The nationality law, which directly affects individuals’ human rights, may be out of tune with today’s world, where countless Japanese cross borders regularly for business or daily life activities.
The law should be examined from the viewpoint of this reality.
Article 11 of the nationality law states: “If a Japanese citizen acquires the nationality of a foreign country at their own choice, that Japanese citizen loses Japanese nationality.”
People who lost their Japanese nationality in this way have filed lawsuits in Tokyo and other cities, saying the provision violates the Constitution.
The Tokyo High Court on Feb. 21 dismissed one of the cases filed by eight people living in Europe.
The court acknowledged that the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Constitution gives people the freedom to “divest themselves of their nationality.” But the ruling argued that the article does not actively guarantee them the freedom to retain their Japanese nationality when they acquire foreign citizenship.
The court contended that the purpose of the nationality law provision--to prevent and eliminate multiple nationality--is “rational.”
But the ruling cannot be interpreted as an endorsem*nt of the failure to help the plaintiffs and others in a similar predicament.
The eight plaintiffs acquired foreign nationality for different reasons. The decision was the only option to maintain their livelihoods in the countries where they live now.
They were required to obtain citizenship to continue the businesses they started, for instance, or to take public office. Some plaintiffs said they never imagined the step would affect their Japanese nationality.
People’s nationalities define their rights and are closely linked to their identities. Maximum caution in required for forcibly stripping Japanese nationality from a person who has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship.
Because of the provision, which has been carried over from the old nationality law enacted in the Meiji Era (1868-1912), more than 25,000 Japanese have renounced their citizenship since 1985. Many of them must have unwillingly taken the step.
As of October last year, around 1.3 million Japanese nationals lived abroad, and a record 550,000 of them were permanent residents.
These people could later face the need to acquire the nationality of the country where they now reside.
The nationality law provision has far-reaching effects.
For example, if Japanese nationals who have lost their citizenship under the law return to Japan to take care of their parents, they would be treated as “foreign nationals” and face all sorts of obstacles if they want to stay long-term in their homeland.
But Japanese nationals who have obtained foreign citizenship through birth and marriage are effectively allowed to have multiple nationalities.
The provision, which automatically strips Japanese nationals of their citizenship when they acquire foreign nationality, stands out as an exceptionally rigid and harsh rule.
Since there is no way for the Japanese government to automatically learn that a Japanese national has acquired foreign citizenship, there is a risk of arbitrary implementation of the law. For example, passport renewal could be denied for only certain people.
Due to globalization, more than 70 percent of countries now permit multiple citizenship, with certain conditions in some cases. In many cases, social security rights, obligatory military service and other related issues are dealt with under treaties.
The plaintiffs of the lawsuit intend to appeal the high court ruling. The Diet should take action and not wait for a Supreme Court ruling.
It is the legislature’s responsibility to debate the necessity of the provision from various viewpoints, including the policy imperative of protecting the rights of Japanese living abroad and supporting their activities.
--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 23
As someone deeply immersed in the realm of legal systems and international affairs, my expertise spans the intricacies of nationality laws, constitutional rights, and the profound impact they have on individuals in a globalized world. I have delved into extensive research, engaged in scholarly discussions, and closely followed real-world cases that showcase the intersection of human rights and national identity.
Now, turning to the matter at hand – the Japanese nationality law, particularly Article 11 – the implications are clear and demand a nuanced understanding. This provision, stating that a Japanese citizen forfeits their nationality upon acquiring another at their own discretion, has spurred legal challenges rooted in constitutional concerns.
The recent decision by the Tokyo High Court, as outlined in the article, sheds light on the constitutional dimensions of this matter. The court acknowledged the freedom granted by Article 22 of the Constitution for individuals to divest themselves of their nationality but raised questions about the active guarantee of retaining Japanese nationality when acquiring foreign citizenship.
The court's endorsem*nt of the purpose behind the nationality law provision, aimed at preventing and eliminating multiple nationality, is noteworthy. However, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the real-world consequences faced by individuals like the eight plaintiffs in the case. These individuals, living in Europe, sought foreign nationality for various legitimate reasons tied to their livelihoods, such as maintaining businesses or taking public office.
The broader impact of the provision is staggering, with more than 25,000 Japanese citizens renouncing their citizenship since 1985. This legal stance, dating back to the Meiji Era, seems particularly rigid and harsh in a global context where over 70 percent of countries permit multiple citizenship with certain conditions.
The article rightly points out the potential arbitrary implementation of the law due to the government's inability to automatically detect a Japanese national acquiring foreign citizenship. This poses risks, such as denial of passport renewal for specific individuals, emphasizing the need for a more adaptable legal framework.
In a world where over 1.3 million Japanese nationals live abroad, and a significant number are permanent residents, the nationality law's far-reaching effects are undeniable. The article suggests a pressing need for the legislature to take proactive steps, urging the Diet to debate the provision's necessity and consider policy imperatives that safeguard the rights of Japanese citizens living abroad.
As the plaintiffs intend to appeal the high court ruling, the call to action becomes even more pertinent. It is essential for the legislature to engage in a comprehensive discourse on the provision, considering the evolving dynamics of globalization and the imperative of protecting the rights of Japanese citizens navigating the complexities of multiple nationalities.
