remain unclear such as whether all six Chinese consulates
throughout Japan other than the Consulate Section of the Embassy of China in Tokyo takes
the same approach in the same scenario.
Furthermore, in relation to cases from Myanmar as exemplified by Case 16, it is still
unclear what type of taxation is imposed under what sorts of criteria and how systematicthe tax collection is actually enforced. It also depends on the particular individual’s financial
107

ability as to how much of the tax amount can be considered to be the threshold, beyond
which the payment is considered practically impossible or extremely difficult.
In light of the above, it is difficult to identify how many cases exist in Japan of persons
who can be considered stateless under the “operation of law” where Chinese, Myanmar, orother countries’ consulates or embassies treat the individuals concerned in the same orsimilar manner as above.
4. Solutions for Category H(1) Prevention
As stated above, as this category of statelessness or risk of statelessness is related tothe treatment of the embassies or consulates of different countries, it is difficult for thegovernment of Japan to make requests to these embassies or consulates to make
improvements and so on. Thus, it is not easy to prevent statelessness under Category H
from arising.
(2) Protection and reduction
The responses by the immigration authorities differ in relation to Case 15 and Case
16. Neither of the persons involved in these cases have had their births registered withthe relevant embassy or consulate. However, the person in Case 15 has been determined
to be “stateless” in the Immigration Bureau’s examination of his or her stay, and theperson in Case 16 has been determined to be of “Myanmar” within the deportation
procedure. The difference is that the person in Case 15 had assistance from experts oran assistance organization from the time of birth, and the denial of the birth registrationby the embassy had already been clear at the time of the relevant procedure. In contrast,
in Case 16, the legal representative/attorney was contacted by the mother concerned
only after she had already been detained and issued with a deportation order, and thus
by that time the nationality determination by the Immigration Bureau had already beenaccomplished. What followed afterwards also differed significantly. In Case 15, theperson concerned had been adopted by a Japanese couple through the special adoption
procedure and had access to Japanese nationality. However, the person in Case 16 was
not cared for by his or her mother and had been living in a child care institution.
Furthermore, the fact that the Japanese administrative bodies deem him or her to be of
Myanmar nationality while he or she does not appear to be recognized as a national by
any country makes his position all the more vulnerable.
As seen above, it is important from a protection point of view to establish a system
where the persons concerned can rapidly and easily access assistance by legal
professionals or aid organizations. This is because of the reality that the outcome of thecases can significantly differ depending on the point in the process at which aidorganizations or experts become involved.
108Additionally, as written in relation to Category A [Conflict of Laws], it is important toestablish a statelessness determination and protection system and to streamline thesystems relating to residency permits and special permission for residency.
Moreover, from a reduction point of view, it is necessary, as in Category A, to establish
and maintain a system where Article 8(iv) of the Japanese Nationality Act is adequately andsystematically implemented. Furthermore, as a prerequisite for this, the continued
gathering of accurate information by relevant Japanese administrative bodies, starting withlegal affairs bureaus, on the treatment by consulates and embassies of different States isalso needed, as in Category A.

109

Section 2: Categories of persons whose statelessness or risk of statelessness
arose while overseas and who subsequently came to Japan
Category I [Lack of proof] Persons who cannot establish the nationality of their countryof birth or of their parents’ nationality (Sample case from Thailand/Vietnam）
Category I is statelessness which arises due to an inability to prove the nationality of thecountry of purported nationality or the parents’ nationality.
< Case 17 > involves a person whose parents are from Vietnam who subsequently fled toThailand via Laos. The concerned person was born in Thailand. He or she came to Japan
subsequently with a forged passport, and when he or she was subject to a deportation
procedure, the deportation could not be enforced as he or she could not produce any
documents to prove the country of origin or the parents’ nationality.
1. <Case 17> Case summary216
A’s father and mother fled Vietnam to Thailand during the First Indochina War andsettled in Thailand as refugees. A’s father and mother met in Thailand, and A was born in
1957. Vietnamese refugees including A and her family were only “persons tolerated
temporarily to stay” in Thailand and were subject to various kinds of discrimination
including restrictions on their areas of residence and on their choice of profession.
A arrived in Japan in 1991 by using a forged passport under the name of a Thai national.
A was arrested in 2007 on suspicion of illegal entry and was transferred into an
Immigration Bureau detention after being convicted by the court and given a suspended
sentence.
A stated that he or she “wanted to return to Thailand” as A thought he or she “would be
able to go back to Thailand as I was born in Thailand.” However, it was revealed during
the court proceedings that the Immigration Bureau had determined A’s nationality to be
Vietnamese, and it designated “Vietnam” as the destination country to be deported.
At any rate, A was not actually deported to Vietnam, and instead A was given
provisional release (ICRRA Article 54) nine months after the arrest. As A was investigatedwith assistance from a legal representative/attorney, it was revealed that Vietnamese
refugees from Thailand who came to Japan, including A, had had their temporary stay
permits in Thailand cancelled for departing without acquiring permission from the Thaiauthorities, and they were unable to return to Thailand. Not being able to return toThailand and wishing thus to stay in Japan, A filed a suit against the State to cancel thedeportation order issued against him or her.217

216 Regarding this case, see Abe, pp. 45-46, and Arakaki, p. 49, supra note 2.
217

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, 19 February 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Hanrei Times, No.1356, p.146.

110

The Tokyo District Court affirmed the cancellation of the deportation order issued toA, acknowledging that there were procedural errors as A did not understand thedeportation procedures that designated Vietnam as the destination country ofdeportation. After the positive decision by the District Court and after A’s expression of
his or her wish once again to stay in Japan, the Minister of Justice issued A special
permission to stay and granted a long-term residency permit.218 A still resides in Japanto date.
2. Possibility of acquiring the nationality of a relevant State(1) Vietnam
The 1945 Nationality Act of Vietnam adopted the paternal jus sanguinis principle, but
after the end of the Vietnam War and the change of the political regime, the country
enabled both fathers and mothers to pass on Vietnamese nationality to children by jus
sanguinis.
Article 15 of the current nationality law also states that “a child born inside or outside
the Vietnamese territory whose parents, at the time of his or her birth, are bothVietnamese citizens has Vietnamese nationality.” Thus, based on A’s statement that hisor her parents are Vietnamese nationals, A can be considered to possess Vietnamese
nationality as far as the text of the Vietnamese law is concerned.
However, when A’s legal representative/attorney visited the Vietnamese embassy inJapan and inquired on the possibility that A has acquired Vietnamese nationality, he or
she was told thatwith regard to Vietnamese refugees or second-generation persons who havepreviously stayed in Thailand, unless the person concerned or his or her parents
have a birth certificate or other official documents issued by the Vietnamese
authorities, we are unable to accept him or her as our national. Furthermore,even if the person can produce such a document, the negotiation for admission
to Vietnam is to be done through the Vietnamese embassy in Thailand.
With regards to this, A’s parents had already passed away and A did not hold any official
documents issued by the Vietnamese government to them. Furthermore, by the time theVietnamese embassy was contacted, A had already been illegally staying and had noprospect of being re-admitted to Thailand, and it was practically impossible for A to
confirm his or her Vietnamese nationality in Thailand.
At any rate, A has indeed not visited Vietnam even once since A’s birth, and A has nofamily or acquaintances who can be contacted in Vietnam and does not speak theVietnamese language. A has never thought him or herself to be a Vietnamese nationaland his or her substantive bond with Vietnam had become quite remote.

218

ICRRA Article 50(1). See supra note 122.

111

Based on the above, there are no measures that can be taken for A to be recognized
as a national by the Vietnamese authorities, and A is likely to be a person who is notconsidered a national under the operation of Vietnamese law.
In this regard, even the abovementioned Tokyo District Court decision states that the
court has “doubts” about the Immigration Bureau’s determination of A’s nationality as
Vietnamese, and that if the Immigration Bureau was to consider deporting A again, thedestination country for deportation needs to be carefully considered.
(2) Thailand
Thailand has long adopted a jus soli principle along with a jus sanguinis principle withregard to the acquisition of nationality. There have been several nationality law reforms,
but in principle the country has adopted the policy of having children born of foreign
parents lawfully staying in Thailand acquire Thai nationality by birth. However, such a
policy was fundamentally overturned by the Thailand Revolutionary Council
Proclamation No.337, issued on 13 December 1972.
With the complications of the Vietnam War as the background, the then Thaigovernment cancelled the Thai nationality which the second- and third-generation
Vietnamese refugees had previously acquired based on the prevailing nationality law at
the time of their birth. The Proclamation also declared the government’s decision not togrant Thai nationality to descendants of Vietnamese refugees born in Thailand from thattime onwards. However, the Thai government’s policy on Vietnamese refugees has againchanged through the developments in international relations during the 1980s.
By means of the 1992 nationality law reform, it became possible for second- and thirdgeneration refugees born in Thailand to be granted Thai nationality at the discretion of
the Minister of Internal Affairs. Moreover, in 2008, the Thai nationality law was amended
in light of the heightened awareness of statelessness issues within Thailand, and theopportunities for second- and third-generation persons to acquire Thai nationality
became further expanded.219
As discussed above, while the status of Vietnamese refugees in Thailand has been
affected by the changes in international relations and the legal policies of the government
interrelated to such changes, second- and third-generation refugees born in Thailand
have become able to access Thai nationality. In fact, A’s brothers and sisters residing in
Thailand managed to acquire Thai nationality. However, A was residing in Japan during
this period and thus was unable to go through the procedure to acquire Thai nationality.
For one to acquire Thai nationality, “residence in Thailand based on residency
registration in Thailand” is a legal requirement. Thus, for A to acquire Thai nationality, A
would need to return to Thailand and reside there. In fact, there has been a case where219

On the issue of stateless people and the Nationality Act of Thailand, see Yuu Ohtomo, “TaiKokusekihouno Ichibu Kaisei – Tai Kokusekihouno Hensento Mukokusekisha Mondai [Partial Amendment of
the Nationality Act of Thailand: Changes in Thai Nationality Act and Issues of Statelessness]” Gaikokuno
Ripppou [Foreign Legislation], No. 249 (2011), pp.111-118.

112

a person similarly situated as A managed to return to Thailand and naturalized as a Thainational by fulfilling the abovementioned condition. However, there is no guarantee that
A would acquire Thai nationality (even if return was possible) as the naturalization
depends on the Thai government’s discretion.
(3) Japan
Application for naturalization is a possible measure to acquire Japanese nationality.
However, even if A applies for naturalization, it is likely that the application would not be
granted considering the facts that A has been convicted for illegal entry, A’s financial
situation is not necessarily stable, and A does not read or write Japanese language.
3. Administrative response by Japan
Japan’s response for many years had been to arrest Vietnamese refugees fromThailand as illegal entrants or stayers, grant provisional release after detaining them fora long term, and subsequently leave them as they were (under provisional release), being
unable to forcibly remove them from Japan. Some have previously been detained formore than 2.5 years.
However, after A won the litigation, Vietnamese refugees from Thailand similarly
situated as A started to be granted special permission to stay along with long-term
residency permits. It appears that the policy within the Immigration Bureau, Ministry ofJustice has shifted. As a result, it has become possible for the above individuals to legallywork and obtain national health insurance, and their living conditions in Japan havedrastically been improved. They have also been issued a re-entry permits (ICRRA Article
26(2)) in lieu of a passports, and they have become able to visit Thailand on a short-termbasis as “foreigners”.
The attorney who represented A in his or her suit states that she is aware of at least 30
second-generation refugees from Thailand who are in a similar situation as A. The“Nationality/area of origin” column of the foreigner residency card for these 30 persons
carries either “stateless” or “Vietnam”. As far as the author (an attorney) is aware, apartfrom these 30 persons, there are at least five persons who arrived in Japan from Thailand
who nevertheless do not possess Thai nationality. It can be said that these persons arelikely to be stateless due to not being considered nationals by any State under theoperation of its law, including because they have difficulties establishing the facts basedon which an assessment of nationality can be made.
4. Possible size of Category I(1) Unique nature of the category
This sample case was about a person who was unable to have him or herself registeredwith the authorities of the country with which he had a relevant link (Vietnam) while inthe country of birth, as the official documents containing his parents’ identity information
113

either did not exist or were unavailable and could not be produced. The secondgeneration person subsequently moved to a third country, as a result of which
confirmation of the person’s nationality became practically impossible. While Categories
C and D [Consulate denial I (Refugees) and II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)]
cover descendants of refugees and persons similarly situated who are born in Japan, thiscategory covers persons born outside Japan who subsequently moved to Japan and who
may be refugees or persons similarly situated as refugees or migrants. These persons inmany cases have been without registration with the country of birth or country of origin,and they tend to be compelled to use a forged passport to come to Japan.
On a separate note, it is notable that Thailand has taken a series of policy actions toaddress statelessness as the country has borders with many States, and it has many
persons of undetermined nationality and stateless persons residing within the country.220(2) Possible size of Category I
As stated in (1) above, persons falling within this category I tend to be found among
persons who arrived in Japan using a forged passport. However, it is unknown whatpercentage of persons who arrive in Japan with a forged passport (Article 3(1)(i), Article
24(1) of ICRRA) 221 fall within this category. It is thus difficult to identify the overall
number of persons falling within this category.

5. Solutions for Category I(1) Prevention
Statelessness under this category has already occurred outside Japan. It is difficult for
the Japanese government to prevent it from happening on its own, apart from extending
its support to the countries of origin in relation to streamlining their system of nationality
acquisition or generally stabilizing the international relations.
(2) Protection and reduction
It is difficult to envisage any measures that the government of Japan can take on its
own to protect persons within or to reduce this category of statelessness.
220 Yukari Oda, “Tainiokeru Higouhou Nyuukokusha Shisonto Mukokusekishaeno Kokuseki Fuyonotameno

Seisaku: 1992 Nenno Kokusekihou Kaiseito 2000 Nen Ikouno Shusseichi Shugi Tekiyou Youken Kanwawo
Chuushinni [Policy to Grant Nationality to Stateless People and Descendants of Illegal Entrants in
Thailand: with a Focus on the 1992 Amendment of Nationality Act and Easing of Requirements forApplication of Jus Solis after 2000]” Nihon Joshi Daigaku Ningen Shakai Kenkyuuka Kiyou [Japan Women’s
University Integrated Arts and Social Sciences Bulletin], No.22 (2016), pp.45-62.
221 The number of detention orders issued for reasons under ICRRA Article 24 (i) (illegal entry) was 954
in 2013, 756 in 2014, and 696 in 2015; Table 41 in each respective year’s “Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei[Immigration Control Statistics]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_nyukan.html.

114

From a protection point of view, it would be useful to streamline the systems forstatelessness determinations or for the protection of stateless persons, or the systems
related to residency permits or special permission for residency. These recommendations
are similar to the ones for Category A [Conflict of laws].
Furthermore, even if residency permits are not granted and deportation orders are to beissued, affected persons should not be “assigned” a nationality by the immigration or otherauthorities that they do not actually possess. Simply designating a specific country as the“country of nationality” or “destination country for deportation” (Article 53 ICRRA) basedon the passport held by the person concerned or the country from which the person
originally comes, which criteria do not reflect reality, would result in situations where theexecutions of deportation orders are either impossible or difficult. This may cause thepersons concerned to incur tremendous disadvantages, such as being detained in an
immigration facility for a long period (see Article 52(5) ICRRA and other provisions). This
sort of situation needs to be avoided. Thus, if the country of destination for deportation
cannot be identified, efforts need to be made to address the plight of the persons
concerned through measures such as special permission for residency (Article 50(1) of
ICRRA) in a rapid manner. It is hoped that the Immigration Bureau’s practice of avoiding
long-term detentions due to the inability or difficulties in deporting persons needs to besystematic and consistent.
From a reduction point of view, as stated in Category B [State succession I], it isnecessary to establish a system which allows facilitated naturalization for stateless persons
in general, regardless of whether they are born in Japan or not. Furthermore, as aprerequisite for this, continued and accurate information gathering would be required by
Japanese administrative bodies, starting with the Civil Affairs Bureau, on the system andpractice relating to acquisition of nationality in the countries of origin of the persons
concerned.

115

Category J [State succession II]: Persons whose country of previous nationality has gone
through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality of thesuccessor State or the predecessor State confirmed (Sample cases from the Soviet
Union/Georgia)
Category J covers statelessness that arises when the previous country of nationality has
gone through State succession. While Category B covers persons whose statelessness
arose while the persons concerned were in Japan, this category covers persons whosestatelessness occurred while outside Japan and who subsequently came to Japan.
< Case 18 > involves a person who is an ethnic minority born in the former USSR (theterritory currently forming part of Georgia) who crossed the border by walking during theturmoil after the break-up of the USSR. He came to Japan with a forged passport and was
put under the deportation procedure. His or her nationality status was determined by theJapanese Immigration Bureau to be “stateless”. However, the destination country for thedeportation order issued by the Immigration Bureau was designated as “Georgia,” theexecution of which is difficult.
1. < Case 18 > Case summary
A was born in the 1960s in Georgia, which was part of the USSR at that time, and wasa national of the USSR. Since around 1989, xenophobic movements towards nonGeorgian ethnic minorities started to gain support with the rise of anti-USSR andGeorgian patriotism.222 In 1991, this movement declared the independence of Georgia
from the USSR, and soon after the USSR dissolved. Georgia fell into a state of internal
war between the regime, promoting ethnic-Georgian centralizing policies, and opposing
forces.
While the security situation in Georgia worsened and the turmoil was still ongoing, A,
an ethnic minority, felt his or her security threatened, and A left Georgia by walking
across the border with Russia. A went to Europe from there, and after staying in different
countries A came to Japan with a forged passport and applied for asylum. A was notrecognized as a refugee and was issued with a deportation order with his country ofnationality written as “Stateless” and the destination country for deportation “Georgia”.
A however did not wish to be deported to Georgia. Furthermore, the relevant regional
immigration bureau had decided on the deportation to Georgia without checking with
the Georgian authorities on the possibility of his re-admission. A filed a suit with theTokyo District Court, seeking the cancellation of the decision not to recognize him as a
222

Hiroki Maeda, Gurujia Gendaishi [Modern History of Georgia], Eurasia Booklet No.131 (Touyou
Shoten, 2009), pp.12-14.

116refugee as well as the issuance of the deportation order with Georgia as the country ofdestination.223
2. Possibility to acquire the nationality of a country with which the person concerned
has a relevant link
Georgia’s 2014 nationality law, in particular Article 30 of Chapter 5 on the provisional
measures, states the following:224
1. Other than persons who have acquired or will acquire Georgian citizenshipunder this Law, the following shall be deemed Georgian citizens:a) persons born before 31 March 1975, who have resided in Georgia for a
combined period of at least five years, who were in the territory of Georgia on
31 March 1993, and have not acquired citizenship of another country;b) persons born after 31 March 1975, who resided in Georgia on 31 March 1993
and have not acquired foreign citizenship;c) persons born in the territory of Georgia who have left the territory of Georgia
after 21 December 1991, and thus do not meet the requirements of
subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this article, unless they have acquired foreign
citizenship.
It appears that in order to acquire Georgian nationality based on this provision, theperson concerned has to submit an application to the relevant authority to establish his or
her nationality, attaching evidence to be examined.225
A was born before 31 March 1975 in the territory of Georgia and continuously lived
there at least five years. A’s memory relating to the time of departure from Georgia isuncertain. Furthermore, as A crossed the border on foot, A does not have any documents
which can objectively prove the date of departure. It appears A can acquire Georgiannationality if A meets the criteria in Article 30(1)(a) or (c) of the Organic Law of Georgia on
Georgian citizenship of 2014. However, in practice, A is unable to prove either of the

223 Tokyo District Court, 2015 (Heisei 27 Nen) Gyou U No.302. As of 14 July 2017, oral argument has

been made 11 times and the trial is still ongoing.
Legislative Herald of Georgia, the Organic Law of 2014 on Georgian Citizenship [Georgia], 30 April
2014. Reference was made to the following English translation:
https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2342552?impose=translateEn.
225
Nationality Act of Georgia, Article 30 (2).
224

117

required facts that he or she was in Georgian territory on 31 March 1993 or that he or sheleft Georgia after 21 December 1991. Thus, it is highly unlikely that A would be able toacquire Georgian nationality as A is unable to establish the fulfilment of either Article
30(1)(a) or (c) of the Organic Law of Georgia on Georgian citizenship of 2014.
As stated above, A has not acquired Georgian nationality and has not been recognizedby the Georgian government as its national. A has not acquired the nationality of any otherState and is very unlikely to acquire Georgian nationality as stated above, and thus A is astateless person not considered a national by any country.

3. Response by Japan
A does not have a residency permit and thus does not possess a foreigner residencycard with mid- or long-term resident status. A has been granted a provisional release
permit and now goes to the relevant regional immigration bureau almost every month inorder to have his or her place of residence confirmed and to have the provisional release
permit renewed. A is unable to engage in gainful employment or to enroll him or herself
in the social insurance system. A sustains a living by receiving a small amount of livelihood
assistance for asylum-seekers for having applied for refugee status once again andsimultaneously filing a suit.226
It is noted however that the financial aid he or she currently receives will be terminatedas soon as the litigation comes to an end. Indeed, A previously fell into extreme poverty
for five months after the rejection at the appeal instance for his or her first refugee statusapplication until the on-going litigation was filed, having to rely on some charity
organizations’ assistance.
In terms of the country of destination for deportation, the relevant law provides thatwhen a stateless person is to be deported from Japan, the deportation is enforced tocountries such as the country in which he or she had lived immediately prior to entering
Japan “pursuant to his or her wishes” as he or she does not have country of nationality.227

226

Under a programme commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Refugee Assistance
Headquarters (RHQ) of the Foundation for the Welfare and Education of the Asian People provides
financial assistance, etc., to asylum applicants. (However, the amount is significantly lower than thecriteria for public assistance.) See http://www.rhq.gr.jp/japanese/profile/business.htm.
227
ICRRA Article 53 (1): “Any person subject to deportation shall be deported to a country of which heor she is a national or citizen”; (2): “If the person cannot be deported to such country as set forth in thepreceding paragraph, such person shall be deported to any of the following countries pursuant to his or
her wishes: (i) A country in which he or she had been residing immediately prior to his or her entry into
Japan; (ii) A country in which he or she once resided before his or her entry into Japan; (iii) A country
containing the port or airport where he or she boarded the vessel or aircraft departing for Japan; (iv) A

118

This means the destination of deportation needs to be determined after verifying theconcerned person’s wish and taking it into consideration. However, while A wished to bedeported to a country other than Georgia, the relevant regional immigration bureau had
designated Georgia to be the destination country.
At any rate, deportation of a stateless person is not enforceable unless the designatedcountry of destination is willing to accept such a stateless person. In such a case, thestateless person concerned is highly likely to either remain in detention indefinitely orleft without financial means to sustain his or her living while under a provisional release
permit. In particular, currently gainful employment of illegal stayers is being rigorously
cracked down. Those who employ illegal stayers are highly likely to be punished, whichmakes it difficult to find any employment in reality.228
4. Possible size of Category J(1) Unique nature of this category
Case 18 represents persons whose previous country of nationality disintegrated, andwho could not acquire the nationality of the successor State. The cause of statelessness
is similar to that of Category B [State succession I]. While the statelessness of the person
involved in the case under Category B arose while he or she was in Japan, the situationof persons under this category differs in the sense that they arrived in Japan after
becoming stateless abroad. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between
persons under Category B and this category in terms of their legal status upon entry into
Japan. In the case under Category B, the person involved arrived in Japan with an actual
nationality and a valid passport. In the case introduced for Category J, the person entered
Japan with a forged passport while already stateless. This difference can be attributed to
the fact that stateless persons face great difficulties in legally crossing the border.
Even a stateless person can be granted protection like other foreign nationals if
recognized as a refugee or granted special permission for residency on humanitarian
grounds. If this is not the case, a stateless person cannot receive effective protection in
Japan. A refugee status application was made in both cases under Categories B and J.
Unlike the person involved in the case under B, which had been granted certain kinds ofprotection, the person in the case under J was not granted such protection. The person
in Category J’s case also represents the reality that even if a stateless person without aresidency permit is issued with a deportation order, its enforcement tends to be difficult
country where his or her place of birth is located; (v) A country which contained his or her birthplace atthe time of his or her birth; (vi) Any country other than those prescribed in the preceding items.”
228 In the lawsuit, the issues examined together with the legality of the rejection of refugee status
were the legality of issuing a deportation order designating a country clearly against the wishes of theindividual as the country of destination and whether or not issuance of a deportation order
designating a country with no possibility of deportation would qualify as degrading treatment under
ICCPR Article 7 and thereby be illegal.

119and he or she is compelled to live in a precarious situation including poverty. Along with
Category H [Consulate denial III (others)], this case demonstrates the need to establish asystem to protect persons for their statelessness.
(2) Possible size of Category J
As stated above in (1), Category J is represented by a case where the disintegration of
the country of nationality arose before the person entered Japan. The States that havein recent years gone through State succession which may possibly give rise tostatelessness are enumerated under Category B. As in Category B, it is difficult toaccurately identify persons falling within Category J. (See Chapter 1, Sections 1, 2.)
5. Solutions for Category J(1) Prevention
This category represents statelessness that arises while affected persons are outside
Japan. As stated in relation to Category I [Lack of proof], apart from measures such as
extending technical cooperation in preventing statelessness due to State succession,
Japan cannot take any action on its own to prevent this sort of statelessness.
(2) Protection and reduction
From a protection point of view, it would be useful to streamline the system forstatelessness determinations or protection of stateless persons or the systems related toresidency permits or special permission for residency. These recommendations are similar
to the ones for Category A [Conflict of laws].
Furthermore, even if a deportation order was to be issued, as under Category I [Lack of
proof], the person should not be “assigned” a nationality that he or she does not actuallypossess by the immigration or other authorities.
From a reduction point of view, as stated in relation to Category B, it is necessary toestablish a system where facilitated naturalization under Article 8(iv) of the Nationality Act
is available for all stateless persons regardless of whether they were born inside or outsideof Japan. As the prerequisite for this, continued gathering of accurate information on State
succession and subsequent implementation of the law relating to nationality by therelevant Japanese administrative bodies, starting with the legal affairs bureau, would be
required.

120

Category K [Persons denied nationality under the law of the country of origin] Persons
who cannot acquire nationality under the law of the relevant country (Sample cases from
Myanmar)Category K is statelessness caused by the fact that nationality is denied by the law of therelevant country.
The individuals in < Case 19 > are Rohingya from Myanmar; they are in a stateless situation
because Rohingya are not included as citizens according to the definition of citizenshipprovided by the nationality law of Myanmar.
1. < Case 19 > Case summary
Rohingya is an ethnic group of Muslims residing in Myanmar, and they mostly reside in
the three regions (Maungdaw, Buthidaung, and Rathedaung) in the north of Rakhine State
along the border with Bangladesh. It is estimated that, in 2014, there were more than
one million Rohingyas within Rakhine State.229 Because of historical and other issues,
Rohingyas have been subjected to extremely serious violations of human rights within
Myanmar. It is said that they routinely face various human rights violations such as forcedlabor, confiscation of property, arbitrary taxation, limitations on marriage, and limitations
on movement.
A, B and C are adult Rohingya men who have been born and raised in Maungdaw in
Rakhine State. All three of them were routinely subjected to forced labor, looting ofproperty, or inappropriate financial demands by Nasaka (the border security force) 230
and security forces.
A fled to Bangladesh because he was arrested and tortured as a result of protesting thedestruction of religious facilities by Nasaka in Maungdaw. He arrived in Japan in 2006
and applied for refugee status. B fled to Thailand by sea because he was arrested andsubjected to violence including punching and kicking due to his political activities in
Maungdaw. After moving around in various countries in Asia, he arrived in Japan in 2006
and applied for refugee status. C fled to Bangladesh by crossing a river because he feared229

Equal Rights Trust in Partnership with the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol
University, Equal Only in Name: The Human Rights of Stateless Rohingya in Thailand (October, 2014), at
http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Equal%20Only%20in%20Name%20-%20Thailand%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.
230
Nasaka consists of the police, military intelligence (MI), the lon htein (internal security or riot police),customs officials, and the Immigration and Manpower Department (IMPD). Amnesty International,
Biruma (Myanmar) Shousuuminzoku Rohingya: Kihonteki Jinkenno Hitei [Myanmar, The Rohingya Minority:
Fundamental Rights Denied], translated by Amnesty International Japan Burma (Myanmar) Coordination
Team (2004), at
http://www.amnesty.or.jp/library/report/pdf/the_rohingya_minority_fundamental_rights_denied.pdf.

121revenge from soldiers after he begged them to stop abducting a girl who was hisclassmate in Maungdaw. He arrived in Japan in 2006 and applied for refugee status.231
2. Possibility of acquiring the nationality of relevant States
The country with which A, B and C have a possibility of acquiring nationality is
Myanmar. The 1982 Citizenship Law states, in Article 3, Chapter 2 “Citizenship”,“Nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan andethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories included within the State as theirpermanent home from a period prior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D. are citizens of Myanmar.”232
The government of Myanmar considers Rohingyas as illegal migrants who entered
Myanmar after the Anglo-Burmese War of 1824, and it does not consider them asnationals for the reason that they do not meet the above definition.233
The government of Myanmar has made its position clear that Rohingyas cannot acquire
Myanmar nationality in the implementation of the above-mentioned Citizenship Law. In
1998, General Khin Nyunt, First Secretary, told the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
regarding the Rohingya issue: “the issue is essentially one of migration… These people
are not originally from Myanmar but have illegally migrated to Myanmar because of
population pressures in their own country.” 234 Also, in 2004, the State Peace andDevelopment Council, which was the government authority of Myanmar at the time,
responded to the Committee on the Rights of the Child by stating that “The Republic of
the Union of Myanmar consists of 135 nation states, and there is no ethnic group named
Rohingya.” It publicly denies that Rohingyas are citizens of Myanmar.235
In fact, in the process of implementing the 1982 Citizenship Law, it cannot be
confirmed whether the government of Myanmar has officially issued identification
documents or passports to Rohingyas (as Rohingyas). For Rohingya people to obtainthese official documents, they must pay a large bribe sum at the risk of being punished
for false representation under the Citizenship Law (Article 18). Even in such cases, theywould not be noted as “Rohingya” but would be noted as “Bengali” or “Muslim”.
As described above, based on the Citizenship Law and its interpretation and practicein Myanmar, Rohingya people cannot expect to acquire nationality as Rohingyas at thispoint in time.
3. Response by Japan
231 Based on submissions during trial, Tokyo District Court, 2007 (Heisei 19 Nen), Gyou U No.472 andothers: A’s statement, evidence Kou I -1; B’s statement, evidence Kou Ri -1, C’s statement, evidence Kou
Ru -1.
232 Burma Citizenship Law (15 October 1982).
233 Amnesty International, supra note 231, p.3.
234
International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, International Mission of Inquiry Burma: Repression,
Discrimination and Ethnic Cleansing in Arakan (2000), at https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/arakbirm.pdf, p.
19.
235
Amnesty International, supra note 231, pp.3-4.

122

(1) Nationality determinations by administrative procedure
A, B and C were not recognized as refugees and were not granted residence permits onhumanitarian grounds. Therefore, deportation orders were issued to them. Whereas“nationality” is to be noted on a deportation order under the ICRRA (Article 51),
“Myanmar” was noted as the nationality of A, B and C. Certainly, A, B and C claimed
Myanmar as their country of nationality. However, A and B have never been issued aMyanmar passport or national registration certificate. (Translator’s note: The original text
reads kokumin torokusho. It was clarified with the author that kokumin torokusho in thiscontext refers to both of the two types of Myanmar ID documents which are often
referred to as “national registration card [NRC]” and “citizenship [or nationality] scruitiny
card [CSC]” in English.) B had family registration, but it noted all of his family memberswith the ethnicity of “Bengali” and the nationality section was left blank. B’s parents had
the “Union of Myanmar Certification Card” (the so-called Green Card) issued in 1955. B’s
family registration had a section to note the national registration number, but it was
empty for B; and the nationality section was left blank for all members of the family. C
also has never been issued a Myanmar passport or national registration certificate andonly has a provisional identification document (the so-called White Card) which clearlystates that it is not a proof of nationality. In the ethnicity section on the provisional
identification document, he is noted as “Muslim”.
Thus, A, B and C do not possess a passport, national registration certificate, or any otherdocument clearly showing their nationality. Nevertheless, their nationality was noted as“Myanmar” in the deportation procedure. That Rohingyas were denied nationality andsubjected to grave violations of human rights was a widely known fact; however, there isno sign that, in the administrative procedure, the nationality of A, B and C was examinedand determined carefully with such awareness.
(2) Nationality determinations by the judiciary
A, B and C, along with 18 other persons similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in 2007 to
demand the cancellation of the rejection of their refugee status.
The Tokyo District Court, which is the court of first instance, affirmed refugee status
for A and B. In its judgment, the court pointed out that “Rohingyas are not recognized as
Myanmar citizens under the 1982 Citizenship Law”, and it found with regard to A and B
that, “the plaintiffs are not considered as having Myanmar nationality even though they
had domicile in Myanmar in light of the fact that most Rohingyas are not granted
Myanmar nationality in Myanmar”; and, stating that they are both “stateless persons
outside of Myanmar where they had domicile”, it recognized them as refugees.236

236 Tokyo District Court, Judgment, 29 October 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Shoumu Geppou, Vol.57, No.1,

p.1.

123

On the other hand, the court denied refugee status to the other Rohingya plaintiffs
including C without mention of their nationality, even though they did not possess
Myanmar passports or national registration certificates, and some of them did not evenhave family registration.
At the appeal instance, where whether the 18 appellants including C had Myanmar
nationality was an issue, the Tokyo High Court affirmed their Myanmar nationality. The
court said, “It is found that the appellants consider themselves as having Myanmar
nationality, that they have continuously lived in Myanmar since birth in Myanmar, andthat their relatives also reside peacefully within Myanmar; there is no sufficient evidence
to recognize that the appellants and their parents have illegally entered Myanmar from
Bangladesh, that the appellants were denied nationality or deported by the governmentof Myanmar; they were residing in Myanmar legally under the approval of thegovernment of Myanmar,” and “it is appropriate to recognize the appellants as having
Myanmar nationality under the citizenship law of Myanmar.”237
The three of them who were recognized by the court as refugees (including A and B)
were officially recognized as refugees later by the Minister of Justice upon conclusion of
the court proceedings. However, they were not recognized as stateless at the time of
their recognition as refugees (their refugee recognition certificates note “Nationality
Myanmar”). The legitimacy of this treatment by the administrative authorities should bein question in relation to the holding of the final judgment by the court.
4. Possible size of Category K(1) Characteristics of this category
Case 19 is part of a category in which concerned individuals cannot acquire thenationality of the State of birth because of a discriminatory nationality system or its
operation in the country, and they arrive in Japan already in such a situation. Rohingyas
from Myanmar are representative examples in this Category K.
Despite the fact that most Rohingyas cannot enjoy the status of citizens, a considerable
number of them have been treated as Myanmar nationals in Japan by immigration andother authorities. Moreover, in the appeal court judgment mentioned above, they arerecognized as having Myanmar nationality based on reasons such as their own
recognition, birth, and residence, etc.
(2) Possible size of Category K
At this point, individuals belonging to this category having a certain number andrecognized as a group are the Rohingyas of Myanmar. There are no accurate statistics
237

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, 12 September 2012 (Heisei 24 Nen), Shoumu Geppou, Vol.59, No.6,
p.1654.

124

about the Rohingyas residing in Japan, but it is estimated that there are several hundred
people at the least.238 Groups other than Rohingya that are treated by the country of origin
in such a way that they fall under this category are not known in particular, and it is difficult
to grasp the extent of this category.
5. Solutions for Category K(1) Prevention
In this category, statelessness arises outside of Japan; so, as in Category I [Lack of
proof] and Category J [State succession II], it would be difficult for the Japanese
government to take measures for prevention, except from the viewpoint of working with
the international community.
In relation to the children of Rohingyas born in Japan, it is possible that they fall under
Category G. If the parents are duly recognized as “stateless” and the children acquire
Japanese nationality at birth under Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act, their statelessness
would be prevented.
(2) Protection and reduction
From the perspective of protection, first, providing protection as refugees can beconsidered. In case individuals cannot be recognized as refugees, they could be protectedby the introduction of a statelessness determination and protection system, andadjustments of relevant systems for residential status and special permission to stay; in thissense, the situation is similar to Category A [conflict of laws] and other categories.
Also, as in Category I and J, in case a deportation order is to be issued, the notation ofnationality as “Myanmar” should be avoided as it is not a nationality in a real sense.
On the other hand, from the perspective of reduction, it is desirable to establish a system
under which the application of simplified naturalization, provided in Article 8(iv) of the
Nationality Act, is not limited to stateless persons born in Japan, as described in Category
B [State succession I]. Also, the Legal Affairs Bureau and other government authorities ofJapan are expected, as a presumption, to make continuous efforts to collect accurate
information on the treatment of the nationality of Rohingyas in Myanmar.

238

For example, it is reported that approximately 200 Rohingyas are residing in and around Tatebayashi
City, Gunma Prefecture. Asahi Shimbun, “Rohingya Zoku, Gunmani 200 Nin, Nihonni Ikiru
Mukokusekishatachi [Rohingya People, 200 in Gunma, Stateless People Living in Japan]”, Asahi Shimbun
Digital SELECT, Kindle version (June 2015).

125Section 3: Other categories of persons

Category L Unregistered persons
Category L examines cases of persons who are not registered as nationals of a State who
may be considered to be stateless.
1. Introduction
It tends to be misunderstood that persons who are “not registered” as a national of aState are equivalent to being “stateless”. However, being “unregistered” in itself does notmean they are stateless. However, it cannot be denied that being unregistered or
undocumented can lead to statelessness. Thus, this issue is explored as Category L.
For example, three Categories under Section 1 cover cases where being unregistered
may lead to statelessness. Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)] and Category D[Persons similarly situated as refugees] include cases where the persons concerned or
their children are not registered with the countries of origin through the consulates forreasons such as that the persons concerned are refugees or asylum-seekers. Furthermore,
Category H [Consulate denial III (others)] covers cases where the persons cannot beregistered with the countries of origin of their parents due to the implementation of thelaw by the consulates. In these sorts of cases where registration cannot be completed
due to refugee status or discriminatory implementation of the law, there is a possibilityof these persons being stateless.
Category L will thus explore the situation of “unregistered persons” in the Japanesecontext239 by examining the possibility of certain persons being considered statelessafter giving an overview of why they are “unregistered”.
2. Relationship between “lack of registration” and “statelessness”
For the purpose of this report, “not being registered” refers to the situation where theperson concerned is not registered as a national of a certain State whose nationality the
person appears to possess. This refers to the situation where the person is unable toprove his or her possession of the nationality of a particular State, as he or she is notknown to that State at the same time he or she appears to have automatically acquired
nationality as soon as fulfilling the legal requirements (such as that his or her parent is anational) as, according to the text of the relevant State’s nationality law, registration is
not a requirement for the acquisition of nationality.
In this context, simply being “unregistered” is not sufficient to recognize the person to
be a “person who is not considered to be a national by any State under the operation of239

However, those without a Japanese family register, many of whom probably have Japanesenationality, are excluded here because they would be considered under Category M.

126

its law” which is the definition of a stateless person. The reasons for being without
registration needs to be verified, which differ significantly case to case.
Among all the “unregistered” cases whose causes or situations differ, it can be said thatthe possibility of the persons being recognized as stateless is higher, at least in cases inwhich the persons themselves or other concerned persons have taken actions which arenormally expected to be taken by persons in their situation, but registration cannot be
achieved.
3. Unregistered persons in Japan and their reasons for being “unregistered”
It is likely that the majority of “unregistered persons” are children born in Japan who
are not registered with the State whose nationality they appear to have acquired(hereinafter “the relevant State”). For persons who came to Japan after having been born
outside Japan, the majority of cases should have some sort of documents produced upon
their entry into Japan indicating their nationality. Furthermore, it is generally difficult fora person who is a national of a certain State who nevertheless is without any documents
proving such possession of nationality to go to another State.
Below, an examination is made by dividing unregistered persons born in Japan into, first,
persons whose procedure with the Japanese authorities to submit “notification of birth”(shussho/shussei todoke) has not been completed, and second, persons whose birth
registration has not been done with the consulate of the relevant State in Japan.
(1) In cases where “notification of birth” has not been submitted to a municipal
government office
When a child is born in Japan, regardless of nationality, a notification of birth needs tobe submitted within 14 days of birth.240 In principle, the father or mother of the person
is obliged to submit the notification of birth.241 When the notification of birth is acceptedby a municipal government office, confirming the fact that the child concerned has
acquired Japanese nationality, he or she will be registered under a family register.
However, there are some cases where the persons’ birth is not registered with amunicipality office. The reasons for this include the following.
First, it happens when the person has not been issued with a “certificate of birth”(shussho/shussei shomeisho) produced by a doctor or a midwife. In principle, a notificationof birth needs to be submitted with a “certificate of birth” attached to it if persons such

240

Family Register Act Article 49 (1) and Response from Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau, Agency
for Legal Affairs (translator’s note: the government agency preceding the current Ministry of Justice),
23 March 1949, Minji Kou No.3961.
241
Family Register Act Article 52.

127as a doctor or midwife were present.242 However, some women give birth at home oroutside without a doctor or a midwife being present. In particular, in cases where themothers are of young age and have an unwanted pregnancy, are in poverty, have been
abused in complicated family relationships (so-called “specific pregnant women [tokutei
ninpu]”), 243 or are foreigners without residency permits, delivery outside a medical
institution tends to occur.
In case there is no birth certificate produced by a doctor or midwife, the person
concerned would need to go through a significantly complicated procedure for the child’sbirth notification to be accepted, being required to submit different documents to provethat a delivery by the mother has occurred.
In some cases, a “birth certificate” produced by a doctor or midwife may be issued,
while a notification of birth to a Japanese municipality is not. Possible reasons for thisinclude that: (a) parents are unaware of the need to submit a notification of birth to a
Japanese municipal office, (b) parents are irregularly staying foreigners and thus are afraidof being revealed by approaching a Japanese administrative body, (c) the mother wishes
to avoid having her child be registered as a child of her previous husband due to theissues related to the rules of paternity presumption within 300 days post-divorce,244 and(d) the biological mother has disappeared or died.245(2) In cases where the birth has not been registered with the consulate in JapanThe reasons why some parents do not register their children’s birth with the consulates
in Japan include the following: (i) parents are unaware of the need to register theirchildren’s birth also with their consulate, (ii) parents approach the consulate only when
there is a benefit for doing so, such as when their children’s passports need to be obtained,(iii) parents are irregularly staying foreigners and the consulates concerned do not registerbirths of children whose parents are without residency status in Japan, (iv) there are
direct or indirect requirements for registering births of children, (v) documentary proof
for the parents’ identity is insufficient, or (vi) a birth certificate issued in Japan or acertificate issued by a municipality office of with the content of a birth notification
submitted is required as a prerequisite for registering the birth with the consulate, andparents do not possess them.

242

Family Register Act, Article 49 (3). The current format for notification of birth is combined with thecertificate of birth. Circular, Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice (25 June 2012)(Heisei 24 Nen), Min Ichi No.1551.
243 A “tokutei ninpu [specific pregnant woman]” is defined as follows in Article 6-3 (5), Child Welfare
Act: “a pregnant woman for whom assistance is deemed necessary in particular with regard to childrearing, prior to birth.”244
The issue of “300 days after divorce” and cases in which a child becomes unregistered due to thisprovision are discussed in detail in Category M: Persons without Japanese family register.
245 In case of (d), the child would acquire Japanese nationality if “both of the parents are unknown”,
as in Article 2 (iii) of the Japanese Nationality Act. See Category G: Unknown or stateless parents.

128With regard to (iv) above, examples include situations where parents’ payment of tax
is required to register the birth of a child. With regard to (v), as the acquisition ofnationality is based on the parent-child relationship, documents proving that a child’s
mother or father is a national of the State concerned is required.
At any rate, as long as the notification of a person’s birth has not been submitted to a
consulate in Japan, the fact that the person is not registered with the relevant Stateremains unchanged.
4. Examination of “actions reasonably expected to be taken by persons similarly situated”
As stated above, persons are unable to prove which nationality they possess as longas they remain “unregistered” with relevant States. At the same time, they cannot be
determined to be stateless either. It can be said that only after the persons themselves
or others concerned take actions reasonably expected to be taken, depending on theparticular facts of the case, that the persons concerned can be confirmed to be nationals
of a particular State or stateless.
In this regard, even among “unregistered” persons, the causes of their lack ofregistration and their situations differ case to case. What constitutes “actions reasonably
expected to be taken” that are required from the persons themselves or other concerned
persons also requires individual assessments.
For example, in cases (a), (i) and (ii) above, where parents’ ignorance or negligence
results in their children’s lack of registration, if there is a substantial possibility that theregistration as nationals would have been done by the parents simply having submitted
the notification or application for registration, then it is hard to say the persons arestateless as the “reasonably expected actions” have not actually been taken by the
persons concerned in such cases.
In contrast, for persons who approach relevant consulates in Japan and attempt to go
through the procedure to have their children registered as nationals of those countries,
or who apply for their children’s passports, but who have been denied registration forreasons such as (iv) and (v) above, the children concerned will not only be “unregisteredpersons”, but also possibly stateless, as it can be said that the lack of registration has notbeen resolved after taking the “reasonably expected actions”.
Furthermore, in cases where the persons concerned do not have any official
documents to demonstrate the possession of nationality of the relevant country, and it
is objectively apparent that it is practically difficult to acquire such documents, it is likelythat in many cases the persons concerned and their children will be recognized asstateless (without requiring actions beyond approaching the consulate and so on).

129

Category M Persons without a family register
Category M will examine cases of persons who may be possibly considered stateless among“persons without a family register” (mukosekisha), which tend to refer to Japanese nationals
who are nevertheless not registered under a family register.
1. Definition of persons without a family register and the causes and the disadvantages
incurred(1) Definition of persons without a family register and the coverage of this category
A “person without a family register” (mukosekisha) is generally understood to refer toa “person who is presumed to possess Japanese nationality” but for some reasons is notregistered under any family register.246 Issues related to a lack of family register have,since 2007, attracted society’s attention after the issues relating to the presumption ofpaternity within 300 days of divorce were highlighted.
A family register is an official document which chronologically documents the personal
status of a Japanese national from his or her birth to death.247 The creation of a person’sfamily register leads to the recognition by the State of the existence of the person,
resident registration, protection of the rights of the person, and provision ofadministrative services.
Furthermore, as the family register only registers Japanese nationals, nationality andfamily registers are closely related. If a person possesses Japanese nationality, it isnormally the case that he or she is duly registered under the family register. Whileregistration under the family register does not definitively prove the person’s possessionof Japanese nationality, “the fact that notification of birth was submitted as a Japanesenational and he or she is registered under a family register results in a presumption of
being a Japanese national, as the family register registers Japanese nationals.”248
Based on this premise, previous discourse on the “lack of family register” (mukoseki)
and on “statelessness” (mukokuseki) have tended to discuss each issue separately. The
issue of persons without a family register has been handled as a procedural issue, wherea child’s birth notification cannot be submitted and a family register cannot be created
due to for example the issues with the paternity presumption within 300 days of divorce.
246 The number of persons within Japan without a family register (minors under 20 without a family

register and adult persons without a family register) varies widely depending on the reporting agency,
and it is very difficult to grasp the total number. Regarding this issue, it is reported that “1,403 wereconfirmed according to research by the Ministry of Justice in and/or after 2014”, and “701 still remained
without a family register” with “132 among them being adults” as of 10 July 2017. Shuukan Houritsu
Shinbun, 1 September 2017. On the creation of family registers, see supra note 169.
247 Tomohei Taniguchi, Kosekihou (Shinpan) [Family Register Act, newly edited version] (Yuuhikaku,1983), p.44.
248
Id., p.116.

130

In this context, persons without a family register have been generally considered to referto persons who possess Japanese nationality automatically by birth under Article 2(i) of
the Japanese Nationality Act. As a result, it can be said that the previous discourse did
not even envisage the possible nexus between the lack of family registers andstatelessness.
However, while possession of Japanese nationality is the premise for persons withouta family register, if the person concerned cannot “prove” his or her possession ofJapanese nationality, he or she is not only a person without a family register but alsocomes close to being a stateless person.
In this Category M, first, section (2) provides an overview of the issue of lack of family
registers. Second, section (3) discusses the relationship between persons without family
registers and the Nationality Act, i.e., the possibility of that persons may become withouta family register and stateless at the same time in relation to Article 2(i) and (iii) of theAct. In section (4), it will be explained how, in such cases, the “proof” of possession ofnationality becomes an issue.
(2) Cause of the lack of a family register
There are a number of causes that lead to situations where persons lack family registers.
It is reported that among them, the most frequent cause is a legal one where, for example,
Article 772 of the Civil Code is a hurdle, which article presumes that children have alegitimate status, often referred to as the “300 days after divorce” issue.249 As detailed
later in section (3), at the time of writing, this issue has been improved to a certain extent.
However, it is still useful to review these cases as they are the most known among all
persons without family registers.
The “300 days after divorce” issue refers to the issue where a child is treated as thechild of one’s previous husband, although he is not the biological father of the child, under
the family register due to Article 772 of the Civil Code presuming that the child islegitimate,250 or the issue where the child is left without a family register because themother does not submit a notification of birth of her child to avoid the de facto
establishment of a legal parent-child relationship between the previous husband and thechild born within 300 days of divorce.
249

In addition, there could be the following cases. See Masae Ido, Mukosekino Nihonjin [Japanese People
without a Family Register] (Shuueisha, 2016), p.52 and following.
1) Cases in which the parents do not think of filing a notification of birth or purposely avoid registration,
due to circumstances such as poverty or unstable domicile;2) Cases in which the parents refuse to submit a notification of birth because “they are against the family
register system itself”;
3) Cases in which a person who originally had a family register becomes unable to use it for some reason
such as memory loss, etc., and
4) Case of the Emperor and the imperial family.
250
See supra note 181.

131

Under the Family Registration Law, it is the rule that a husband, wife, and their children
are to be registered under the same family register with a common family name.251 In
the current Japanese society, the vast majority of married couples decide that the wife
goes into the husband’s family register.252 As a result, their children also get registeredunder the husband’s family register. As a result, even after the husband and wife divorce,
if a child is born within the period within which the presumption of legitimacy is effective,
and the notification of his or her birth is submitted, then the child will be registeredautomatically onto the now ex-husband’s family register. Thus, women who used to be
subjected to domestic violence by their previous husbands end up refraining from
submitting the notification of the child’s birth.
Article 772 of the Civil Code was written with the viewpoint of child protection withthe thought that it would be in the child’s interest that his or her parents are legally
established as soon as the child is born and that he or she will be raised under theprotection of such parents. However, in practice, this very provision functions to“determine” the father-child relationship, which, once established, can only beoverturned by completing the legal procedures, such as the procedures for the husband
to deny the child’s legitimacy, the confirmation of the non-existence of a parent-childrelationship,253 as well as the forcible recognition of paternity. As a result, the provision
has caused some children to incur the great disadvantage of being left out of a family
register.
(3) The disadvantages experienced by persons outside of a family register
Persons without a family register whose existence is not recognized by the State havepreviously been enduring a variety of disadvantages.254 Their plight is similar to that of

251 Family Register Act Article 6, Article 14 (1), Article 26 (1) and (2).
252 According to the 2015 Vital Statistics by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, in 609,756

cases among the total of 635,156 marriages, the wife chose the surname of the husband and entered in
the husband’s family register; this amounts to 96%. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications, “Konin Kensuu, Ottono Uji, Tsumano Uji, Todoufuken Betsu – Heisei 27 Nenni Kekkon
Seikatsuni Hairi Todokedetamono [Number of Marriages, by Surname of Husband/Wife and by
Prefecture: Marriages Entered and Notified in 2015]”, Vital Statistics, at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001157970.
253
On procedures for denial of legitimacy, see supra note 181. On procedures for confirmation of nonexistence of parent-child relationship, see supra note 182.
254
For example, there are the following cases (Ido, supra note 250, p.19 and following):
1) One’s name is not listed in the Resident Record;
2) Access to compulsory education becomes difficult. The notice for entrance into the school system is
not mailed to a person without a family register;3) Medical expenses must be fully borne by the person, because he or she cannot have a healthinsurance certificate. It is not possible to receive necessary medical services, such as infant and childmedical care and mother and child health care;
4) He or she is unable to exercise the right to vote;132

stateless persons, who are the focus of this report. However, after 2007 when the “300days after divorce” issue had received heightened attention and the existence of persons
without a family register had been recognized as a social problem, there have been anumber of measures taken to rectify the disadvantages that such persons have to endure.
As a result, many of the disadvantages that the persons without family registers face dueto the “300 days after divorce” issue are being resolved.
The severity and the type of disadvantages that persons without family registers facediffer person to person. It should be noted that some persons continue to facedisadvantages due to being unable to benefit from the measures taken by theadministrative bodies to remedy their plight. For example, a person without a family
register can even be issued a Japanese national passport by fulfilling “certain conditions”.
However, the “conditions” include the agreement to be issued a passport under the familyname under which he or she is supposed to be registered, in accordance with Article 790
of the Civil Code. Some persons without family registers give up applying for their
Japanese passport due to the practical or psychological hurdles that this causes (as amatter of their identity and so on).255
2. Persons who can be both without family registers and stateless: Relationship with
Article 2(i) and Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act
As the Japanese Nationality Act adopts a paternal and maternal jus sanguinis principle,
children acquire Japanese nationality at the time of their birth if their mother or father
possesses Japanese nationality at that time (Article 2(i)). This is the case in situations
where a father of Japanese nationality passes away before the child’s birth, and themother is a foreign national (Article 2(ii)).
As a result, the discourse up to today regarding cases of persons who are withoutfamily registers due to the “300 days after divorce” issue presupposes that most of them
have acquired Japanese nationality at the time of birth under Article 2(i). This is to saythat the issue is examined with a limited focus, with an understanding that the persons
already possess Japanese nationality, and the issue is only limited to procedural hurdles

5) It is not possible to open a bank account or have a contract for a mobile phone, because he or she
does not have identification documents;
6) It is not possible to obtain a passport;
7) It is difficult to get a job with a decent employer; and8) Other: there are cases where non-existence of a family register became an obstacle for marriage
and/or birth.
255
There is a person without a family register who cannot obtain a passport for she feels that her
personality is being denied by the fact that a passport cannot be issued under the surname she currently
uses, which is the surname of her natural father, because she was born before the dissolution of themarriage between her mother and her former husband, who had subjected her mother to severe
domestic violence. See the case of “Ms. Kumi Sakagami”, introduced in Chika Akiyama, Kosekino Nai
Nihonjin [Japanese without a Family Register] (Futabasha, 2015).

133

in registering the person onto the family register. Adjudications by courts to permit
registration in family registers are also issued with the same understanding, with thepremise that persons without family registers possess Japanese nationality.256
In this context, it needs to be noted that the Nationality Act, while adopting thepaternal and maternal jus sanguinis principle, exceptionally adopts a jus soli principle toprevent statelessness under Article 2(iii), and it allows acquisition of Japanese nationality
by birth by persons born in Japan of “unknown parents” or stateless parents. The nexus
between this provision and the issue of persons without family registers has not been
pointed out, as the former has always been considered as an issue of whether or not one
meets the legal requirements under Article 2(iii) and the consequences for not being
recognized to fulfill the requirements. That is, the possibility that situations where thelack of a family register or mukoseki would arise there has not been pointed out. However,it needs to be noted that even if a child has acquired Japanese nationality under Article2(iii), if the parents do not submit notification of birth and/or a family register is notcreated, the person will be rendered without a family register.
The Baby Andrew case introduced under Category G [parents unknown/stateless] andCase 14 [a child born of unknown nationality in Japan] can be considered as cases where
Article 2(iii) and the issue of a lack of a family register come together. In both cases,
eventually with court decisions, the respective persons’ acquisition of Japanesenationality was confirmed by birth under Article 2(iii), and a family register was created.
However, the persons in these cases had not previously been registered as Japanesenationals until that time. This is to say that the above persons were “persons without afamily register” in the sense that while they had always possessed Japanese nationality
since birth, no family register had been created. However, these cases had rarely been
discussed in the discourse relating to “persons without family registers”.
In this sense also, renewed and sufficient attention should be paid to the fact that thelack of a family register occurs not only in relation to Article 2(i) with the typical scenarioof the “300 days after divorce” issue, but also on the basis of Article 2(iii).

3. Nexus between a lack of a family register and statelessness from the point of view of“proof”
As stated above, persons without family registers, unlike stateless persons in general,
have been understood to refer to persons who have acquired Japanese nationality bybirth. In relation to the lack of a family register, the discussion tended to revolve aroundthe fact that the person, while having acquired Japanese nationality, has not beenregistered under a family register.
256 Okayama District Court, Judgment, 14 January 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou, Vol.64,

No.5, p.78; Hanrei Jihou, No.2081, p.99. On the creation of family registers, see supra note 169.

134

However, the fact that a birth notification has not been submitted and a family registerhas not been created means that the person concerned lacks the grounds to “prove” hisor her possession of Japanese nationality. This is to say that, as long as registration undera family register is hindered, the person cannot, at a high standard of proof, “prove” hisor her possession of Japanese nationality unless he or she can do so through other means,even if he or she has acquired Japanese nationality under Article 2(i) or (iii).
Looking at the issue of a lack of a family register by focusing on the “proof” ofnationality possession, it becomes apparent that some of those who are referred to as“persons lacking a family register”, as they are considered likely to have acquired
Japanese nationality, may in fact face substantively similar issues as stateless persons ingeneral. Persons who can sufficiently prove their possession of Japanese nationality toqualify for the “presumption” are highly unlikely to be stateless, and their issues do not
go beyond the lack of a family register as generally known. On the other hand, if theperson concerned has limited means to prove or faces difficulties in proving his or her
possession of Japanese nationality, the possibility rises that the persons concerned arestateless.
In this context, in relation to the cases arising out of the “300 days after divorce” issue,
the practice which is becoming systematic nowadays is to register the person under the
Resident Record (jyuuminhyou) without waiting for the resolution of their lack of a family
register, under certain conditions. These conditions are that the person’s descent from aJapanese mother is established, thus that the person’s Japanese nationality is clear, that
his or her birth notification cannot be submitted due to Article 772 of the Civil Code, andthat the person is pursuing litigation or mediation which makes it likely that the person’sfamily register will eventually be created.257 For this reason, in relation to persons whose
residence records are created in accordance with this procedure, it can be consideredthat a municipal government has recognized the Japanese nationality of persons
concerned without family registers, and that the possibility of such persons qualifying asstateless persons is substantively and comparatively low.
On the other hand, even for cases related to the “300 days after divorce” issue, incases such as where a person without a family register is also without a residence
registration and whose mother has not received his or her birth certificate, has not
submitted the notification of his or her birth for many years, and who disappears after
that, it would possibly become tremendously difficult to establish his or her nationality,
as it would be difficult for the person to establish his or her descent from the mother andher previous husband who is purportedly his or her legal father. As a result, the possibility
257 These are based on the following notices: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Local

Administration Bureau, Director of Municipalities, “Shussei Todokeno Teishutsuni Itaranai Konikakaru
Jyuuminhyouno Kisainitsuite (Tsuuchi) [(Notice) on Entry into Resident Record Concerning Children
whose Notification of Birth Is Not Submitted]”, 7 July 2008 (Heisei 20 Nen), Sou Gyou Shi No. 143.
Mainichi Shinbun, Social Section, “Rikongo 300 Nichi Mondai, Mukosekijiwo Sukue! [The Issue of 300 Days
after Divorce, Save Children without a Family Register!]” (Akashi Shoten, 2008), pp.183-186.

135

that this sort of person qualifies as stateless is higher compared to persons whose
residence registration can be created.
4. Summary
Cases of persons without a family register represented by the “300 days after divorce”
issue have previously been understood as a procedural matter where hurdles exist inregistering persons under family registers, with the implicit premise that the persons
possess Japanese nationality. This view has hindered the correct understanding that
persons who can be “presumed” to have acquired Japanese nationality under Article 2(iii)of the Japanese Nationality Act can well be “persons without a family register,” apartfrom persons who are “presumed” to have acquired Japanese nationality under Article2(i).
It should not be forgotten that “persons without a family register” or “mukosekisha”
also arise on the basis of Article 2(iii) which provides for the acquisition of Japanesenationality under the Nationality Act. The fact that the lack of a family register on thebasis of Article 2(iii) is not recognized as a problem is apparent from the fact that thecurrent measures taken to rectify the disadvantages experienced by persons withoutfamily registers focus on the cases related to the “300 days after divorce” issue.
The issues of lacking family registers (mukoseki mondai) and statelessness issues(mukokuseki mondai) have common features as they both rise out of State systems, andthey overlap to some extent with the varied causes for the lack of family registers. Proper
recognition of the nexus between the two issues leads to an accurate understanding ofboth the issues of the lack of family registers and nationality. This would in turn lead toproper remedies to the cases where the lack of family registers and nationality overlap
from a holistic perspective covering the two legal frameworks relating to family registers
and nationality.

136

Category N Persons registered under the “Chosen/Korean” classification (ROK/DPKR)
Category N will explore the nationality status of persons from areas previously colonizedby Japan and their descendants whose “region of origin” is written as “Chosen” under theStatistics on Foreign National Residents.
1. Issues related to nationality for resident Koreans registered to be from “Chosen”
Among the persons who have resided since before the war from the formerlycolonized areas and their descendants, the nationality status of those who are registered
to be from “Chosen” [Translator’s note: the Korean/Japanese term referring to Korea ingeneral] has some complex issues due to its historical background.258 As of December
2016, the number of persons who are registered under the designation “Chosen” are32,461. 259 The responses to these people, such as in the sample cases, vary, and as therisk of statelessness cannot be eliminated, this category is to be discussed as Category N.
While under Japan’s colonization, persons originating from the colonies including fromthe Korean peninsula had no choice but to be granted Japanese nationality as “nihonshinmin”. 260 Thus, a significant number of these persons who were “nihon-shinmin”
continued to live in Japan even after the war. However, the Japanese government, basedon the San Francisco Treaty,261 took the position that their Japanese nationality was lostas of 28 April 1952, the date when the Treaty came into effect, via a Government
Circular. 262 Based on this Circular, approximately 52,000 Koreans (from the Korean
peninsula) and 17,000 Taiwanese (from Taiwan) were made to lose their Japanese
258 Please refer to the following material with regard to the origin of the designation “Chosen”. Chong

Yong-hwan, “Zainichi Chosenjinno ‘Kokuseki’to Chosen Sensou (1947-1952 Nen) – ‘Chosenseki’wa Ikanishite
Umaretaka [‘Nationality’ of Zainichi Koreans and the Korean War (1947-1952): How ‘Chosen Nationality’
Was Born]”, PRIME No.40 (Meiji Gakuin Daigaku Kokusai Heiwa Kenkyuujo [International Peace ResearchInstitute, Meiji Gakuin University, 2017].
259 Supra note 42, “Statistics on Foreign National Residents, December 2016” (published in March 2017),
at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001161643.
260 However, those originating from the colonized areas were registered under an “External area” family
register, and they had a different legal status than Japanese nationals (“in-land”/mainland nationals) who
had been living in mainland Japan.
261
Article 2 of San Francisco Peace Treaty provides that Korea and Taiwan shall be severed fromJapanese territory on the day the treaty enters into force.
262 Ministry of Justice Circular by Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau, “Heiwa Jouyakuno HakkouniTomonau Chosenjin, Taiwanjintounikansuru Kokuseki Oyobi Kosekijimuno Shori [Family Register andNationality of the Chosen and Taiwan People upon the Adoption of the Peace Treaty]”, 19 April 1952(Showa 27 Nen), Minji Kou No.438. However, there is an argument that this Circular No.438 is null,because it stipulated nationality through a document not amounting to law in violation of Article 10 of
the Japanese Constitution. Yasuaki Ohnuma, Zainichi Kankoku, Chosenjinno Kokusekito Jinken[Nationality and Human Rights of Koreans Residents] (Toushindo, 2004), pp.312-313.

137

nationality. 263 These people and their descendants are the persons who would
subsequently be referred to as “zainichi”. Among them, for zainichi Taiwan persons, it isunderstood that their nationality of “Republic of China” was recovered via the Law
relating to the Treatment of Nationality of Overseas Taiwanese that was issued by thegovernment of Taiwan in June 1946.264
On the other hand, person from the Korean peninsula, who are referred to as “zainichi”
Koreans, had their country of origin, Chosen, divided into South and North since 1948.
Both governments of the South and North asserted their legitimacy and stated that theareas and persons governed by each other were their territory and their citizens. Japan,
while it recognized ROK as a State, did not recognize DPRK as a State.
The column “kokuseki-toh” (nationality and others) on the (former) Alien Registration
Certificate issued by the government of Japan held by “zainichi” Koreans either lists a
reference to “ROK” or “Chosen”. With regard to zainichi Koreans registered under “ROK”,
it can be assumed that they are registered by the government of ROK as overseas
nationals.265 However, those persons registered under the designation “Chosen” are notregistered with the ROK as overseas nationals, but they may not be identified as nationalsof DPRK either. The government of Japan’s treatment of these persons also differs
depending on the case.

2. Acquisition of nationality of relevant countries(1) ROK
According to Article 5 of the provisional regulation relating to nationality on 11 May
1948, “persons who have been removed from the Japanese family register [registering

263

Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, “Shutsunyuukoku Kanrito Sono Jittai, Showa 34 Nen[Immigration Control and Its Actual Situation, 1959]” (Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, 1959),
pp. 21-22.
264 Id, p.20. Nevertheless, Taiwan was not recognized as a State upon the recovery of diplomatic
relations between Japan and People’s Republic of China in 1972.
265
As of 1947, when the Ordinance for Alien Registration was implemented, all zainichi Koreans had a“Chosen” reference on their alien registration certificates. Upon the ROK government’s request, since1950, registration under the designation ROK has been permitted according to the wishes of theconcerned individual. Id, pp.16-17. The Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea
Concerning the Legal Status and Treatment of the People of the Republic of Korea Residing in Japan,
which was adopted in 1965, refers to the “People of the Republic of Korea Residing in Japan”; Japanand ROK treat those registered under ROK as ROK nationals. Ohnuma, supra note 263, p. 364. However,there are few persons who are not registered with the ROK embassy while their foreigner residencecard carries a designation of ROK.

138

Japanese nationals] are considered to have recovered Korean (Chosen) nationality before
9 August 1945.”266
Those persons can be considered to have acquired ROK nationality upon the
publication of the ROK constitution on 17 July 1948. Their descendants from the secondgeneration on are understood to have acquired ROK nationality by jus sanguinis under
the relevant national legislation.267 It is noted that for zainichi Koreans registered under
the designation “Chosen”, even if these persons have acquired DPRK nationality andmoreover are issued with a certificate of overseas national from DPRK, it is understoodthat they still maintain their ROK nationality.268(2) DPRKThe DPRK constitution was promulgated on 8 September 1948. The establishment of
DPRK was declared on 9 September 1948. However, the Constitution itself does notdefine its nationals. According to the Nationality Act of 9 October 1963, persons who
used to possess Korean nationality before the establishment of DPRK, who did notrenounce such nationality, are DPRK nationals (Article 1). As the DPRK Nationality Act
adopts a jus sanguinis principle, descendants of DPRK nationals acquire DPRK nationality.
On 23 March 1995 a new Nationality Act was adopted, but the acquisition of nationality
by birth remains the same as the previous Nationality Act 1963.269 Thus, resident zainichi

266 It is noted that term “Chosen” was used in the Temporary Regulations on Nationality because it was

before the establishment of ROK government. Sok Dong-hyun and Koo Bon-Joon, (translation by Kim
Moonsook), Saishin Daikanminkoku Kokusekihou–Chikujou Kaisetsuto Unyou Jitsumujouno Kaishaku[ROK’s Latest Nationality Law: Commentary and Interpretation for Practice], (Nihon Kajo Shuppan,
2011), pp.36-37.
267 Reference was made to the excerpts of the Seoul Administrative Court judgment on 19 June 2014
on confirmation of nationality of a Sakhalin Korean, as mentioned in the handouts distributed at the 20th
session of the Study Group on Statelessness in Japan (held in Tokyo on 22 April 2016) for a report by
Attorney Kim Cholmin.
268 See the 8 December 1995 ruling of the Seoul High Court, on a case concerning a plaintiff who wasborn in 1937 in an area currently belonging to ROK, who resided in an area belonging to DPRK after thewar, moved to China around 1960, and then entered ROK with a husband in 1992. The High Court
stated, “The DPRK areas are part of the Korean Peninsula which belongs to the ROK territory, where
ROK exercises its sovereignty and where any national entity or sovereignty in conflict with the ROK’s
sovereignty cannot be recognized by law. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has acquired the DPRK
nationality by the DPRK Constitution and has been issued with DPRK’s certificate for citizens abroad,such circumstances have no effect on the fact that the plaintiff has acquired and maintains ROK
nationality.” On 12 November 1996, the ROK’s Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling.
Yasuhiro Okuda, Katsuhiko Oka, and Masataka Kyou, Kankoku Kokusekihouno Chikujou Kaisetsu[Commentary on ROK’s Nationality Law] (Akashi Shoten, 2014), pp.155-156.
269
Article 2(1), 1995 Nationality Act. See the DPRK Nationality Act in the Documents section in
Shouichi Kidana and “Teijyuu Gaikokujinto Kazokuhou [Foreign Residents and Family Law]” Study Group,ed., Dai 3 pan Zainichino Kazokuhou Q&A [3rd Edition, Family Law for Zainichi, Q&A], Nihon Hyouronsha(2012), p.411 and following.

139

Koreans from the Korean peninsula are considered to have acquired DPRK and ROK
nationality simultaneously.
3. Treatment of “Chosen” zainichi resident Koreans by relevant countries(1) ROKAs stated earlier, “Chosen” zainichi Koreans are considered to have acquired thenationality of both ROK and DPRK according to the Nationality Act of each State.
However, they face difficulties in their attempt to travel to or stay in ROK as they are notregistered as ROK nationals.
As “Chosen” resident Koreans are not issued a national passport by the ROK
government, they travel to ROK by being issued with a “certificate for travel” by the ROK
embassy in Japan. However, after the change of government, the number of “certificatesof travel” issued since 2009 has drastically been reduced. The entry of resident Koreansregistered as “Chosen” into ROK has been restricted.270 In 2009, a suit was filed in Seoul,
Korea, against the decision not to issue a “certificate of travel” by the ROK embassy inJapan. 271 A, a scholar of zainichi Korean history was invited to participate in aninternational symposium on the history of zainichi Koreans. He thus applied for a“certificate for travel” at the embassy of Korea in Osaka. However, when he was asked
whether he “has a plan to acquire ROK nationality (to register as a ROK national)”272 on
the application form for the “certificate of travel”, A stated that he did not have such aplan. He was subsequently asked to share detailed information on the purpose of his
travel to ROK, the background for such travel, family relationships, and his employment.
He was subsequently rejected issuance of a “certificate of travel” for the reason that his

270 The issuance rate vis-à-vis applications for a certificate of travel under the Roh Moo-hyun regime in

2005-2008 was 99%-100%, with 2,000-3,000 applications; however, after 2009 when Lee Myung-bak
came to power, the issuance rate and the number of applications decreased sharply. In 2009, there were1,497 applications and 1,218 certificates were issued (issuance rate at 81.3%); in 2011, there were 64
applications and 25 certificates issued (issuance rate 39%); in 2016 under the Park Geun-hye regime,
there were 26 applications and 9 certificates issued (34.6%), the lowest in 12 years. Touitsu News,“Chosensekino Zainichi Korian, Kankokueno Nyuukoku Shouninritsu 35% Nisugizu [Zainichi Koreans with
ChosenNationality,
Entry
into
ROK,
Approval
Rate
Only35%]”,
at:http://japanese.yonhapnews.co.kr/relation/2016/09/26/0400000000AJP20160926004900882.html,
http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=118265 (in Korean).
271
Chong Yong-hwan, “Chosenseki Zainichi Chosenjinno Kankoku Nyuukoku Mondai [Issues related toEntry into ROK by Zainichi Chosen People with Chosen Nationality]”, Korea NGO Center, News Letter,
No.24 (November 2010), pp. 28-30.
272
If the ROK authorities’ position is that “Chosen” nationals have ROK nationality as a matter of course
under the ROK Nationality Act, it would probably not be accurate to refer to “acquisition of nationality”
in the guidance regarding the overseas national registration; however, at the ROK Consulate-General in
Japan, the overseas national registration procedure requiring a change from “Chosen nationality” to“ROK nationality” is referred to as acquisition (change) of nationality.

140

“identity could not be verified with the Police Agency.”273 While the nationality status of
Chosen resident Koreans was not the focus of this suit, the ROK government’s discretionover issuance of an ROK certificate of travel to “Chosen” resident Koreans in Japan (who,without such a certificate cannot travel to ROK) was disputed. The first instance court
referred to A as a “stateless overseas compatriot” and stated that the rejection of theissuance of a “certificate of travel” was illegal because A was “not considered to pose any
concerns to the national security, order, or public welfare.” 274 However, the second
instance court, while also referring to A as a “stateless overseas compatriot”, concluded
that the non-issuance of a “certificate of travel” itself is not illegal as the embassy has awide discretion over the decision to issue one.275 The second instance court also statedthat they did not see the link between the non-issuance and the fact that A did not havea will to “change his nationality” to ROK. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did notparticularly refer to A as stateless. 276 The Supreme Court stated that “compatriots
registered under the Chosen designation in Japan”, while they can only travel to ROK withthe “certificate of travel” under ROK law, decided that the second instance court decision
was justified.
On the other hand, there has been a decision by the ROK National Human Rights
Commission which referred to “Chosen” resident Koreans as stateless. In that case B, a
resident zainichi Korean registered with the Japanese authorities as “Chosen”, requested
a “certificate of travel” from the ROK embassy in Osaka to study overseas in ROK. He
complained to the Human Rights Commission stating that he was rejected a certificate
of travel, and the ROK embassy forcefully insisted that he acquire ROK nationality (toregister as a ROK national) in order to obtain one, which in his view amounted to humanrights violation. The Human Rights Commission stated that “to consider that resident
Koreans registered as ‘Chosen’ in Japan, such as B, meets the definition of statelesspersons under Article 1 of the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Personsreflects the reality of our society.” 277 Further to this, the Human Rights Commission
stated that “based on the special historical background that resident Koreans have gone
through, B has not opted for either ROK or North Korean (DKPK) nationality.” The
Commission concluded that, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, “to refuse the273 Chong, supra note 272, p.28.
274 The Decision on the petition to cancel the denial of issuance of certificate of travel (2009 ku-go-

34891) 31 December 2009, Seoul Administrative Court 14th Division (Japanese translation), madeavailable by the goodwill of Chong Yong-hwan.
275 The Decision on the petition to cancel the denial of issuance of certificate of travel (2010 nu-35361)
28 September 2010, Seoul High Court 1st Division (Japanese translation), made available by the goodwillof Chong Yong-hwan.
276 The Decision on the Petition to cancel the denial of issuance of certificate of travel (2010 tou22610), 12 December 2013, Supreme Court Third Division (Japanese translation.), made available by
the goodwill of Chong Yong-hwan.
277 National Human Rights Committee, Infringement Relief Second Committee, decision on 1 December
2009 (Japanese translation), made available by the goodwill of Chong Yong-hwan.

141issuance of a certificate for travel to B, or to require B to acquire ROK nationality as thecondition for issuing him with a certificate of travel” is equivalent to an act which infringes
upon the human rights and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of ROK.
However, there has also been a ROK Ministry of Justice’s administrative decision on“Chosen” resident Koreans who reside in ROK (having moved from Japan) which
presupposed that these resident Koreans possessed ROK nationality. This case involved
C, a resident Korean registered under the “Chosen” designation with the Japanese
authorities, who entered ROK with a certificate of travel. Upon her application for aresident permit as a “spouse of a Korean national” as a foreigner, the Ministry of Justicestated that under the Korean Nationality Act “resident Koreans in Japan are considered
to have ROK nationality” and “It is clear that, under the 1963 Nationality Act prevailingat the time of birth (1963), the applicant became a ROK national as soon as she was born,
being a child of a resident Korean father.” The Ministry of Justice responded that C
cannot apply for a resident permit as a foreigner.278 As discussed till now, the assessmentof “Chosen” resident Koreans’ nationality status has been varied even among the ROK
authorities. At the same time, it can be said that under the current circumstances, “Chosen”
resident Koreans without registration with ROK as overseas nationals are unable to enjoy
the right to return to their own country, which is important as a right of a national of any
country.
The reasons for “Chosen” resident Koreans not to register with ROK as oversea
nationals vary. There are those who simply retain the “Chosen” designation, having not
faced any particular challenges in living in Japan. There are those who identify themselves
as of DPRK nationality and have reservations against registering themselves of DPRK
nationality. Some take the position that they would not want to opt for registration as
either “ROK” or “DPRK” nationality until the two Koreas become united. This shows thatnationality is not simply a measure to access rights, but it is also connected closely to
one’s identity.
(2) DPRK
There are reports that DPRK was carrying out registration of nationals by the issuanceof “koumin-sho” (national certificates) after the colonization by Japan was over. However,there appears no evidence that “overseas compatriots” were registered as such.279 On
the other hand, DPRK welcomed the “repatriation” of resident Koreans to DPRK.280 Asof today, when “Chosen” resident Koreans in Japan wish to travel to DPRK, they are
granted a national passport of DPRK. While the issuance of a national passport can be
278 Kim, supra note 268.
279 Cho Kyung Jae, “Zainichi” no Kokusai Kazokuhouto Sono Hongokuhouwo Kangaeru [Resident Koreans’

International Family Law and Applicable Law], Nihon Kajo Shuppan (2015), pp.113-124.
280
DPRK stated that DPRK “welcomes returnees from Japan and will assist them with employment,
housing, and education.” Asahi Shimbun, “Umi Watatta Nihonjinzuma 1800 Nin, Kitachousenkara Hatsuno
Satogaeri, Rekishiwo Kenshou [1,800 Japanese Wives Who Crossed the Sea Return from DPRK for theFirst Time: Verification of History]”, 15 October 1997, morning edition special.

142considered to be an expression of the DPRK’s will to treat the resident Koreans as theirnationals, much unclarity remains with regard to the DPRK’s implementation of its
nationality law and how they consider resident Koreans as their nationals.
(3) Japan
It is clear that “Chosen” resident Koreans are treated as foreigners. However, theadministrative bodies’ treatment of their nationality is not unified either. First, the term
“Chosen” designated on their foreigner resident registration cards refers to “Chosen
people who came to Japan from the Korean peninsula, which was once Japan’s colony,
and it does not signify any particular nationality.”281 On the other hand, the designation“ROK” on the foreign resident registration card is understood to refer to a particularnationality (of ROK).
According to the Japanese Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, when
determining which State’s law is applicable in certain cases [translator’s note: involving aforeign national in Japan], varying theories exist as to whether ROK law or DPRK law isapplicable. Under the current administrative practice, unless the person concerned does
not particularly state that “I am not a ROK national,” it appears that the Japanese
authorities process the case by applying ROK law. 282 In terms of case law, there is a
decision of a family law case which involved a resident Korean family including an individual
registered as “Chosen” which designated both DPRK and ROK law. In the past, there was
one case where a resident Korean was processed in a similar manner as a stateless person,
and the law of Japan was applied, which is the law of the State of habitual residence.283
4. Summary
As discussed up to now, resident Koreans under the “Chosen” designation on theirforeigner residence cards in Japan, which arose from the colonization and post-war
responses, may have acquired both ROK and DPRK nationality under the nationality lawsof both States. However, in terms of the actual implementation of the law, the responses
and treatment by ROK authorities have varied. It is also necessary to consider further
which of the above is the “position” of the “competent authorities for nationality issues”
per the UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons.284
A “State” under the statelessness definition under Article 1 of the 1954 Convention
include States that are not recognized as a State by the country concerned.285 In such
281

See the Ministry of Justice 26 October 1965 Circular “Gaikokujin Tourokujouno Kokusekiranno‘Kankoku” aruiwa ‘Chosen’ no Kisainitsuite [Designation of ‘ROK’ or ‘Chosen’ under the Nationality
Column in Alien Registration]”.
282 Kidana, et al., supra note 270, p.5.
283 Cho Kyung Jae, “Zainichi Kankoku, Chousenjinno Zokujinhou Nikansuru Ronsou [Issues related to theApplicable Law for Resident Koreans]”, Ritsumeikan Hougaku [Ritsumeikan Law Review], 2007, No.2
(No.312), pp.294-303.
284 UNHCR Handbook, supra note 69, para. 27-30 and para. 37.
285
Id, para. 19, 20.

143

cases, a resident Korean is only recognized as a stateless person when he or she is notconsidered a national under the operation of the laws of two “States”, i.e., ROK or DPRK.
In this regard, it can be said that not many Chosen resident Koreans are faced withsituations where they need to formally confirm their status as nationals vis-à-vis ROK
and DPRK. In fact, the authors are not aware of any case where a particular individual
was clearly declared as being “not a national” by both ROK and DPRK authorities.
However, the ROK government’s decision not to issue a certificate for travel, and thereby
not allow the abovementioned A (who was not registered as an overseas national with
the ROK embassy and who said he did not have any plan to do so), to travel to his “owncountry” could be interpreted as an expression of not considering him as a national.

144

Chapter 3: OVERALL ANALYSIS
Chapter 2 has categorized persons who are or may be stateless based on the actual
cases available to the authors. This chapter will provide an overall and general analysis inlight of the categories provided in Chapter 2.

Section 1: Issues faced by stateless persons in JapanAs discussed up to now, for persons residing in Japan who are stateless or may bestateless, there are those who are classified by Japanese authorities as stateless andthose classified as nationals of a particular State. Depending on how the relevantJapanese administrative bodies classify persons, the challenges faced by a statelessperson or a person who may be stateless differs. From here on, an analysis will be madeby distinguishing those classified as stateless and those classified as nationals of aparticular country by the Japanese authorities.
1. Persons classified as stateless(1) Persons with residency permits
Even if the Japanese authorities classify a person as a stateless person, the situationof the person differs significantly depending on the possession of a residency permit. In
cases where a stateless person has a mid- or long-term residency permit such as for a“long-term resident” or “permanent resident”, their rights and obligations do not differ
significantly from persons with nationality with the same residency status.
In terms of social welfare, (1) social insurance (health insurance or pension), (2) social
allowances (such as child allowances for child-raising), (3) social welfare (allowances topersons with disabilities), and (4) housing assistance (such as allowances for housing) are
generally applicable to foreigners (stateless persons or nationals of a foreign State), while
the provision of some services may be limited depending on the type of residency status
held by the person concerned.286 Nevertheless, with regard to the livelihood protection286

For details, please refer to the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ (JFBA) publication entitled “Dai
47 Kai Jinken Yougo Taikai Symposium Dai 1 Bunkakai Kichou Houkokusho, ‘Taminzoku, Tabunkano
Kyouseisuru Shakaiwo Mezashite – Gaikokujinno Jinken Kihonhouwo Seitei Shiyou’ [47th General Meetingon Human Rights Protection, Symposium, First Sub-committee, Keynote Report, ‘Toward a Multiethnic
and Multicultural Society: Let Us Make a Basic Law on the Human Rights of Foreigners’]” (2004), pp.306321, at
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/ja/opinion/hr_res/data/sympo_keynote_report041007.pdf.
Also, on the differences in practice in implementation of various social welfare systems based on thestatus of residence of foreigners, see Sosuke Seki, “Hiseiki Taizaishano Kenri [Rights of Irregular Stayers]”,145

allowance (seikatsuhogo), the Public Assistance Act covers “nationals”,287 and thus it isunderstood that foreigners are unable to receive allowances as a right and that suchallowances are only provided as a matter of administrative measures.288
Furthermore, a stateless person with residency status, being a foreigner, is generally
restricted from participating in elections, running for elections, or serving in public
positions. Also, stateless persons in general are not issued with a national passport fromany State, and thus they encounter difficulties travelling abroad.289 While they can beissued with a “Re-entry Permit” (Article 26(2), ICRRA), there are actually States where
those holding a re-entry permit cannot be admitted. The number of States where they
can travel to are thus restricted.
Moreover, even when the person concerned has a residency permit, if he or she has
been issued with a deportation order for falling within the grounds for deportation (asspecified under Article 24 of ICRRA), there is always a possibility that the person is placed
into a quite vulnerable position and the person’s removal (deportation) becomespractically difficult or impossible. Furthermore, even if the person’s deportation is nonexecutable, that fact itself does not lead to the right to stay in Japan or a right not to be
expelled under the current system.290
Even if the person concerned has a mid-term or long-term residency permit, he or she
may face challenges related to his or her statelessness. For example, stateless persons
whose date of birth is unknown may have a foreigner residency card carrying the date ofbirth 00/00, as previously discussed. There has been a report where this way ofdisplaying the date of birth (compounded by the designation “stateless”) on a foreigner

in Gaikokujinno Jinkeneno Apuroochi [Approaches to the Human Rights of Foreigners], ed. Atsuchi Kondo.
Akashi Shoten, 2015, pp.166-167.
287 Public Assistance Act, Article 1: “The purpose of this Act is for the State to guarantee a minimum
standard of living as well as to promote self-support for all citizens who are in living in poverty byproviding the necessary public assistance according to the level of poverty, based on the principles
prescribed in Article 25 of the Constitution of Japan.”
288 The Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, Judgment, 18 July 2014 (Heisei 26 Nen), Hanrei Chihoujichi,
No.386, p.78.
289
Although there are situations such as in Latvia where stateless persons—not possessing thenationality of any State—referred to as “non-citizens” are issued with a special passport from the Latvian
government and have a special legal status that allows them to access consulate protection, statelesspersons who are granted this sort of status are rather exceptional internationally.
290
Article 52(6) of the ICRRA provides for special release (so-called tokubetsu homen) with certain
conditions when it becomes apparent that the person concerned cannot be deported; however, thestatistics on the number of those granted special release, unlike the number of those granted provisional
release under Article 54, are not released, and it can be assumed that this provision is rarely applied inpractice. Nevertheless, there is a record of a parliamentary session which carries a reference to a casein which one stateless person, after having been detained for six years, was granted a special release.
Dai 61 Kai Kokkai Shuugiin Naikaku Iinkai Kaigiroku [Record of Cabinet Affairs Committee, House ofRepresentatives,
61th
SessionoftheDiet],(24
April1969),
athttp://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/061/0020/06104240020019.pdf.

146

residence card made a person subject to a police investigation for “being of unknown
identity”,291 and the person faced difficulties such as in concluding a contract with a cell
phone company, opening a bank account, using a credit card, finding employment,
receiving coverage of national health insurance, and in applying for municipal
government-run residency and nursery enrollment.292(2) Persons without residence permits
Stateless persons who do not have residency permits face more serious challenges.
The Immigration Bureau will initiate deportation procedures. If the person concerned isstateless, then the destination State for removal is to be determined “pursuant to his or
her wishes” (Article 53(2) of ICRRA); but the Immigration Bureau’s current practiceappears to be that they do not necessarily confirm the (re-)admissibility of the person
concerned with the State concerned before designating that State as the destination. In
such a case, even if the person concerned has been issued with a deportation order, theperson can be left in a situation where removal is not executed for a long period. The factthat the person is stateless or there is no prospect for removal to another State, by itself,
has not been included in the Immigration Bureau’s relevant guidelines as a positiveelement for granting special permission for residency (Article 50(1) of ICRRA).293
Detentions under the issuance of the deportation order is de facto indefinite; thus, theperson concerned can be detained for a long period of time.294 Even if the person has
been granted a provisional release permit, the person would have to report to the
Immigration Bureau regularly to have the permit renewed.295 A person with a provisional
release permit is not allowed to work gainfully. He or she is unable to receive any public
assistance even in precarious living conditions, and no social insurance is provided. In
recent years, the crack-down on engagements in gainful employment by persons granted
provisional release in general has become strict, and a significant number of persons who
worked illegally have had their provisional release permits revoked and have beendetained.

291 Interview with a person whose nationality is recorded as “stateless” and date of birth is recorded as“00/00” on his foreigner residence card. This individual was questioned by a police officer on a street in
Yokohama City in November 2016, and upon production of his foreigner residence card was further
investigated for more than 30 minutes on the street with the suspicion that the card may have been
forged.
292 See the experiences of A under Category B: State succession type I.
293
On Special Permission to Stay (ICRRA Article 50(1) and Article 61-2-2 (2)), see supra note 122.
294
ICRRA Article 52(5): “if the foreign national cannot be deported immediately, the immigration
control officer may detain him or her in an immigration detention center, detention house, or any
other place designated by the Minister of Justice or by the supervising immigration inspector
commissioned by the Minister of Justice until such time as deportation becomes possible.”295
On provisional release (Article 54 of ICRRA), see supra note 175.

147

On the other hand, children, even if they are without residency permits, can receive
education free of charge at a public school as far as the mandatory education atelementary and junior high schools is concerned, as children of Japanese nationality
do.296 Municipal governments, upon being informed by regional immigration bureaus of
the existence of children of school age with provisional release permits, are to facilitate
their enrollment in school as necessary.297 However, depending on the municipality, itcannot be denied that there is a risk that they deny school enrollment to children without
residence permits.
Persons under this category are in principle not entitled to livelihood protection
allowance. Thus, stateless persons without residency permits can fall into precarious
living conditions without being able to leave Japan to any country.
As an asylum applicant is able to receive a certain amount of livelihood assistanceduring the administrative procedure under certain conditions, it can be said that somestateless persons who are without eligibility for refugee status are put in a situation
where they are compelled to apply for refugee status.298
2. Persons classified as nationals of a foreign StateThe differences in treatment that arise depending on a person’s possession of aresidence permit have been discussed above. However, stateless persons who arenevertheless classified by the Japanese authorities as possessing a particular nationality
face another problem of not being able to benefit from the legal effect that arises forbeing a stateless person.
First, persons born in Japan of stateless parents acquire Japanese nationality under
Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act at the time of birth. However, with the parents beingclassified as nationals of a particular country, their children would not be able to benefit
from the same article. Furthermore, persons born in Japan who have been stateless fromthe time of birth are able to benefit from facilitated naturalization for certain conditions,such as the residency duration requirement being relaxed under Article 8(iv). However, if
the child is classified as having a nationality, he or she will not be able to have thisprovision applied to him or her.
296

Abe Tomoko Shuugiin Giin “Kokusaitekina Jinken Shojouyakuno Teiketsu Oyobi Jisshi, Narabini
Gaikokujinno Nenkinya Kyouikutounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho” Nitaisuru, 2011 (Heisei 23) Nen 12 Gatsu
16 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku Shuu Shitsu 179 Dai 121 Gou) [Government Response on 16
December 2011 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet concerning the Conclusion and
Implementation of International Human Rights Treaties, as well as Pensions and Education of Foreigners”
Submitted by Tomoko Abe, Member of the House of Representatives (No.179-121, Questions in theHouse of Representatives, Cabinet)].
297 Circular by Director-General, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Gaikokujinno Kodomono Shuugaku Kikaino Kakuhoniatatteno
Ryuuitennitsuite [Issues in Securing School Enrollment Opportunities for Foreign Children]”, 5 July 2012
(Heisei 24 Nen), 24 Monka Sho No.388, at
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/004/1323374.htm.
298
See supra note 226, on financial assistance (hogohi) provided by RHQ.

148

As apparent from Case 17 under Category I, in the context of deportation, statelesspersons who are classified as having a particular nationality will have the “country ofnationality” as the State of destination. However, if the State concerned does not(re-)admit the person, the person would remain in limbo without any State to accept him
or her. Furthermore, for stateless persons the destination State will be decided “pursuant
to his or her wishes.” If the person is classified as a national of a particular State, suchchoice is not provided (Article 53(1)).
If a stateless person is to engage in a legal act to change some personal status, and heor she is classified by the Japanese authorities as a national of a foreign State, then theapplicable law will be the law of the State designated as the country of nationality. The
stateless person concerned would, as a consequence, be required to produce a document
such as a certificate from the State designated by the Japanese authorities to be thecountry of nationality proving that he or she fulfills the requirement for taking such alegal act under the law of that State. However, the State concerned, not considering theperson as their national, may refuse issuance of such a certificate, which would raiseobstacles for the person to proceed with the procedure in Japan to change personal
status relationships such as marriage or recognition of parentage.
Furthermore, stateless persons may, first of all, not realize that they are indeed
stateless due to the fact that their official personal identification documents issued by
the government of Japan state that they are nationals of foreign countries. Because ofthis, it sometimes happens that persons realize that they are stateless only after theyattempt to apply for the issuance of a passport at the consulate of the State consideredby the Japanese government to be their country of nationality. They may also face
psychological difficulties in establishing their identity when they are not considered as anational by the country of nationality that their personal identification certificate lists.

Section 2: Proposals to address the current issues
In order to protect stateless persons and to prevent and reduce statelessness, as
already pointed out in the Arakaki Report (UNHCR 2015), amendments to the relevantlaws and regulations and consideration of accession to the 1954 Convention and 1961
Convention are needed. The necessary amendments include: insertion of thestatelessness definition into relevant legislation, arrangements to allow for an extensionof coverage of livelihood protection allowance to stateless persons or issuance of
personal identification documents for stateless persons, extension of facilitatednaturalization coverage to stateless persons born outside Japan, arrangements to grantnationality to children born in the territory who would otherwise be stateless, and to
consider foundlings found in the territory as children of nationals, a person born on a shipor airplane flying the Japanese flag to have been born in Japanese territory, or the149insertion of a provision to prevent statelessness from arising from changes of personal
status.299
Below, while some overlap with the recommendations in the Arakaki Study, we will
make overall proposals to address the issues in light of the case analysis done in Chapter2.

1. Identification(1) Establishment of a statelessness definition and statelessness determination
procedure
It is essential to identify stateless persons as such in order to protect them. Whilestateless persons exist in Japanese society, the overall picture is not necessary clear. The
causes for this appear to be that, first of all, there is no provision defining a statelessperson under domestic law; second, there is no common criteria for identifying statelesspersons; and different administrative bodies determine, as necessary, a person’s
nationality independently from other administrative agencies. This results in situations
where a wrong nationality is assigned on foreign residence cards or a person is deemed
to have the nationality of a particular country while he or she should be identified asstateless instead. This leads to situations where the overview of statelessness in Japan
becomes unclear, which needs to be known in order to appropriately protect statelesspersons and to prevent and reduce statelessness.
Thus, the definition of a stateless person needs to be included in domestic law, and aprocedure to determine who is stateless under a unified definition should be established.
It is desirable to adopt the definition of a stateless person under Article 1 of the 1954
Convention which is considered customary international law, and, in interpreting andapplying that definition, to take into sufficient consideration the guidance in the UNHCR
Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons.
(2) Streamlining of the statistics relating to stateless persons
It would be effective to streamline the statistics on stateless persons to clarify thesituation of stateless persons in Japan. In order to accurately identify the number ofstateless persons, the establishment of a statelessness determination procedure isnecessary, as stated above.
However, there are measures that can be taken in order to identify, a little moreaccurately, the number of stateless persons within the current framework. First is toconduct nationality determinations accurately. As pointed out repeatedly in this report,
there are cases where the person concerned is assigned by Japanese authorities anationality of which he or she is not in possession under the text of the relevant law or
under the actual implementation of such law. It is necessary to avoid a situation where a299

Arakaki, supra note 2, pp.70-71,.

150

person is determined to possess a nationality which is unsubstantiated. For this purpose,
it is necessary that the Ministry of Justice carry out nationality determinations of persons
after having sufficiently researched the nationality laws and their actual implementationof the relevant countries.
Furthermore, efforts need to be made to streamline the statistics currently taken inorder to better identify the actual number of stateless persons. For example, with regard
to the Immigration Control Statistics regarding deportation, the number of statelesspersons without legal status subject to deportation procedures is included. While theStatistics on the Number of Resident Foreigners and the General Foreigners’ Statistics
only list the number of stateless persons with residency permits, referencing theabovementioned Immigration Control Statistics may possibly give a figure closer to theactual number of stateless persons. The statistics on the number of persons issued a reentry permit is also useful. Persons who are considered to have a certain nationality by
the government of Japan who are still issued with a re-entry permit (functioning as a
travel document, Article 26(2) of ICRRA) may include persons who are not considered
nationals of such a country, having been denied issuance of a national passport while
having taken the reasonably expected actions, or having been unable to establish thepossession of such nationality. If the reasons for issuance of a re-entry permit can bedisclosed, the number of persons who are actually stateless can possibly be identified.
It is hoped thus that the government more accurately identifies the number of statelesspersons by making efforts to do so within the existing framework, as well as byestablishing a statelessness determination procedure.
2. Protection(1) Establishment of statelessness determination procedure to protect statelesspersons
Under the current framework, even if a person is stateless, there are no measures inplace to protect him or her by issuing him or her with residency permit or travel document
for the reason of not having a nationality.
Even if a stateless person without residency permit is issued with a deportation order,
if there is no removal prospect to another State, he or she will be left in a vulnerable
situation for a long period in Japan and end up in precarious living conditions. In order toresolve this situation, the establishment of a determination procedure to protect statelesspersons is needed.
On the other hand, stateless persons with residency permits would be restricted fromtravelling abroad due to not having passports. Persons recognized as refugees are issued
with a Convention travel document. However, if not recognized as a refugee, one would
have to use a Re-entry Permit (ICRRA Article 26(2)), but the number of States where a151holder of a Japanese Re-entry Permit is limited.300 If the stateless person can be issued
with a travel document provided under the 1954 Convention, he or she becomes able toat least visit the State parties to that convention. As of September 2017, the number ofState parties to the 1954 Convention is 89,301 and the impact for stateless persons to beable to acquire a stateless person travel document is significant.
Based on the above, the establishment of a system to protect stateless persons isnecessary which provides long-term resident residency permits or travel documents tostateless persons currently in Japan. It would be desirable for the guidance contained in
the UNHCR Statelessness Handbook to be sufficiently taken into consideration when
designing such a system.
(2) Enhanced grant of special permission to stay
Under the current legal system where a proper arrangement is not made for protectionof stateless persons, for a stateless person without a residency permit to have his or her
stay regularized, he or she must either be granted special permission to stay after having
gone through the deportation procedure (Article 50(1] of ICRRA), be granted refugee
status and an accompanying residency permit after applying for refugee status (Article
61-2-2(1) and (2) of ICRRA), or be granted special permission to stay on humanitarian
grounds while not recognized as a refugee (Article 61-2-2(2)). As there are persons whoare stateless but are not refugees, the efforts towards the protection of stateless persons
in essence can only be made, under the current system, through flexible implementationof special permission for residency.
However, the Immigration Bureau’s “Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan”
does not contain a reference to being stateless as one of the positive grounds for granting
such permission. 302 While there have been cases where statelessness or a lack of a(re-)admission prospect was presumably one of the reasons for being granted special
permission for residency, there is no guarantee that statelessness will lead to the grantof such permission.
Thus, it can be asserted that either Article 50(1) should be amended to include “nothaving a nationality” as one of the grounds for granting special permission for residency,
or, at the least, the Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay by the Ministry of Justiceneeds to be amended to include “not having a nationality” as one of the grounds topositively consider the special permission.

300 Furthermore, the current practice of writing information such as a person’s nationality in Japanese

language and not in the Roman alphabet on re-entry permits tends to lead to troubles at the entry
examination counters in other States.
301
United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, at
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V3&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&clang=_en.
302
See Special Permission to Stay and the Guidelines, supra note 122.

152

(3) Utilization of the refugee status determination procedure
There are stateless persons with eligibility for refugee status. Persons qualifying as
refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention can access protection by being recognized
as refugees and granted stable residency permits with long-term resident status, as well
as Convention refugee travel documents through the existing refugee statusdetermination procedure. For these persons, the applicable law in engaging legal acts tochange personal status would be the law of the State of habitual residency. Thus,
Japanese law will be applicable. There would be no requirement for them to produce
documents issued by the State of origin. However, the number of persons granted
protection as refugees is limited as the number of refugees recognized by Japan has
remained at a very low level for many years, from a few persons to some tens of persons
per year.303 Stateless persons who are also refugees should be protected through the
refugee determination procedure by ensuring that refugees are recognized as “refugees”.
3. Prevention(1) Streamlining of the law to prevent statelessness
While the current Nationality Act has certain exceptions to the jus sanguinis rule toprevent statelessness, they are not sufficient as a system to fully prevent statelessness.
Article 24(3) of ICCPR, to which Japan is a party, provides that “Every child has the rightto acquire a nationality.” Article 7(1) of the CRC, to which Japan is also a party, provides
that “The child shall have … the right to acquire a nationality,” and Article 7(2) states“States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with theirnational law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field,
in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.” Article 2(1) of ICRRA states“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to allindividuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in thepresent Covenant, without distinction of any kind.” Article 2(1) of CRC provides that
“States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention toeach child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind.” The State parties
to these Conventions are required to ensure the rights enshrined in them.
Furthermore, Article 1(1) of the1961 Convention, to which Japan is not a State party,
provides “A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory
who would otherwise be stateless” to oblige States to prevent (and reduce) statelessness.
In this context, if the law of the relevant foreign country is amended, it could lead toprevention of statelessness under the current legal system in Japan with the jus sanguinis

303

See Category C [Consulate denial I (Refugees)], 5.(1).

153

as the norm. However, the streamlining of the Japanese system should not be neglectedwith an expectation of other States’ laws and regulations being amended.304
In order to more effectively prevent statelessness, an additional clause could possibly
be inserted into Article 2(iv), stating “a person born in Japan who does not acquire thenationality of his or her father or mother’s country of nationality.”(2) Enhancement of the implementation of Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act regarding
the acquisition of nationality by birth
The current administrative practice is that the identity and nationality of the mothercan be determined by interviewing the person concerned or investigating the
Immigration Bureau’s record of entry and exit, even if the mother herself is missing andcannot be cross-checked with such information. Furthermore, the mother’s nationality
can be determined based on statements by the mother herself without objective
evidence to substantiate her identity or her country of origin.
On the other hand, courts sometimes apply the nationality law in an inclusive manner
to reflect the reality of a situation.305 The determination of whether a particular case falls
within the criteria that “both parents are unknown or stateless” should be made taking
into consideration the perspective of whether the child can indeed acquire the nationalityof the father or mother, and whether he or she can actually be treated as a national bythat State. This is in consideration of the object and purpose of Article 2(iii) to ensure
prevention of statelessness. 306 Implementing Article 2(iii) based on this sort ofinterpretation is expected to prevent statelessness from being passed from generation
to generation.
As discussed under Category G, Case 14, there are sometimes cases where themunicipal government erroneously rejects acceptance of a birth registration application
designating the parent or parents’ nationality as “stateless”. If the birth registration
application cannot be accepted, the person cannot have his or her acquisition of Japanese304

In addition, as recommended by the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No.4, from the perspectiveof preventing statelessness, it would be effective to introduce legislation to enable children born inJapan from refugee parents to acquire Japanese nationality, depending on the concerned individuals’
choices, even in cases where they should have normally acquired the parents’ nationality under the textof the applicable law, in light of the fact that they would normally be unable or unwilling to avail
themselves of the protection of the parents’ country and would presumably become long-term residents
in Japan in the future. See UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No.4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right toAcquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness(21
December2012),
II
f)“Special
PositionofRefugeeChildren”,
at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/50d460c72.html (in English), andhttp://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=548996e74 (inJapanese), para. 28.
305
See Category G: Unknown or stateless parents, Case 14 (Tokyo Family Court Tachikawa Branch
Adjudication, 5 December 2016), and Yokohama Family Court Adjudication, 18 September 2003,
described in Category G, 3. (4).
306
Kidana, supra note 21, p.108.

154

nationality under Article 2(iii) confirmed. It is necessary to ensure that the officials at theforefront are aware of the appropriate interpretation and application of Article 2(iii) andavoid the erroneous response of not accepting an application based on their personal
opinions.
(3) Streamlining of the law to prevent, as far as possible, the loss of nationality pursuant
to changes in personal status
As seen in Category E, it could be understood that the retroactive and automatic lossof Japanese nationality due to changes of personal status is not avoidable under thecurrent legal system. This is because the basis for acquiring nationality by jus sanguinis islost if one’s descent from a Japanese national is subsequently denied.
However, loss of nationality due to a change (denial) of parentage after a significant
period has passed can lead to statelessness of the child if, for example, he or she cannot
acquire the nationality of the other parent. As discussed in detail in the recommendations
under Category E, statelessness arising from the loss of nationality due to changes of
personal status must be avoided, including where there is an erroneous registration offamily relationship which provides the basis for acquisition of nationality for the child, inlight of Article 5(1) of the 1961 Convention. Furthermore, even if the loss of nationality
due to changes of parentage does not result in statelessness, at least after a certain period
has passed, retroactive losses going back to the time of birth should be avoided.
Retroactive losses of nationality should be restricted by ensuring that nationality laws
especially value a principle of certainty with regards to nationality.
In order to restrict changes (losses) of nationality after reaching a certain age, including
in cases of changes of personal status, a new paragraph (para. 2) should be added to
Article 2, for example, to read: “concerning persons who acquire Japanese nationality
under the previous paragraph and clauses, when the person’s non-fulfillment of the said
paragraph and clauses becomes clear after the person reaches X years of age, he or she
is to retain Japanese nationality.”307
It is to be noted that, under the current practice of the Immigration Bureau, persons
who lose Japanese nationality retroactively for reasons such as changes of parentage aretreated as having been “illegal foreigners” going back to the time birth and are subjected
to deportation procedures. However, these individuals never had a chance to initiate any
immigration procedure as foreigners because they were Japanese nationals at the timeof birth. Thus, treating them as having been illegal stayers since the time of birth is quite
unreasonable. At the least, such persons should be allowed to acquire residency permits
307

Nationality Act, Article 2:
A child shall be a Japanese national in the following cases:(i) If the father or mother is a Japanese citizen at the time of birth;(ii) If the father died before the child’s birth and was a Japanese citizen at the time of death;(iii) If born in Japan and both parents are unknown or are without nationality.

155

upon application within 30 days of the finalization of the changes (denials) of legal
descent (Article 22-2(1) and (2) of ICRRA).308

4. Reduction(1) Improvement of the practice to request prior renouncement of the current
nationality upon naturalization in JapanThe current Nationality Act requires that the person concerned “has no nationality, or
the acquisition of Japanese nationality will result in the loss of foreign nationality” (Article
5(1)(v) of the Nationality Act). Based on this provision, persons wishing to naturalize are
not required to renounce their original nationality prior to acquiring Japanese nationality.
However, the current practice related to naturalization is to request renunciation of thecurrent nationality before naturalization to be a Japanese national can be officiallypermitted. This sort of implementation causes statelessness however short such a periodof time may be.
Such implementation does not reflect the text of the current Nationality Act and lacks
legal basis. Renunciation of nationality before naturalization should be avoided as there
would be no guarantee that the person’s previous nationality which is now lost will be
restored upon failure to naturalize as a Japanese national.309 Renunciation of Japanesenationality should be conditional on the acquisition of Japanese nationality in accordancewith the letter of the current Nationality Act. The requirement of prior renunciation
before permission should be rectified.
(2) Improvement of implementation of the naturalization provision under Article 8(iv)and the streamlining of the law
Under the current Nationality Act, Article 8(iv) provides for facilitated naturalization
for stateless persons to reduce statelessness. However, it sometimes happens that aperson is de facto prevented access to this provision in practice due to the lack ofunderstanding of the individual officials implementing the naturalization procedure atlegal affairs bureaus. It also appears that Article 8(iv)’s requirement of “not having anationality” is restrictively interpreted and applied in practice in a similar manner as for
Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act, as discussed in 3(2) in this section. Furthermore, Article
8(iv) currently limits its coverage to stateless persons born in Japan and excludes persons
born outside Japan, causing inequality.

308

On the relation of this with acquisition of status of residence (ICRRA Article 22-2), see supra note
188 and Category E: Change of personal status, 4. (2).
309
See paragraph 45 of the UNHCR, Expert Meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention
and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality ("Tunis Conclusions")(March 2014), at http://www.refworld.org/docid/533a754b4.html.

156

It would be useful to go back to the object and purpose of this provision, which is to
reduce statelessness as much as possible.310 It would then be necessary to, for example,
conduct training for officials involved in naturalization on the easing of requirements forstateless persons, such as that a stateless person can apply for naturalization even if heor she is under 20. Second, the required documents for naturalization should be theminimum sufficient to prove the fulfillment of naturalization. Third, the assessment ofstatelessness under Article 8(iv) should be done in light of the definition under Article
1(1) of the 1954 Convention, which is part of customary international law. Fourth, inorder to reflect the object and purpose of the provision to reduce statelessness as muchas possible and to respect the principle of non-discrimination provided for in Article 3 ofthe 1954 Convention, the provision should not be restricted to persons born in Japan
leading to discriminatory treatment depending on the place of birth.
(3) Facilitation of naturalization for refugees
If refugees were to be able to benefit from facilitated naturalization as provided under
Article 34 of the 1951 Convention, this would contribute to a reduction of statelessness.
Such facilitated naturalization for refugees should be fully utilized.
The following chart lays out the overall picture of how each proposal made in thissection would help resolve the challenges faced by each Category introduced in Chapter
2. (The same chart can be found in the Summary.)

Category

A

B

C

D

Creation of a legal provision providing a















statelessness

definition

establishment

of

a

and

E

F

G

H

I

J

K



























































the

statelessness

determination procedure
Streamlining of the statistics relating tostateless persons
Establishment of a system to protect
stateless persons, such as by grant of“long-term resident” status.
Utilizationofarefugeestatusdetermination procedureEnhanced grant of special permission tostay for stateless persons without statusof residence

310

See Kidana, supra note 21, p. 323.

157



Expanding the coverage of the grant of









Japanese nationality at birth to allotherwise stateless persons

Enhanced implementation of Article 2(iii)of the Nationality Act, which grants
Japanese nationality to children born inJapan whose parents are unknown orstateless

Law reform to restrict losses of nationality
through change in legal parentage as far
as possible

Improvement related to the requirement
for renunciations of current nationality
prior to naturalization
Improvement of implementation of Article













8(iv) which facilitates naturalization ofstateless persons, and streamlining of thelaw to include stateless persons born
outside Japan
Facilitation of naturalization for refugees

158









FINAL REMARKSThis report had set as its goal to highlight various cases of stateless persons and persons
who may be stateless who exist and live in Japan and to propose solutions after illustrating
their situations and the challenges they face. The report classified cases into 14 categories
from A to N, and even a glance at this categorization clearly shows that the causes ofstatelessness significantly vary.
The case analyses by category not only uncover the typical cases of statelessness fromconflicts of nationality law provisions of each state, but they also show cases where
persons become stateless by authorities’ failure to apply the law in practice. They also findthat the historical backgrounds and political situations at times change the State’s handlingand assessment of nationality, which affects individuals. The report also articulates that thelegal status of stateless persons is varied and that they face different legal issues depending
on such statuses.
Under the present circumstances, a uniform procedure for statelessness determinations
to protect stateless persons has not been implemented. It is thus not possible to examine
the appropriateness of “determinations of statelessness” by the authorities. This report,
however, has tried to investigate and examine the laws and their application by relevant
States over persons concerned in each case on every possible point, and to examine
whether a person is a stateless person or not based on the definition in the 1954
Convention. In other words, the report has examined the points that would normally beconsidered had there been a statelessness determination procedure.
To be honest, interpretation of nationality laws, their operation, and the application of
the statelessness definition were extremely difficult. At first, there was the problem ofunderstanding and interpreting the nationality laws of each State. We had no choice but torely on the English or Japanese translations of the laws of each state because it was hardly
possible to read them in the original versions. So there was always a possible problem withthe accuracy of translations. It was difficult to understand laws of foreign countries unless
one understood the historical background and culture in addition to the legal system of theState in the first place. The laws relating to nationality are also constantly revised. It wasnecessary to acquire a broad knowledge and understanding about the laws related to159

nationality because we looked at the latest nationality laws, as well as the laws prevailingat the time of birth of the persons in our case studies to examine their nationality.
Next, there was a challenge in understanding and interpreting “the operation of the law”
in each State. The expression of the views by the consulates, etc., of the relevant State issignificant when one assesses the nationality of persons staying in Japan. However, one
cannot always get a clear expression of the view that “the person concerned is not anational” along with the reasons for such a view from the authorities. For this reason, how
to evaluate the actions taken by the consulates, etc., led to constant discussions among theauthors. However, eventually, the authors decided to assess and judge the cases from theviewpoint of whether the actions normally expected to be taken have indeed been takenby the persons themsleves or others concerned in order to acquire nationality.
In this way, it needs to be emphasized here that it is necessary to know the laws relating
to the nationality of the related States and their implementation in order to assess whether
persons are stateless or not, and it is essential that the authorities which determine
statelessness also have knowledge of the laws and specialized expertise on their issues.
This report proposes to grant stateless persons nationality or have those persons withnationality maintain their nationality as the solution for the legal issues by streamlining thelegislation on nationality grants at birth and on restrictions on the loss of nationality, in
addition to determinations of statelessness and protection of stateless persons. However,
one cannot forget that nationality is deeply connected with the identity of persons. In fact,
persons normally have no choice but to be granted a certain nationality. However, there
are cases when, for example, the nationality unilaterally granted as a result of State systems
having been shaken does not match with the person’s identity. Needless to say, it isimportant and desirable to build a society where the human rights of stateless persons areprotected and respected even if they remain stateless.
Many stateless persons and people whose nationality is ambiguous or unclear do notthemselves realize their issues, and they spend their days without understanding theirproblems. The cases in this report are likely just a tip of an iceberg of stateless persons inJapan. We hope the personnel in the relevant institutions which have opportunities to meetwith such people (immigration bureaus, legal affairs bureaus, municipal offices, childwelfare institutions, etc.), social workers in hospitals and aid groups, legal practitioners such160

as attorneys, and members of parliament who engage in creating legislation recognize theexistence of stateless persons as well as the challenges they face via this report.
We would be delighted if this report is able to help stateless persons who have fallen
into the gaps between States.

161

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The websites were last accessed on 20 December 2016.

General Sources(Japanese Sources)Abe, Kohki. Mukokusekino Joukei: Kokusaihouno Shiza, Nihonno Kadai [Overview of Statelessness:
International and Japanese Context] (UNHCR, 2010), at http://www.unhcr.org/4ce643ac9.html.
Aizawa, Masako. “736 Gaikokujin Touroku Shoumeishoni ‘Mukokuseki’ to Kisaisareteiru Baaino Kokusekino
Ninteinitsuite [736, Nationality Determination When Indicated as ‘Stateless’ on Alien
Registration Certificate]”, Koseki, No. 772 (2005), pp.47-48.
Akiba, Osamu. “Nihoneno Kikano Kyokawo Shinseishi, Kikano Joukenwo Sonaerutameni Jyuuzenno
Kokusekiwo Houkishita Kotoniyori Mukokusekishato Natteiru Gaikokujin Fuufunitsuki, Kikaga
Kyokasareru Maeni Koga Shusseishita Baainiokeru Shusshou Todokeno Shori Oyobi Tougaishiwo
Kika Kyokagono Fuufuo Kosekini Douseki Saserutameno Tetsudukinitsuite [Procedures regarding
the birth report of a child born to a foreign couple who has become stateless due to the factthat they applied for naturalization in Japan and renounced their former nationality as aprecondition for naturalization, before the parents’ naturalization was permitted; and theprocedure to enter the child into the family register of the couple after the permission of theparents’ naturalization]”, Koseki, No. 923 (2016), pp. 11-13.
Akiyama, Chika. Kosekino Nai Nihonjin [Japanese without a Family Register] (Futabasha, 2015).
Amnesty International. Biruma (Myanmar) Shousuuminzoku Rohingya: Kihonteki Jinkenno Hitei [Myanmar,
The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied]. (Translated by Amnesty International
Japan

Burma

(Myanmar)

CoordinationTeam),

2004,athttp://www.amnesty.or.jp/library/report/pdf/the_rohingya_minority_fundamental_rights_deni
ed.pdf.
Arakaki, Osamu. Mukokuseki Jyouyakuto Nihonno Kokunaihou: Sono Settento Hedatari [Statelessness
Conventions and Japanese Laws: Convergence and Divergence] (UNHCR, 2015), at
http://www.unhcr.org/jp/wpcontent/uploads/sites/34/protect/Statelessness_Conventions_and_Japanese_Law.pdf.
(Translator’s note: the English version is the following. Osamu Arakaki, Statelessness Conventions
andJapanese

Laws:

Convergence

162

and

Divergence(UNHCR,2015),

athttp://www.unhcr.org/jp/wpcontent/uploads/sites/34/protect/Statelessness_Conventions_and_Japanese_Laws_EN.pdf.)
Arakaki, Osamu. “Mukokusekisha Chii Jouyaku no Seiritsu to Tenkai [Formation and Development of the1954 Convention]”, Nanmin Kenkyu Jyanaru [Refugee Studies Journal], No. 4 (December 2014),
pp.3-15.
Arakaki, Osamu. “Mukokusekisha Chii Jouyaku to Mukokuseki Sakugen Jouyaku: Seiritsumadeno Keii toGaiyou [1954 Convention and 1961 Convention: Background and Overview]”, Houritsu Jihou[Law Times], October 2014, pp.35-40.
Azukizawa, Fumie. “Mukokusekiwo Ikiru Hitobito – Houritsukaniyoru Shienno Genbakara [Persons Living inStatelessness – from the Frontlines of Legal Aid]”, Hougaku Seminaa [Legal Studies Seminar],
October 2014, pp.36-39.
Chen, Tien Shi. Mukokuseki [Stateless]. Shinchosha, 2005, Shincho Bunko, 2011.
Chen, Tien Shi. “Mukokuseki Datta Watashi [I Used to be Stateless]. Hougaku Seminaa [Legal Studies
Seminar], October 2014, pp.40-43.
Chen, Tien Shi. “Nihonniokeru Mukokusekishano Ruikei [Types of Stateless Persons in Japan]”, Imin Seisaku
Kenkyuu [Migration Policy Review], No. 5 (May 2013), pp.4-21.
Chen, Tien Shi. Wasurerareta Hitobito, Nihonno “Mukokuseki” Sha [Forgotten People: “Stateless” in Japan].
Akashi Shoten, 2010.
Cho, Kyung Jae. “Zainichi Kankoku, Chousenjinno Zokujinhou Nikansuru Ronsou [Issues related to theApplicable Law for Resident Koreans]”, Ritsumeikan Hougaku [Ritsumeikan Law Review], 2007,
No.2 (No.312), pp.294-303.
Cho, Kyung Jae. “Zainichi” no Kokusai Kazokuhouto Sono Hongokuhouwo Kangaeru [Resident Koreans’
International Family Law and Applicable Law], Nihon Kajo Shuppan (2015), pp.113-124.
Chong Yong-hwan, “Chosenseki Zainichi Chosenjinno Kankoku Nyuukoku Mondai [Issues related to Entry
into ROK by Zainichi Chosen People with Chosen Nationality]”, Korea NGO Center, News Letter,
No.24 (November 2010), pp. 28-30.
Fu, Yue. “Firipinniokeru Mukokusekishano Hogoto Genjou [The Protection and Current Situation ofStateless Persons in the Philippines]”, Nanmin Kenkyu Jyanaru [Refugee Studies Journal], No. 4(December 2014), pp.16-33.
Fu, Yue. “Mukokuseki Joyaku Kanyuuno Igito Nihonno Kadai [Conventions Relating to Statelessness andJapan’s Challenges]”, Imin Seisaku Kenkyuu [Migration Policy Review], No. 5 (May 2013).

163

Fu, Yue. “Nihonde Umareta Kodomono Kokusekito Mukokuseki Nintei [Nationality of Children Born inJapan and Statelessness Determination]” (Doctoral Thesis, University of Tsukuba, doctoral
degree conferred in academic year 2015, No. 2783).
Goto, Eri. “Mukokusekino Akachan Sukueru: Youshiengumi Sureba Nihon Kokusekini Michi [Stateless Baby
Can Be Saved: Road to Japanese Nationality Through Adoption]”, Asahi Shimbun, 9 January
2016, evening edition, at
http://www.asahi.com/articles/ASHDV4W4JHDVUHMC002.html.
.
Ido, Masae. Mukosekino Nihonjin [Japanese People without a Family Register]. Shuueisha, 2016.
Ishii, Hiroyuki. Civil Affairs First Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice. “Koseki, Kokuseki
Jimuwomeguru Saikinno Shomondai (1) [Recent Issues concerning the Family Register andNationality Matters (1)]”, Koseki, No. 854 (2001), pp.1-16.
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. “Dai 47 Kai Jinken Yougo Taikai Symposium Dai 1 Bunkakai
Kichou Houkokusho, ‘Taminzoku, Tabunkano Kyouseisuru Shakaiwo Mezashite – Gaikokujinno
Jinken Kihonhouwo Seitei Shiyou’ [47th General Meeting on Human Rights Protection,
Symposium, First Sub-committee, Keynote Report, ‘Toward a Multiethnic and Multicultural
Society – Let Us Make a Basic Law on the Human Rights of Foreigners’” (2004).
Kaneko, Mai. “Mukokusekinikansuru UNHCR Shin Handobukku, Gaidoraintouno Kaisetsu [Commentary on
UNHCR’s New Handbook and Guidelines on Statelessness], Nanmin Kenkyu Jyanaru [RefugeeStudies Journal], No. 4 (December 2014), pp.45-46.
Kidana, Shoichi. Chikujou Chuukai Kokusekihou [Commmentary on the Nationality Act]. Nihon Kajo
Shuppan, 2003. p.108, 212-213, 323.
Kidana, Shouichi and “Teijyuu Gaikokujinto Kazokuhou [Foreign Residents and Family Law]” Study
Group, ed. Dai 3 pan Zainichino Kazokuhou Q&A [3rd Edition, Family Law for Zainichi, Q&A].
Nihon Hyouronsha, 2012.
Maeda, Hiroki. Gurujia Gendaishi [Modern History of Georgia]. Eurasia Booklet No.131 (Touyou Shoten,2009), pp.12-14.
Mainichi Shinbun, Social Section. “Rikongo 300 Nichi Mondai, Mukosekijiwo Sukue! [The Issue of 300 Days
after Divorce: Save Children without a Family Register!]” (Akashi Shoten, 2008).
Manley, Mark. “Mukokuseki ni Torikumutameno UNHCR no Mandeeto oyobi Katsudou [UNHCR’s Mandate
and Activities to Address Statelessness]”. Translated by UNHCR Japan. Houritsu Jihou [LawTimes], October 2014, pp.41-46.

164

Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Civil Affairs First Division (Taguchi). “Kokuseki Soudan No.437
Nihonjin Danseito 4 Shintouno Boukei Ketsuzokudearu Taiwanjin Joseitono Koninga Mukoudearu
Baainiokeru Ryoushakanni Shusseishita Kono Nihon Kokusekino Shutokunitsuite [Nationality
Advice No.437: Acquisition of Japanese Nationality by a Child Born to a Japanese Man and a
Taiwanese Woman Who Is His Collateral Relative in the Fourth Degree, When Their Marriage
is Nullified]”, Koseki Jihou No. 741 (2016), pp.78-82.
Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Civil Affairs First Division (Miyaoka). “Kokuseki Soudan No.368
Nihonjin Danseito Taiwanjin Joseitono Aidani Chakushutsudenai Kotoshite Shusseishita Kono
Nihon Kokuseki Shutokunitsuite [Nationality Advice No.368: Acquisition of Japanese
Nationality by a Child Born Out of Wedlock to a Japanese Man and a Taiwanese Woman]”,
Koseki Jihou No. 579 (2005), pp.57-61.
Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Civil Affairs Fifth Division (Saito). “Kokuseki Soudan No.172
Tibet Nanmin Onnano Hichakushutsushide Ayamatte Kosekiwo Hensei Sareteirumonono Nihon
Kokuseki Shutokuno Houhou Oyobi Ninchiniyoru Nihonjin Chichieno Nyuusekino Kahitounitsuite[Nationality Advice No. 172: How a Child Born Out of Wedlock to a Tibetan Refugee Woman
and for Whom Family Register Has Been Erroneously Created Can Acquire Japanese
Nationality, and Possibility for the Child to Enter the Japanese Father’s Family Register
Through Recognition of Paternity]”, Koseki Jihou, No.349 (1987), pp.62-67.
Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Fifth Division, Kokuseki Jitsumu Kenkyuukai [Study Group on
Nationality Practice]. Kokuseki, Kika no Jitsumusoudan [Practical Consultation on Nationality andNaturalization] (Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 1993), pp.175-179.
Nguyen Thi Hong Hao. “Mukokuseki Joutaitoshite Ikirukoto – Kojinno Keikenkara [Living in Statelessness:
From a Personal Experience]”, Tien Shi Chen, ed., Sekainiokeru Mukokusekishano Jinkento Shien– Nihonno Kadai – Kokusai Kenkyuu Shuukai Kiroku [Human Rights and Assistance to StatelessPeople in the World – Challenges in Japan – Record of International Workshop] (Kokuritsu
Minzoku Hakubutsukan Chousa Houkoku [National Museum of Ethnology Research Report] 118,
2014), pp.97-99.
Nihon Kajo Shuppan Hourei Hensanshitsu, ed. Koseki Jitsumu Roppou (Heisei 29 Nenban) [Laws for Family
Register Practice (2017 edition)]. Nihon Kajo Shupppan, 2016.
Niwa, Kozue and Kaoru Obata. “Kokka Shoukeini Kansuru Mukokusekino Boushini Kansuru Yooroppa
Hyougikai Jouyaku Oyobi Setsumeihoukokusho [Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidanceof Statelessness in relation to State Succession and Explanatory Report]”, Nagoya Daigaku Housei

165Ronshuu [Nagoya University Journal of Law and Politics], v.218, 2007, pp.267-283, at
http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/2237/8962/1/267-283.pdf.
Oda, Yukari. “Tainiokeru Higouhou Nyuukokusha Shisonto Mukokusekishaeno Kokuseki Fuyonotameno
Seisaku: 1992 Nenno Kokusekihou Kaiseito 2000 Nen Ikouno Shusseichi Shugi Tekiyou Youken
Kanwawo Chuushinni [Policy to Grant Nationality to Stateless People and Descendants of Illegal
Entrants in Thailand: with a Focus on the 1992 Amendment of Nationality Act and Easing ofRequirements for Application of Jus Solis after 2000]” Nihon Joshi Daigaku Ningen Shakai
Kenkyuuka Kiyou [Japan Women’s University Integrated Arts and Social Sciences Bulletin],No.22 (2016), pp.45-62.
Odagawa, Ayane. “Kokuseki, Mukokuseki Ninteino Genjouto Kadai – Kaisei Nyuukanhouwo Fumaete [TheCurrent Situation and Challenges of Determinations on Nationality or Statelessness]”, Imin
Seisaku Kenkyuu [Migration Policy Review], No. 5 (May 2013), pp.22-32.
Odagawa, Ayane and Yue Fu. “Nihon no Mukokuseki Mondaiwomeguru Genjouto Kadai [Current Situation
and Challenges of Stateless Issues in Japan]”, Houritsu Jihou [Law Times], October 2014, pp.4752.
Odagawa, Ayane. “Firipinno Nanmin, Mukokuseki Nintei Tetsuduki [Refugee and Statelessness
Determination Procedure in the Philippines]”, Nanmin Kenkyu Jyanaru [Refugee Studies Journal],
No. 4 (December 2014), pp.34-44.
Odagawa, Ayane. “Hon Kikaku no Shushi [The Purpose of This Project]”, “Miraini Mukeru Teigen [Proposal
toward the Future]”, Hougaku Seminaa [Legal Studies Seminar], October 2014, pp.34-35, pp.4546.
Ohno, Masao. “Kokusekihou Dai 2 Jou 3 Gouno Kiteini Motoduku Shusshouniyoru Nihon Kokusekino
Shutokunitsuite [Acquisition of Japanese Nationality at Birth under Article 2 (iii) of the
Nationality Act]”, Koseki, No. 730 (2002), pp.1-16.
Ohnuma, Yasuaki. Zainichi Kankoku, Chosenjinno Kokusekito Jinken [Nationality and Human Rights of
Korean Residents], (Toushindo, 2004), pp.312-313.
Ohtomo, Yuu. “Tai Kokusekihouno Ichibu Kaisei – Tai Kokusekihouno Hensento Mukokusekisha Mondai[Partial Amendment of the Nationality Act of Thailand: Changes in Thai Nationality Act andIssues of Statelessness]” Gaikokuno Ripppou [Foreign Legislation], No. 249 (2011), pp.111-118.
Okuda, Yasuhiro. Kokusekihou to Kokusai Oyakohou [Nationality Law and International Parent-Child Law]
(Yuhikaku, 2004).
Okuda, Yasuhiro and Akiko Tateda. “The 1997 European Convention on Nationality”, Hokudai
Hougakuronshuu [Hokkaido University Legal Studies Journal], 50(5), pp. 93-131.

166

Okuda, Yasuhiro, Katsuhiko Oka, and Masataka Kyou. Kankoku Kokusekihouno Chikujou Kaisetsu[Commentary on ROK’s Nationality Law] (Akashi Shoten, 2014).
Sawada, Shozo. “Mukokusekishawo Chichitosuru Chakushutsushitouno Shusseitodokewo Jyurisurubaaino
Toriatsukaiwo Megutte [Birth Registration of Children Born in Wedlock whose Fathers are
Stateless Persons]. Koseki, No. 454 (1982), pp.20-21.
Seki, Sosuke. “Chounan Jiken [Zhao Nan Case]”, in Ito Kazuo Bengoshi Zaishoku 50 Shuunen Shukuga
Ronbunshuu: Nihonniokeru Nanmin Soshouno Hattento Genzai [Collection of Papers in Celebrationof Attorney Kazuo Ito’s 50 Years of Work: Development of Asylum Litigation in Japan and
Where We Are Today]. Gendai Jinbunsha, 2010, pp.51-62.
Seki, Sosuke. “Hiseiki Taizaishano Kenri [Rights of Irregular Stayers]”, in Gaikokujinno Jinkeneno Apuroochi[Approaches to Human Rights of Foreigners], edited by Atsushi Kondo, Akashi Shoten, 2015,
pp.166-167.
Sorihashi, Nozomi and Masakatsu Yamamoto. “Kawaru Kazoku, Saikousai Hanketsuwo Ukete/2, Sonzai,
Shoumeinaku 31 Nen, Kekkongomo ‘Mukokuseki’ Nomama [Changing Families: Upon Supreme
Court Decision/2, 31 Years with No Proof of Existence, Remains ‘Without a Family Register’
Even After Marriage]”, Mainichi Shinbun, 18 December 2015, at
http://mainichi.jp/articles/20151218/ddm/041/040/046000c.
Sok Dong-hyun and Koo Bon-Joon, Saishin Daikanminkoku Kokusekihou – Chikujou Kaisetsuto Unyou
Jitsumujouno Kaishaku [ROK’s Latest Nationality Law: Commentary and Interpretation for
Practice]. Translated by Kim Moonsook. Nihon Kajo Shuppan, 2011.
Taniguchi, Tomohei. Kosekihou (Shinpan) [Family Register Act, newly edited version]. Yuuhikaku, 1983.
Tuan Sian Khai. “Mukokusekiwo Ikiru Watashi [I am Stateless]”, Hougaku Seminaa [Legal Studies Seminar],
October 2014.
UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No.4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality throughArticles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (21 December 2012), IIf) “Special Position of Refugee Children”, paras. 27 and 28 at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/50d460c72.html.
Zenkoku Nanmin Bengodan Renraku Kaigi [Japan Lawyers Network for Refugees]. “Nanmin Nintei
Shinseisuu Oyobi Ninteino Suii, Chiiki Betsu/Shusshinkoku Betsu [Applications and Recognition of
Refugee Status by Region and Country of Origin]”, at
http://www.jlnr.jp/stat/2014/rsd_stat_japan_2014_02.pdf.

167

(English Sources)
Australian Embassy Tokyo, Citizenship by Descent, at
http://japan.embassy.gov.au/tkyo/citizen_descent.html.
Continuous Reports System on International Migration in the Americas, Ecuador - Nationality andcitizenship, at
http://www.migracionoea.org/index.php/en/sicremi-en/273-ecuador-2-3-nacionalidad-yciudadani-a-2.html.
Continuous Reports System on International Migration in the Americas, Uruguay - Nationality andcitizenship, at
http://www.migracionoea.org/index.php/en/sicremi-en/310-uruguay-2-2-nacionalidad-yciudadani-a-2.html.
Department of Immigration and Emigration, Sri Lanka, Citizenship Registration of Children born outsideof Sri Lanka, at
http://www.immigration.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&id=149&Itemid=188.
Equal Rights Trust in Partnership with the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol Univ..,
Equal Only in Name: The Human Rights of Stateless Rohingya in Thailand (2014), at
http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Equal%20Only%20in%20Name%20-%
20Thailand%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.
Fisher, Betsy. Why Non-Marital Children in the MENA Region Face a Risk of Statelessness’, Harvard
Human Rights Journal Online (January 2015), at
http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Fisher_HRJ_01-05-15.pdf, p.4.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, at
http://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/citizenshipact1.htm.
Gregg, Lucy, Chris Nash and Nick Oakeshott, Mapping Statelessness in the United Kingdom(UNHCR/Asylum Aid, 2011), at
http://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/4ecbc3c09/mapping-statelessness.html.
Gyulai, Gábor. Statelessness in Hungary: The Protection of Stateless Persons and the Prevention andReduction of Statelessness (Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2010), at
http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Statelessness_in_Hungary_2010.pdf.
Gyulai, Gábor (for European Council on Refugees and Exiles). The right to a nationality of refugee
children born in the EU (February 2017), at168https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/refugee-children-nationality-LEAPleaflet.pdf.
Human Rights Watch, Eritoria & Ethiopia, The Horn of Africa War: Mass Expulsions and the Nationality
Issue (June1998 - April 2002) (2003), at
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/ethioerit0103/ethioerit0103.pdf.
Institute of Statelessness and Inclusion, Statelessness and Displacement: Scoping Paper (2015), at
http://www.institutesi.org/stateless_displacement.pdf.
International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, International Mission of Inquiry Burma: Repression,
Discrimition and Ethnic Cleansing in Arakan (2000), at
https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/arakbirm.pdf.
Massey, Hugh. “UNHCR and De Facto Stateless”, in Legal and Protection Policy Research Series(LPPR/2010/01) (Division of International Protection, UNHCR, 2010), at
http://www.unhcr.org/protection/globalconsult/4bc2ddeb9/16-unhcr-de-factostatelessness-hugh-massey.html.
Mie, Ayako. “Refugee Pines to Go Back to Help Myanmar”, Japan Times (8 June 2012), at
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/06/08/national/refugee-pines-to-go-back-tohelp-myanmar/#.VuZbr32LTcs.
Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lam, “A History of Vietnam’s Citizenship Laws” (1 July 2009), at
http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/a-history-of-vietnams-citizenship-laws-4519.html.
René de Groot, Gerard and Patrick Wautelet. Chapter 4, Reflections on quasi-loss of nationality fromcomparative, international and European perspectives, in Sergio Carrera Nunez and GerardRene de Groot eds., European Citizenship at the Crossroads: The Role of the European Union on
Loss and Acquisition of Nationality (Wolf Legal Publishers 2015).
Rustom, Carine and Quentin Schoonvaere, Mapping Statelessness in Belgium (UNHCR, 2012), at

http://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/51110b1c9/unhcr-mappingstatelessness-belgium-october-2012.html?query=stateless_mapping.
UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2017, at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/58aff4d94.html.
UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons: Under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Statusof Stateless Persons (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.unhcr.org/53b698ab9.html.
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Finland (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/546da8744.html.

169

UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Iceland (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/54c775dd4.html.
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Malta (UNHCR, 2014), at
http://www.unhcr.org.mt/news-and-views/press-releases/774.
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in the Netherlands (UNHCR, 2011), at
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4eef65da2.pdf.
UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Norway (UNHCR, 2015), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/5653140d4.html.
UNTC, “Chapter V. Refugees and Stateless Persons: 4. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness”,
athttps://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=V4&chapter=5.
Vonk, Oliver. Nationality Law in the Western Hemisphere: A Study on Grounds for Acquisition and Loss of
Citizenship in the Americas and the Caribbean. Leiden and Boston (Brill Nijhoff 2014).

(Other Sources)
Asahi Shimbun. “Umi Watatta Nihonjinzuma 1800 Nin, Kitachousenkara Hatsuno Satogaeri, Rekishiwo
Kenshou [1,800 Japanese Wives Who Crossed the Sea Return from DPRK for the First Time:
Verification of History]”, 15 October 1997 morning edition special, at

http://www.asahi.com/articles/ASHDV4W4JHDVUHMC002.html.
Asahi Shimbun. “Rohingya Zoku, Gunmani 200 Nin, Nihonni Ikiru Mukokusekishatachi [Rohingya People,
200 in Gunma, Stateless People Living in Japan]”, Asahi Shimbun Digital SELECT, Kindle version,
June 2015.
Kyodo Tsushin. 19 February 2016, “Nanmin Shinsa Machi, Ichimannin Koe Saitani Shinseiga Kyuuzou, 15
Nen 6 Gatsu Matsu [Over 10,000 Waiting for Refugee Status Determination, Highest Number
with Sharp Increase in Applications, End of June 2015]”).
Myanmar Daily Post, “Kokusekiwo Futatabi Shinseishita Mononouchi 10 Meini Hajimete Kyokagaderu [10Obtain Permission for the First Time among Those Who Have Re-applied for Nationality]”, 27
December 2013 (in Myanmar).
Shuukan Houritsu Shinbun, 1 September 2017 (No. 2204). Report “‘Mukoseki’ Nao 700 Nin, Hanzatsuna
Tetsuduki Ashikase [700 People Still ‘Without Family Register’, Burdened by Cumbersome
Procedures]”.

170

Touitsu News, “Chosensekino Zainichi Korian, Kankokueno Nyuukoku Shouninritsu 35% Nisugizu [Zainichi
Koreans with Chosen Nationality, Entry into ROK, Approval Rate Only 35%]”, 26 September
2016, athttp://japanese.yonhapnews.co.kr/relation/2016/09/26/0400000000AJP2016092600490
0882.html, http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=118265 (in Korean).

Documents of the Government(Japan)Courts. “Oyako Kankei Fusonzai Kakunin Choutei [Mediation for Confirmation of Non-existence ofParent-child Relationship]”, at http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_16/.
Courts. “Chakushutsu Hinin Choutei [Mediation for Denial of Presumption of Legitimacy]”, at
http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_15/.
Courts. “Ninchi Choutei [Mediation for Acknowledgment of Paternity]”, at
http://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui_kazi/kazi_07_18/.
Japan Patent Office. “Tokkyo Gyousei Nenji Houkokusho 2015 Nenban – 130 Nenno Sangyou Hattenwo
Sasaetekita Sangyou Zaisanken Seido [Japan Patent Office Annual Report, 2015: Industrial
Property Rights Supporting 130 Years of Industrial Development]” (2015), at
https://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/nenji/nenpou2015/toukei/4-2-1.pdf.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. “Heisei 28 Nendo Gakkou Kihon Chousa
no Tebiki [Guide to Year 2016 Basic Survey on Schools]”, at
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/04/05/1355
976_1_1.pdf.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Daisankoku Teijuu Nanmin (Dai 7 Jin) Nitaisuru Teijuu Shien Puroguramuno
Kaishi [Start of Settlement Assistance Program for Resettled Refugees (7th Group)]” (October2016), at
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/press4_003777.html.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Kokunainiokeru Nanminno Ukeire [Accepting Refugees in Japan]”(October 2016), at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/nanmin/main3.html.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. “Heisei 26 Nendo Jinkou Doutai Toukei Tokushu Houkoku‘Nihonniokeru Jinkou Doutai – Gaikokujinwo Fukumu Jinkou Doutai Toukei’ no Gaikyou [Year2014 Summary of Vital Statistics Specified Report ‘Vital Statistics in Japan – Vital Statistics
including Foreign Nationals’]” (January 2015), at

171http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/tokusyu/gaikoku14/dl/gaikyo.pdf.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. “Jinkou Doutai Chousa [Vital Statistics]”, at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/81-1b.html.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. “Jinkou Doutai Chousa Shusshouhyou [Vital Statistics
Questionnaire]”, at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/chousahyo/0006661_h26_01.pdf.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Chousa Kekkano Shuukei Taikeito
Kouhyou Jiki [Compilation System and Release Schedule of Survey Results]”, at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/users-g/taikei.htm.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “Gakkou
Kihon Chousa, Heisei 28 Nendo [Basic Survey on Schools, Year 2016]” (December 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011528.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “HogoToukei, Chihou Kousei Hogo Iinkai, 2015 Nen Nenpou [Statistics on Probation, Regional Parole
Board, 2015 Annual Report]” (July 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001155224.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “Kensatsu
Toukei 2015 Nen Nenpou [Prosecution Statistics, 2015 Annual Report]” (August 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001157683.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “Kyousei
Toukei 2015 Nen Nenpou [Statistics relating to Corrective Measures, 2015 Annual Report]” (July
2016), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001155287.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “Shihou
Toukei Nenpou, Kaji Hen, Dai 3 Hyou, Kaji Shinpan Jikenno Juri, Kisai, Misai Tetsuduki Betsu Kensuu,
Zen Katei Saibansho [Judicial Statistics Annual Report, Family Relations, Table No.3, Number of
Adjudication Cases on Family Relations: Received, Decided, and Undecided Cases”
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics)“Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei 2014 Nen Nenpou, Nyuukoku Shinsa, Zairyuusshikaku Shinsa, Taikyo
Kyousei Tetsudukitou [Immigration Statistics, 2014 Annual Report, Immigration Inspection,
Residence Inspection, Deportation Procedures, etc.]” (June 2015), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001135476.

172

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics)“Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei 2014 Nen Nenpou, Shutsunyuu (ki) kokushasuu [Immigration
Statistics, 2014 Annual Report, Number of Departure and Entry (Return)]” (June 2015), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001135406.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics)“Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei 2015 Nen Nenpou, Nyuukoku Shinsa, Zairyuusshikaku Shinsa, Taikyo
Kyousei Tetsudukitou [Immigration Statistics, 2015 Annual Report, Immigration Inspection,
Residence Inspection, Deportation Procedures, etc.]” (June 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001153786.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics)“Shutsunyuukoku Kanri Toukei 2015 Nen Nenpou, Shutsunyuu (ki) kokushasuu [Immigration
Statistics, 2015 Annual Report, Number of Departure and Entry (Return)]” (June 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001153767.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics) “Touroku
Gaikokujin Toukei 2011 Nen Nenpou [Annual Statistics on Registered Foreign Nationals 2011]”(November 2012), at http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001111183.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. (Government Statistics)” Vital
Statistics, “Konin Kensuu, Ottono Uji, Tsumano Uji, Todoufuken Betsu – Heisei 27 Nenni Kekkon
Seikatsuni Hairi Todokedetamono [Number of Marriages, by Surname of Husband/Wife and by
Prefecture: Marriages Entered and Notified in 2015]”, at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001157970.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Heisei 22 Nen Kokuseichousa,
Jinkoutou Kihon Shuukei (Danjo/Nenrei/Haiguukankei, Setaino Kousei, Juukyono Joutainado)
Zenkoku Kekka [2010 National Census, Basic Compilation of Population Data (bySex/Age/Marital Status, Household Structure, Status of Domicile, etc.), National Results]”(October 2011), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001034991&cycode=0.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Heisei 27 Nen Kokusei
Chousanikansuru Q&A (Kaitou) [Q&A regarding the 2015 National Census (Answers)], at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/qa-1.htm.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Heisei 27 Nen Kokusei Chousano
Gaiyou [Summary of the 2015 National Census], at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2015/gaiyou.htm.

173

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Kokusei Chousa Chousahyou[National Census Questionnaire]”, at
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/pdf/chouhyou.pdf,
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/toukei/697/008697.pdf.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau. “Kokusei Chousa Heisei 22 Nen[National Census 2010]”, at http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/index.htm.
Ministry of Justice. “Kako 5 Nenkanno Kokueki Soushitsushasuuno Suii [5 Year Trends in Number ofPeople Losing Nationality]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/toukei_t_minj03.html.
Ministry of Justice. “Kika Kyoka Shinseishasuu, Kika Kyokasha, Oyobi Kika Fukyokashano Suii [Number ofApplications, Grants and Rejections on Naturalization]” (12 May 2017, corrected version), at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001180510.pdf.
Ministry of Justice. “Koseki Seidoni Kansuru Kenkyuukai [Study Group on Family Register System]” 6thMeeting (12 March 2015), distribution material 6, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji04_00042.html.
Ministry of Justice. “Mukosekino Kataga Mizukarawo Kosekini Kisaisurutameno Tetsudukitounitsuite[Procedures to Register Oneself in the Family Register]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji04_00047.html#q3-6.
Ministry of Justice. “Shusshou Todoke [Registration of Birth]”, at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000011715.pdf.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December 2014”(April 2015), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001133760.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], June 2015”(October 2015), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001139146.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December 2015”(April 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001150236.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], June 2016”(November 2016), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001161643.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei [Statistics on Foreign National Residents], December 2016”(published in March 2017), at174http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001177523.
Ministry of Justice. “Zairyuu Gaikokujin Toukei Toukeihyou [Statistics on Foreign National Residents, Tableof Statistics]”, at,http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/housei05_00021.html.
Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau. “Heisei 28 Nenniokeru Nanmin Ninteishasuutounitsuite, Beppyou
3, Wagakuniniokeru Nanmin Higono Joukyoutou [Refugee Recognition in 2016, Table 3, Situationof Asylum in Japan]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001221347.pdf.
Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau. “Shutsunyuukoku Kanrito Sono Jittai, Showa 34 Nen [Immigration
Control and Its Actual Situation, 1959]” (Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau, 1959), pp.2122.
Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau. “Zairyuu Tokubetsu Kyokani Kakawaru Gaidorain [Guideines on
Special Permission to Stay in Japan]” (revised, July 2009), at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000007321.pdf.
National Police Agency, Criminal Affairs Bureau, Director for Criminal Intelligence Support. “Hanzai
Toukei Shiryou Heisei 28 Nen 1 Gatsu - 12 Gatsubun (Kakuteichi) [Crime Statistics, January December 2016 (definitive figures)]” (February 2017), at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001083858&cycode=0.

(Other Countries)
Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay in Japan, “Minors”, at
http://www.embapar.jp/ja/sc/menores/#.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ethiopia, “Directive Issued to Determine the Residence Status of
Eritrean Nationals Residing in Ethiopia” (January 2004), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd56c0.html.
United Kingdom Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report - Eritrea (2010), at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c286cfa2.html.
U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Japan, “Acquisition of American Citizenship”, at
https://jp.usembassy.gov/ja/u-s-citizen-services-ja/citizenship-services-ja/acquisitionamerican-citizenship-ja/.

Administrative Documents
175

Agency for Legal Affairs, Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau. Response on 23 March 1949, Minji Kou
No.3961.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Circular by Director-General,
Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau. “Gaikokujinno Kodomono Shuugaku Kikaino
Kakuhoniatatteno Ryuuitennitsuite [Issues in Securing School Enrollment Opportunities for
Foreign Children]”, 5 July 2012, 24 Monka Sho No.388, at

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/004/1323374.htm.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Director-General, Local Administration Bureau.
“Juumin Kihon Daichou Jimushori Youryouno Ichibu Kaiseinitsuite (Tsuuchi) [(Notice) Partial
Amendment of the Guidelines on Basic Resident Registration]”, 4 June 2012, Sou Gyou Juu
No.46.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Local Administration Bureau, Director of
Municipalities. “Shussei Todokeno Teishutsuni Itaranai Konikakaru Jyuuminhyouno Kisainitsuite(Tsuuchi) [(Notice) Entry into Resident Record Concerning Children Whose Notification of Birth
Is Not Submitted]”, 7 July 2008 (Heisei 20 Nen), Sou Gyou Shi No. 143.
Ministry of Justice, Circular by Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau. “Heiwa Jouyakuno HakkouniTomonau Chosenjin, Taiwanjintounikansuru Kokuseki Oyobi Kosekijimuno Shori [Family Registerand Nationality of Chosen and Taiwan People upon Adoption of the Peace Treaty]”, 19 April
1952 (Showa 27 Nen), Minji Kou No.438.
Ministry of Justice, Circular by Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau, to directors of Legal Affairs
Bureaus and District Legal Affairs Bureaus, 6 July 1982, Ministry of Justice, Min Daini Daiyon
No.2-4-265.
Ministry of Justice, Circular by Director-General, Civil Affairs Bureau. 25 June 2012, Min No.1-1551.
Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau. Nyuukoku, Zairyuu Shinsa Youryou [Guidelines on Immigration
and Residence Inspection] (Request for Disclosure of Administrative Documents. Date forDisclosure Decision: 4 December 2015. Houmushou Kan Jou Dai 2511 Gou [No. 2511, Kan Jou,
Ministry of Justice]).

Documents of UN Agencies
International Law Commission, Draft Article on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries (2006), at
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf
UNHCR, UNHCR Global Trends 2010 (2011), at176

http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/country/4dfa11499/unhcr-global-trends-2010.html.
UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016 (2017), at
http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.
UNHCR, Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect
Stateless Persons (2016), at http://www.refworld.org/docid/57836cff4.html.
United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, at
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V3&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&clang=_en.

Government Response to Questions in the Diet
Abe Tomoko Shuugiin Giin “Kokusaitekina Jinken Shojouyakuno Teiketsu Oyobi Jisshi, Narabini Gaikokujinno
Nenkinya Kyouikutounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho” Nitaisuru, 2011 (Heisei 23) Nen 12 Gatsu 16
Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku Shuu Shitsu 179 Dai 121 Gou) [Government Response on 16
December 2011 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet concerning the Conclusion and
Implementation of International Human Rights Treaties, as well as Pensions and Education of
Foreigners” Submitted by Tomoko Abe, Member of the House of Representatives (No.179-121,
Questions in the House of Representatives, Cabinet)], at
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b179121.htm.
Fukushima Mizuho Sangiin Gin “Mukokuseki Mondainikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho” Nitaisuru 2014 (Heisei 26)
Nen 6 Gatsu 20 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San Shitsu 186 Dai 127 Gou) [TheGovernment Response on 20 June 2014 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet
concerning Statelessness Issues” Submitted by Mizuho Fukushima, Member of the House ofCouncillors (No.186-127, Questions in the House of Councillors, Cabinet)], at
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/syuisyo/186/touh/t186127.htm.
Hosaka Nobuto Shuugiin Giin “Paresuchinajinno Kodomono Kokusekitounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho”
nitaisuru, 2007 (Heisei 19) nen 12 gatsu 11 nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku Shuu Shitsu 168
Dai 280 Gou) [Government Response on 11 December 2007 to the “Memorandum on Questionsin the Diet concerning Nationality of Palestinian Children” submitted by Nobuto Hosaka,
member of the House of Representatives (No.168-280, Questions in the House ofRepresentatives, Cabinet)], at
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b168280.htm.

177

Ishibashi Michihiro Sangiin Giin “Wagakuniniokeru Nanmin Ninteino Joukyounikansuru Shitsumon Shuisho”
Nitaisuru 2015 Nen 8 Gatsu 18 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San Shitsu 189 Dai 233 Gou)
[Government Response on 18 August 2015 to the “Memorandum on Questions in the Diet
concerning Recognition of Refugee Status in Japan” Submitted by Michihiro Ishibashi, Memberof the House of Councillors (No. 189-233, Questions in the House of Councillors, Cabinet)], at
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/syuisyo/189/touh/t189233.htm.
Itokazu Keiko Sangiin Giin “Wagakunino Mukokusekishano Chii Oyobi Sono Toriatsukainikansuru Shitsumon
Shuisho” Nitaisuru, 2016 (Heisei 28) Nen 12 Gatsu 22 Nichiduke Seifu Toubensho (Naikaku San
Shitsu 192 Dai 59 Gou) [The Government Response on 22 December 2016 to the “Memorandumon Questions in the Diet concerning the Status of Stateless Persons and Their Treatment inJapan” Submitted by Keiko Itokazu, Member of the House of Councillors (No. 192-59,
Questions in the House of Councillors, Cabinet)], at
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/syuisyo/192/touh/t192059.htm.

Decisions by Japanese Courts (by date, including some ongoing cases)
The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 April 1962 (Showa 37 Nen), Minshuu Vol.16, No. 7, p. 1247.
Tokyo High Court, Decision, 8 June 1987 (Showa 62 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou, Vol.39, No.8, p.33.
The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 January 1995 (Heise 7 Nen), Minshuu Vol.49, No.1, p. 56.
The Supreme Court (Petty Bench II), Judgment, 22 November 2002 (Heisei 14 Nen), Shuumin Vol. 208,
p. 495.
Yokohama Family Court, Adjudication, 18 September 2003 (Heisei 15 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou, Vol.56,
No.3, p.68.
Tokyo District Court, 2007 (Heisei 19 Nen), Gyou U No.472 and others (withdrawn)
Okayama District Court, Judgment, 14 January 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou, Vol.64, No.5,
p.78; Hanrei Jihou, No.2081, p.99.
Tokyo District Court, Judgment, 19 February 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Hanrei Times, No.1356, p.146.
Tokyo District Court, Judgment, 29 October 2010 (Heisei 22 Nen), Shoumu Geppou, Vol.57, No.1, p.1.
Tokyo High Court, Judgment, 12 September 2012 (Heisei 24 Nen), Shoumu Geppou, Vol.59, No.6, p.1654.
The Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, Judgment, 18 July 2014 (Heisei 26 Nen), Hanrei Chihoujichi,
No.386, p.78.
Yokohama Family Court, Yokosuka Branch, Adjudication, 10 November 2015 (Heisei 27 Nen (Ka) No.
203), unpublished.

178

Tokyo District Court, 2015 (Heisei 27 Nen) Gyou U No.302 (ongoing at the time of writing).
Sendai Family Court, Adjudication, 24 June 2016 (Heisei 28 Nen), unpublished.
Tokyo Family Court Tachikawa Branch, Adjudication, 5 December 2016 (Heisei 28 Nen), unpublished.

Decisions by Foreign Courts and Other Institutions(ROK, by date)
National Human Rights Committee, Infringement Relief Second Committee, Decision, 1 December
2009.
Seoul Administrative Court, Judgment, 31 December 2009, petition to cancel the denial of issuanceof certificate of travel (2009 ku-go-34891).
Seoul High Court First Division, Judgment, 28 September 2010, on the petition to cancel the denialof issuance of certificate of travel (2010 nu-35361).
The Supreme Court Third Division, Judgment, 12 December 2013, on the petition to cancel thedenial of issuance of certificate of travel (2010 tou-22610).
Seoul Administrative Court, Judgment, 19 June 2014, on confirmation of nationality of a Sakhalin
Korean.

General Websites
Japan Law Foundation, Kenkyu (Study), at https://www.jlf.or.jp/work/kenkyu.shtml.
Refugee Assistance Headquarters, Foundation for the Welfare and Education of the Asian People,
at http://www.rhq.gr.jp/japanese/profile/business.htm.
Stateless Network, at http://statelessnetwork.sakura.ne.jp/wp/.

179

ANNEX: Japanese Nationality Act
Retrieved from Japanese Law Translation Database System, at
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=1857&vm=02&re=01&new=1
Act. No. 147 of 4 May 1950
Coming into effect on 1 July 1950
Amendments: Act No. 268 of 31 July 1952
Act No. 45 of 25 May 1984
Act No. 89 of 12 November 1993
Act No. 147 of 1 December 2004
Act No. 88 of 12 December 2008
(Purpose of This Act)
Article 1 The requirements of Japanese citizenship shall be governed by the provisions of
this Act.
(Acquisition of Nationality by Birth)
Article 2 A child shall be a Japanese citizen in the following cases:(i) If the father or mother is a Japanese citizen at the time of birth;(ii) If the father died before the child's birth and was a Japanese citizen at thetime of death; or(iii) If born in Japan and both of the parents are unknown or are without
nationality.
(Acquisition of Nationality by Acknowledged Children)
Article 3 (1) In cases where a child acknowledged by the father or mother is undertwenty years of age (excluding a child who was once a Japanese citizen)
and the acknowledging father or mother was a Japanese citizen at the timeof the birth of the child, Japanese nationality may be acquired throughnotification to the Minister of Justice if that father or mother is currently
a Japanese citizen or was so at the time of death.

180

(2) The person making notification provided for in the provision set forth in
the preceding paragraph shall acquire Japanese nationality at the time of
the notification.
(Naturalization)
Article 4 (1) A person who is not a Japanese citizen (hereinafter referred to as "foreign
national") may acquire Japanese nationality through naturalization.
(2) To undergo naturalization, permission of the Minister of Justice shall beobtained.
Article 5 (1) The Minister of Justice may not permit naturalization for a foreign national
who has not met the following conditions:(i) Having continuously had a domicile in Japan for five years or more;(ii) Being twenty years of age or more and having the capacity to act
according to his or her national law;(iii) Being a person of good conduct;(iv) Being able to make a living through his or her own assets or abilities,
or through those of a spouse or of another relative his or her making
a living;(v) Not having a nationality or having to give up his or her nationality due
to the acquisition of Japanese nationality; and(vi) On or after the date of promulgation of the Constitution of Japan,
not having planned or advocated the destruction of the Constitutionof Japan or the government established thereunder with force, andnot having formed or joined a political party or other organization
planning or advocating the same.
(2) In cases where despite the foreign national's intention, he or she is unable
to give up his or her nationality, the Minister of Justice may permit
naturalization if special circumstances are found concerning a familial
relationship or circumstances with a Japanese citizen even if that foreign
national has not met the conditions listed in the preceding paragraph,item (v).

181

Article 6 The Minister of Justice may permit naturalization for a foreign national currently
having a domicile in Japan who falls under one of the following items even ifthat person has not met the conditions listed in the preceding Article,
paragraph (1), item (i):(i)

A child (excluding an adopted child) of a Japanese citizen, the former
continuously having a domicile or residence in Japan for three years ormore;(ii) A person born in Japan, and continuously having a domicile or residence
in Japan for three years or more or whose father or mother (excluding an
adoptive parent) was born in Japan;(iii) A person having a residence in Japan continuously for ten years or more.
Article 7 The Minister of Justice may permit naturalization of a foreign national with aspouse who is a Japanese citizen, said foreign national continuously having a
domicile or residence in Japan for three years or more and who currently has
a residence in Japan even if that person does not meet the conditions of Article
5, paragraph (1), item (i) and item (ii). The same shall apply to a foreign nationalwith a spouse who is a Japanese citizen, for whom three years have elapsed
since the date of their marriage, which foreign national has continuously
maintained a domicile in Japan for one year or more.
Article 8 The Minister of Justice may permit naturalization of a foreign national who falls
under one of the following items even if that person has not met the conditions
listed in Article 5, paragraph (1), item (i), item (ii) and item (iv):(i) A child (excluding an adopted child) of a Japanese citizen, said child having
a domicile in Japan;(ii) An adopted child of a Japanese citizen, said child continuously having a
domicile in Japan for one year or more, and having been a minor
according to his or her national law at the time of adoption;(iii) A person having lost his or her Japanese nationality (excluding a person
who lost his or her Japanese nationality after naturalization in Japan)
having a domicile in Japan; or182

(iv) A person born in Japan, not having any nationality since the time of birth,and continuously having a domicile in Japan for three years or more sincethat time.
Article 9

The Minister of Justice may obtain approval from the Diet and permit
naturalization of a foreign national having provided a special distinguishedservice in Japan notwithstanding the provision of Article 5, paragraph (1).

Article 10(1)

When permitting naturalization, the Minister of Justice shall provide
public notice thereof in the official gazette.

(2) Naturalization shall have effect from the date of the public notice set
forth in the preceding paragraph.
(Loss of Nationality)
Article 11 (1) If a Japanese citizen acquires the nationality of a foreign country at his or
her choice, he or she loses Japanese nationality.
(2)

A Japanese citizen having the nationality of a foreign country loses
Japanese nationality when he or she selects the nationality of that
foreign country according to the laws and regulations thereof.

Article 12 A Japanese citizen who acquired the nationality of a foreign country throughbirth and who was born abroad shall retroactively lose Japanese nationality to
the time of birth unless he or she indicates an intention to reserve Japanesenationality pursuant to the provision of the Family Register Act (Act No. 224
of 1947).
Article 13 (1)A Japanese citizen having foreign nationality may renounce Japanesenationality by notification to the Minister of Justice.

(2) The person making the notification provided for in the provisions set
forth in the preceding paragraph shall lose Japanese nationality at thetime of the notification.

183

(Selection of Nationality)
Article 14 (1) A Japanese citizen having a foreign nationality shall select one of thenationalities, where he or she obtains foreign and Japanese nationalities
prior to his or her becoming twenty years old, before his or her reachingtwenty-two years old, and where that time when he or she obtained
foreign and Japanese nationalities comes after his or her reachingtwenty years old, within two years from that time.
(2) In addition to renouncement of the foreign nationality, the selection ofJapanese nationality may be accomplished through selecting Japanesenationality and declaring the renunciation of the foreign nationality(hereinafter referred to as "selection declaration") pursuant to theprovisions of the Family Register Act.
Article 15 (1) The Minister of Justice may provide written notice that nationality must
be selected to any Japanese citizen having a foreign nationality who has
not selected Japanese nationality within the assigned time as provided
for in the preceding Article, paragraph (1).
(2) In the unavoidable event that the whereabouts of the intended recipientof the notice prescribed in the preceding paragraph may not be
ascertained or notice in writing is otherwise not possible, the notice may
be published in the official gazette. In such cases, the notice shall bedeemed to have arrived on the day after publication in the official gazette.
(3)

The person receiving the notice provided for in the provision of thepreceding two paragraphs shall lose Japanese nationality when the
period has elapsed if the selection of Japanese nationality is not madewithin one month of receiving the notice; provided, however, that thisshall not apply in cases where the person is unable to select Japanesenationality within the period due to a natural disaster or some othercause not attributable to that person, and the selection is made within
two weeks of the time when the selection may be made.

Article 16 (1) A Japanese citizen who makes the selection declaration shall endeavor torenounce his or her foreign nationality.
184

(2) In cases where a Japanese citizen having made the selection declarationand not having lost foreign nationality appoints the post of a public
officer (with the exception of a post that may be appointed by a person
not having the nationality of that country) at his or her own discretion,
the Minister of Justice may pronounce a judgment of loss of Japanesenationality if it is found that the appointment of the post is markedly
contrary to the purpose of the selection of Japanese nationality.
(3)

The proceedings on the date of the hearing pertaining to the
pronouncement of judgment set forth in the preceding paragraph shallbe conducted open to the public.

(4) The judgment pronouncement of paragraph (2) shall be placed in a public
notice in the official gazette.
(5) The person receiving the pronouncement of judgment of paragraph (2)shall lose Japanese nationality on the day of the public notice set forthin the preceding paragraph.
(Reacquisition of Nationality)
Article 17 (1) A person who loses Japanese nationality pursuant to the provisions ofArticle 12 and is under twenty years of age may acquire Japanesenationality, if he or she has a Japanese domicile, through notification to
the Minister of Justice.
(2) A person who receives the notice pursuant to the provisions of Article
15, paragraph (2) and loses Japanese nationality pursuant to theprovisions of that same Article, paragraph (3) may acquire Japanesenationality if he or she meets the conditions listed in Article 5, paragraph(1), item (v) through notification to the Minister of Justice within one year
from the date of knowing of the loss of Japanese nationality; provided,
however, that if notification cannot be made within that period due to anatural disaster or some other cause not attributable to that person, that
period shall be one month from the time when the notification can be
made.

185

(3)

The person making notification provided for in the provisions of thepreceding two paragraphs shall acquire Japanese nationality at the timeof the notification.

(Notification, etc. by a Statutory Agent)
Article 18 The notification of acquisition of nationality provided for in the provision in
Article 3, paragraph (1) or the preceding Article, paragraph (1), application for
permission to naturalize, selection declaration, or notification of nationality
renouncement shall be made by a statutory agent if the person desiring
nationality acquisition, selection, or renouncement is under fifteen years ofage.
(Delegation to Ordinances of the Ministry)
Article 19 Procedures relating to acquisition and renouncement of nationality as well asother required matters relating to the enforcement of this Act not provided
herein shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice.
(Penal Provisions)
Article 20(1)

In cases of notification provided for in the provisions of Article 3,
paragraph (1), a person making a false notification shall be punished by
not more than one year of imprisonment with work or a fine of not morethan two hundred thousand yen.

(2) The violation set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be governed by
the Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1907), Article 2.

186

AUTHORS Study Group on Statelessness in Japan
A voluntary organization established in April 2014 by researchers, practitioners, andother members of the civil society (Representative: Osamu Arakaki). Study sessions
have been held in Tokyo once every one to two months. For two years from August
2014 to July 2016 it conducted the “Study on Statelessness in Japan: Understanding
the situations of stateless persons and the legal framework relating to protection ofstateless persons” (Study No. 111) with a research grant from Japan Law Foundation,and it concluded this report as a product of the study.
http://mukokusekikenkyukai.jimdo.com/

 Editorial Representatives and Authors
Ayane Odagawa, Attorney at law (Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association)
Sosuke Seki, Attorney at law (Tokyo Bar Association),Practicing-Attorney-Professor at
the Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan
 Authors
Hajime Akiyama*, Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; PhD
Candidate, International Christian University
Fumie Azukizawa, Attorney at law (Kanagawa Bar Association)
Keiko Kato, Attorney at law (Tokyo Bar Association)
Anna Nakamura, Lecturer, Japan Women’s College of Physical Education
Yue Fu, Associate Professor, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ibaraki
University
Manami Honda, Attorney at law (Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association)
 Supervisor
Osamu Arakaki, Professor, International Christian University
Titles are as of September 2017. * Hajime Akiyama was also involved in the editing process.

187

Typology of Stateless Person in Japan

December 2017

Study Group on Statelessness in Japan
Ayane Odagawa
Sosuke Seki***
Hajime Akiyama
Fumie Azukizawa
Keiko Kato
Anna Nakamura
Yue FuManami Honda

Published by UNHCR Representation in Japan
〒107-0062
Wesley Center, 6-10-11 Minami Aoyama, Minato-ku, Tokyo
TEL: 03-3499-2011
FAX: 03-3499-2272
URL: http://www.unhcr.org/jp/
Printed by Suda Seihan, Inc.

188

Typology of Stateless Persons
in Japan
Study Group on
Statelessness in Japan
Ayane Odagawa
Sosuke Seki
Hajime Akiyama
Fumie Azukizawa
Keiko Kato
Anna Nakamura
Yue FuManami Honda