"Japan" and "Japanese"

The legal alienation of territories and inhabitants

By William Wetherall

First posted 1 January 2007
Last updated 6 February 2016

Postwar settlements  Occupation legalities, control and jurisdiction, sovereignty, repatriation, registration, and separation
SCAP and other directives to the Japanese government  How JCS and SCAP redefined nations and nationality
1945-11-3 JCS 1380/15 Japan, Formosan-Chinese, and Koreans • 1945-11-1 SCAPIN-224 Repatriation of Non-Japanese from Japan • 1946-1-29 SCAPIN-677 Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan • 1946-2-17 SCAPIN-746 Registration of Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans • 1946-2-19 SCAPIN-756 Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction • 1946-2-19 SCAPIN-757 Sentences imposed on Koreans and certain other nationals • 1946-3-16 SCAPIN-822 Repatriation • 1946-4-2 SCAPIN-852 Entry and Registration in Japan • 1946-11-20 SCAP statement on "Koreans in Japan" • 1947-2-25 SCAPIN-1543 Registration of Chinese Nationals
"Dual nationality" during Occupation  The naichi-gaichi divide before, during, and after the Occupation of Japan
1949 Cabinet Order No. 51 As drafted early in 1949 • As promulgated on 15 March 1949 • As revised from 28 April 1952
Legal status of SCAP's "non-Japanese"  Koshikawa's 1949 study of gaichijin under Japan's Common Law
Effects of 1952 Peace Treaty  Separation of gaichi from Japan meant separation of gaichijin from its nationality

Postwar settlements

The end of World War II in Asia and the Pacific reduced the Empire of Japan to what was left after its leaders unconditionally surrendered under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. In accepting these terms, they also recognized that the United States would be squatting on prefectural territories like Okinawa.

Occupation legalities

Wars are brutal to those they effect. Survivors of wars remember them for the suffering they caused in terms of destroyed lives and properties. Yet wars are begun, fought, and ended through government acts that involve legal and other administrative procedures. Postwar occupations and reconstructions are also carried out by all manner of orders, directives, edicts, laws, ordinances, and regulations.

In this section, I will introduce and comment on a number of legal instruments that illuminate Japan's postwar settlements with what became, and remain over half a century later, a divided China, a divided Korea, a Soviet Union that is now again Russia -- and a prefecture called Okinawa, which continues to bear the stomping of American boots. In particular I will focus on Taiwan, Chōsen, Karafuto and Chishima, and the Ryukyus, and on the status of the people affiliated with these entities.

Control, jurisdiction, and sovereignty

Japan's effective sovereignty over Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen ended when Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1945. The subnation of Taiwan was surrendered to the Republic of China (ROC) and remains the major part of the remnants of that state. Karafuto, which had become a prefecture, and the Chishima islands, which had been part of Hokkaido, were invaded, captured, and occupied by the Soviet Union and remains part of Russia. The subnation of Chōsen was surrendered by halves to the United States and the Soviet Union, which oversaw the establishment of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north.

While Taiwan, Karafuto and Chishima, and Chōsen were parts of Japan, people with principal registers in these territories were Japanese by nationality. When Japan abandoned its rights to these territories provisionally in 1945 it lost de jure control and jurisdiction and de facto sovereignty. It lost de jure sovereignty when it confirmed its abandonment of these territories in 1952.

Repatriation and status

In occupying the Empire of Japan, the Allied Powers faced enormous logistic problems. One of the most challenging, in terms of coordination throughout East Asia and the Pacific, was the repatriation of millions of people to and away from "Japan" as redefined by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP).

"Japanese nationals in Conquered Territory" were to be repatriated back to Japan. All manner of non-Japanese in Japan when the war ended -- from Americans, British, and Chinese to Germans and Italians -- were to be repatriated back to their "homelands".

SCAP's definition of "non-Japanese nationals" for repatriation purposes included also people it viewed as "liberated peoples" -- name "Koreans" (Chosenese) and "Formosans" (Taiwanese) -- while recognizing that legally they were Japanese nationals until otherwise decided by appropriate treaties.

But people who had been domiciled in the Ryukyus (which SCAP defined as Okinawa prefecture, plus a couple of island groups affiliated with Kagoshima prefecture) were also declared "non-Japanese" for purposes of repatriation.

SCAP's repatriation directives commonly spoke of "Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans" (SCAPIN-746) -- or "Chinese, Formosans, Koreans and Ryukyuans" (SCAPIN-822) -- but also of "Korean, Chinese, or Formosan nationals, or Ryukyuans" (SCAPIN-822) -- thought among these, only "Chinese" were actually aliens under Japanese law.

Alien registration

After the repatriation program ended, Taiwanese and Chosenese who had remained in Occupied Japan -- but not Ryukyuans -- were alienated for the purpose of alien registration, though they continued to be recognized as Japanese nationals. When the occupation ended, from the day the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, Taiwanese and Chosenese were fully alienated by separated from Japanese nationality.

All this may seem "contradictory" or "paradoxical" if one assumes that Taiwanese and Chosenese could not possibly have been Japanese under Japan's statute or customary laws -- if in fact they were also "non-Japanese" and "aliens". Not only was such dual status possible, but it was entirely legal. And it had precedents in other countries.

Nationality dispositions

When Taiwan and Chōsen were fully separated from Japan's national territory in 1952, Taiwanese and Chosenese were separated from Japanese nationality, since it was predicated on affiliation with registers reached by Japanese law. Japanese law no longer reached the territories of Karafuto or Chishima, but it reached the registers, as they had been part of the interior. People with Karafuto or Chishima registers therefore retained their Japanese status, though some would have to establish a new register in the locality within Japan where they resided.

Legally, Japan could have made similar provisions for Taiwanese and Chosenese. I.e., provisions could have been made for people residing in Japan, whose registers were in Taiwan or Chōsen, to establish a new register in the prefectural municipality in which they had been residing as "non-Japanese" for purposes of repatriation and "aliens" for purpose of alien registration.

Much has been written, most of it critical, about Japan's decision to denationalize all Taiwanese and Chosenese as of 28 April 1952, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force. Practically all writers on this subject chastise Japan for not allowing those who had settled in Japan to remain Japanese, or at least to regain their Japanese status after provisionally losing it.

Japan, as a sovereign state, was free to do anything it wished regarding the conditions for remaining or becoming its nationals. Domestic and international political conditions gravitated against offering options other than naturalization, under conditions somewhat eased residential status under laws related to Japan's unconditional surrender under the Potsdam Declaration.

Politically, the Allied Powers, in particular SCAP, chose not to impose nationality settlements on Japan in the peace treaty. And ROC in its negotiations of a peace treaty with Japan, and ROK in its negotiations of a normalization treaty and status agreement with Japan, accepted Japanese determination that Taiwanese and Chosenese would lose their Japanese nationality, and that those who wished to again be Japanese would have to naturalize.

Taiwanese and Chosenese

Over two million people affiliated with Taiwan and Chōsen were in the prefectures when the war ended. Tens of thousands of Taiwanese, and hundreds of thousands of Chosenese, had remained in the prefectures rather than return to Taiwan or Korea. Some had been born in the prefectures, the children or grandchildren or migrants.

During the first year or so of Occupation of Japan they were treated as "non-Japanese" for repatriation purpose. From 2 May 1947, Chosenese and most Taiwanese became "aliens" for registration purposes but not for purposes of nationality. Their future legal status was left to a peace treaty that would not be signed until 1951 and would not come into effect until 1952. Its effectuation left them without Japanese nationality, hence categorical aliens. Since then, their legal status in Japan has been effected by a series of changes in laws reflecting treaties and agreements between Japan and concerned states over the years.

Most former Japanese in Japan who became aliens because of the effectuation of the peace treaty in 1952, and their qualified descendants, are Special Permanent Residents, which places them somewhat between Japanese and other aliens in terms of their legal treatment under domestic laws. SPR status is not based on nationality but on residential statuses tied to Japan at time it surrendered. Aliens representing about fifty (50) different nationalities, the vast majority of them nationals of the Republic of Korea, are SPRs. But the SPR population is rapidly shrinking as a result of mortality and naturalization, and the fact that most marry Japanese and their children, who may be dual nationals, are registered as Japanese.

Over the years since 1965, when Japan and ROK signed a normalization treaty and status agreement, practically all Chosenese migrated to ROK (Kankoku) nationality. Some, however, have remained Chosenese, referring to their status as affiliates of Chōsen, a former Japanese entity.

Chosenese are not de jure stateless. They classified as aliens of "Chōsen" nationality in a conflated "Kankoku/Chōsen" category. The problem is not that they have no nationality, but that "Chōsen" has no state -- which means that they are de facto stateless.

Some Chosenese, and at least one ROK national, and even a few Japanese, claim to be nationals of DPRK, but neither Japan nor ROK recognize DPRK's nationality. Japan also tallies the few aliens it has admitted with DPRK documents under the same "Kankoku/Chōsen" status.

At which point Japan recognizes DPRK, Chosenese who migrate to DPRK's nationality will be classified apart from ROK nationals. How will Japan classify Chosenese who remain Chosenese -- nationals of neither ROK nor DPRK? Under ROK or DPRK? Or will they be classified as stateless?

Top  

SCAP and other directives to the Japanese government

By the time Emperor Hirohito surrounded to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, Iwojima and Okinawa had already been taken and were occupied by US forces. USSR forces were four days into their invasion of Japan's half of Sakhalin, and three days later they would commence their invasion of the Kurils. By the end of 1945, Japan had also formally surrendered Taiwan and Chosen to the Allied Powers.

The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) was under the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in Washington, D.C. JCS issued numerous directives to SCAP concerning SCAP's mission, including his governing of Occupied Japan.

The Japanese Government, in turn, was under SCAP, whose General Headquarters (GHQ) was in Tokyo. SCAP directed the Government of Japan by issuing instructions called SCAPINs and related memoranda.

Most JCS and SCAPIN documents spoke of "Formosa" and "Formosans" and "Korea" and "Koreans", to refer to what Japanese in Japanese were "Taiwan" (台湾 Taiwan) and "Taiwanese" (台湾人 Taiwanjin), and "Chosen" (朝鮮 Chōsen) and "Chosenese" (朝鮮人 Chōsenjin). The Japanese terms are still used today in legacy matters regarding the two territories and their affiliates.

Here I will introduce and comment on the JIS and SCAPIN documents that most clearly show how the Allied Powers laid the legal foundation for the alienation of Chosenese and Taiwanese from Japanese nationality.

Top  

JCS 1380/15 directive on "Japan" and "Japanese"
excluding "Formosan-Chinese" and "Koreans"

3 November 1945

Basic Initial Post Surrender Directive to Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers for the Occupation and Control of Japan

"Japan" includes the four main islands
and about 1,000 smaller adjacent islands

"Formosan-Chinese" and "Koreans"
are not included in the term "Japanese"

On 3 November 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued the following directive (1380/15) to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) concerning the post-surrender military government in "Japan Proper" as it called the prefectures of Japan. This directive defined "Japan" and the status of "Formosan-Chinese" and "Koreans" in what was left of the Empire of Japan.

"Japan Proper"

"Japan Proper" had commonly been used in English to reflect the term "Naichi" in Japanese. "Naichi" -- meaning "Interior territory" or "Interior" -- referred to the prefectural jurisdiction of the Empire of Japan, as distinct exterior (gaichi) jurisdictions like Taiwan and Chōsen, which the Allied Powers were calling "Formosa" and "Korea". In Japanese, however, "Nihon" (Japan) included Formosa and Korea.

"Formosan-Chinese"

This term appears to mean Formosans, here regarded as "Chinese" because the Cairo Declaration listed Formosa as one of the territories it alleged that Japan had "stolen from the Chinese". However, most SCAP directives properly differentiate "Formosa" and "China" and hence "Formosans" and "Chinese".

The following text of the JCS directive table is a reformatted version of the document as posted on the "Birth of the Constitution of Japan" section of the National Diet Library website.

The bold emphasis is mine.

Top  

SCAPIN-224

Repatriation of Non-Japanese from Japan

1 November 1945

Reception Centers and priorities established for
repatriation of Koreans and Chinese, and of persons
formerly domiciled in Formosa and the Ryukyus

Date

Note that this SCAPIN is dated two days before the above-cited JCS directive defining "Japan" and "Japanese".

"non-Japanese nationals"

Note that "Koreans" and "Chinese" are specifically listed as examples of "non-Japanese nationals" and "non-Japanese repatriates".

"homelands"

Does "homelands" refer to "Korea" as the homeland of "Koreans" and "China" as the homeland of "Chinese"? Or does it refer to the place where "Koreans" and "Chinese" in Occupied Japan were "formerly domiciled" and to which they wish to "return"?

Presumably there are also "Koreans" and "Chinese" outside Occupied Japan, who were "formerly domiciled" somewhere in what had become Occupied Japan, who would qualify for "return" to their "homeland" in Occupied Japan.

"formerly domiciled"

The reference to plans for "the return of those individuals formerly domiciled in Formosa, the Ryukyus and South China" is also ambiguous. On the surface, it would seem to mean Koreans and Chinese who used to be domiciled in these places -- i.e., Koreans who would return to Formosa, the Ryukyus, or South China, and similar to Chinese who would return to one of these three places where they used to be domiciled.

The alternative meaning would be people in Occupied Japan whose domicile had been in Formosa, the Ryukyus, or South China at the time they migrated to what has become part of Occupied Japan -- and who, as such, would return to their original domiciles in Formosa, the Ryukyus, or South China -- i.e., Formosans who would return to Formosa, Ryukyuans who would return to the Ryukyus, and Chinese from South China who would return to South China.

The latter interpretation is more consistent SCAPIN-746, dated 17 February 1946, which directed that "Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans resident in Japan" be registered and "number of each nationality" desiring repatriation be reported (see below).

"reception centers"

Note also that "Reception Centers" as used in this and other SCAPINs related to repatriation was one of the terms used to describe the "Assembly Centers" or "Relocation Centers" set up to process "evacuees" of putative "Japanese descent" on the West Coast in 1942.

"nationality"

Note, moreover, the use of nationality with the implication that at least "Koreans" and "Chinese" constitute a "nationality". According to SCAPIN-746 of 17 February 1946, "Ryukyuans" and "Formosans" also constitute "nationalities" (see below).

From the viewpoint of international law at the time this directive was written, only "Chinese" meaning "national of the Republic of China" would have been recognized as a "nationality". "Korean" would not have been a nationality since there was as yet no Korean state on the peninsula -- much less the two Korean states established in 1948. Nor did Taiwan or the Ryukyus qualify as states for "nationality" purposes.

Why GHQ/SCAP officials should muddle the meaning of "nationality" is not clear. I suspect they were speaking of Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans, and Formosans resident in Japan in terms of their presumed "national origin" -- a term familiar especially to Americans, who are apt even today to use the term in reference to someone's putative race or racioethnicity.

GHQ/SCAP used "national origin" in its February 1946 draft constitution, but Japan's lawmakers, correctly understanding its racial implications, deleted the term as alien to Japan's view of nationality as a raceless civil status. GHQ/SCAP It became clear in later GHQ/SCAP directives that "Koreans in Japan" were nationals of Japan and would continue to possess

By the November 1946, GHQ/SCAP's position on the "nationality" of Koreans in Japan was no clearer, judging from what little I have been able to piece together from reported newspaper reports and press statements (see below).

Sources

SCAPIN-224 ran three pages. The following text is an edited and reformatted version of text cut and pasted from bbs.enjoykorea.jp. It has been vetted and corrected against facsimile images of the SCAPIN document posted on the same website.

The text is briefly referred to in Edward W. Wagner, The Korean Minority in Japan, 1904-1950, New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1951 (pages 44-45 and note 4). Wagner 1951 also discusses later SCAPINs related to the repatriation of Koreans.

The red and black bold emphasis in the SCAPIN is mine.

Top  

SCAPIN-677

Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan

29 January 1946

"Japan" defined without Taiwan, Karafuto,
Korea, and other "outlying" territories

Second SCAP directive on "Japan"

22 March 1946

"Japan" includes Izu and Nanpo islands

By the beginning of 1946, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, in compliance with the 3 November 1945 Joint Chiefs of Staff directive, had set the boundaries of the territory over which the Empire of Japan would be permitted to exercise a certain degree of sovereignty until otherwise determined by treaty settlements.

Japan -- which would remain an "Empire" until a new constitution could be drafted, approved, and enforced -- was reduced from 48 to 46 prefectures and most but not all of their associated islands. One of the prefectures (Okinawa) came back, the other (Karafuto) didn't. Some of the associated islands (such as the Ogasawaras) came back, others (most significantly the Chishimas) didn't.

Two directives

In January and March 1946, GHQ/SCAP issued two directives concerning the administrative separation of certain outlaying areas from Japan. The directives defined "Japan" for the purpose of administering the territories that had once been part of the Empire of Japan.

The first directive defined what was to be included in "Japan" and what was to be excluded from the Japanese government. The second directive modified the first by including in "Japan" a group of islands it had inadvertently (it seems) excluded.

Sources

The following versions of the directives are my transcriptions from this yearbook, which was "Made in Occupied Japan" (Appendix, pages 20-21).

The Japan Year Book, 1946-48
Tokyo: The Foreign Affairs Association of Japan, 1949
Preface dated December 1948
xv, 614 (main text), 340 (appendix and index), foldout map of Japan, unnumbered adverts

See The Japan Year Book: Forty years of rise, then fall for a look at how the Empire of Japan appeared in half a century of English language yearbooks.

The first directive is posted on a number of websites concerning the postwar status of Takeshima -- an island claimed by both Japan and the Republic of Korea -- possibly the island referred to in the directive as "Take Island". I downloaded one such copy and compared it with the yearbook version.

The blue heading in my presentation was not in the yearbook, which dispenses with such bureaucratic detail. I have corrected obvious scanning errors and somewhat modified the layout to facilitate this presentation.

The second directive was transcribed from the yearbook without the benefit of vetting against another source.

The bold emphasis in both directives is mine.

Top  

Top  

SCAPIN-746

Registration of Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans

17 February 1946

Imperial Japanese Government ordered to register
Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans, and Formosans in Japan

Having decided what was "Japan" and who were "non-Japanese", SCAP instructed the government of Japan to register all Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans, and Formosans who were resident in "Japan" -- ostensibly in order to control their "repatriation" to their "homelands" or "native lands" outside "Japan".

Note the use of nationality with the implication that Korean, Chinese, Formosan, and Ryukyuan were nationalities.

Sources

SCAPIN-746 ran two pages. The following text is an edited and reformatted version of text cut and pasted from bbs.enjoykorea.jp. It has been vetted and corrected against facsimile images of the SCAPIN document posted on the same website.

The text is briefly referred to in Edward W. Wagner, The Korean Minority in Japan, 1904-1950, New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1951 (page 46 and note 14). Wagner 1951 also discusses the application of the 1947 Alien Registration Order to Koreans (pages 66-67).

The red and black bold emphasis in the SCAPIN is mine.

Top  

SCAPIN-756

Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction

19 February 1946

Directive specifying persons and offenses over which
Japanese courts would have no criminal jurisdiction, and
establishing military occupation courts to deal with them

United Nations Nationals and organizations, including corporations, were thus provided with what amounted to extraterritorial treatment in criminal matters, and Japanese nationals and others who were generally subject to Japanese courts would be subject to military occupation courts in offenses prejudicial to the Occupation Forces or to the objectives of the occupation.

Top  

SCAPIN-757

Review of Sentences Imposed Upon Koreans and Certain Other Nationals

19 February

Directive limiting authority of Japanese courts in cases involving
Koreans and other nationals of countries formerly under Japanese rule
if such persons can prove their intention to return to their homelands

This SCAPIN qualifies SCAPIN 756 concerning "Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction".

Koreans in Occupied Japan, and Taiwanese who had not migrated to Republic of China nationality, were Japanese nationals. They and other aliens who were not categorically "United Nations Nationals" -- meaning nationals of countries which had declared war on Japan, otherwise known as the Allied Powers -- were subject to the jurisdiction of Japanese courts. However, those who were presently a defendant in a Japanese court, might be allowed to repatriate, depending on the offense and their ability to prove their intention to repatriate.

SCAPIN-822

Repatriation

16 March 1946

Basic directive governing the repatriation of
a. Japanese nationals from areas under Allied military control outside Japan, and
b. Displaced persons in Japan formerly domiciled in China, Formosa, Korea, and the Ryukyus

This SCAPIN contained the following annexes concerning repatriation in all occupation zones.

Annex I - General Policies Governing Repatriation of Japanese Nationals in Formerly Japanese Occupied Territory, and Non-Japanese from Japan.

Annex II - Reception Centers in Japan for Processing Repatriates.

Annex III - Repatriation to and from Japan.

Annex IV - Supply and Transportation.

Annex V - Medical and Sanitary Procedures.

Annex VI - Currency, Securities, and Other Documents and Possessions.

Annex VII - Miscellaneous.

Annex VIII - Rescissions.

"Japanese nationals" and "Displaced persons"

SCAPIN-822, which establishes SCAP's repatriation program in Allied military occupation zones throughout the former Empire of Japan, fumbles its initial characterization of "Japanese nationals" and "Displaced persons". The basic SCAPIN concerns the "repatriation" of the following two classes of persons (bold emphasis mine).

1. This memorandum is the basic directive governing repatriation of:

a. Japanese nationals from areas under the military control of:

Commander-in-Chief, United States Army Forces, Pacific.

Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Ocean Areas.

Generalissimo, Chinese Armies.

Supreme Allied Commander, Southeast Asia Command.

General Officer Commanding, Australian Military Forces.

Commander-in-Chief, Soviet Forces in the Far East (when appropriate agreements have by consummated).

b. Displaced persons in Japan formerly domiciled in China, Formosa, Korea and the Ryukyus.

"Japanese nationals" who are outside Japan (as defined for Occupation purposes) are to be "repatriated" from those areas, presumably to Japan.

"Displaced persons" who are "in Japan" -- and who were "formerly domiciled" in China, Formosa, Korea and the Ryukyus" -- are also to be repatriated, presumably to China, Formosa, Korea, or the Ryukyus.

Neither "Japanese nationals" nor "displaced persons" are defined. Because Annex I defines "non-Japanese as "Chinese, Formosans, Koreans and Ryukyuans" (see below), "displaced persons in Japan" apparently means "non-Japanese" in Japan. But under Japanese law, Formosans, Koreans, and Ryukyuans were Japanese.

As a legal term, "domiciled" means "residing" in a locality as opposed to just passing through or visiting. To say that someone "in Japan" was "formerly domiciled" elsewhere, implies that they used to reside elsewhere and migrated to Japan. Are migrants "displaced"? Are their descendants born "in Japan" displaced?

And are not "Japanese nationals" outside Japan either migrants or the descendants of migrants? Were the migrants, having been formerly domiciled "in Japan", not also "displaced persons"?

One cannot expect a general outline of repatriation to define all the possible variations of individual or family circumstances. However, SCAPIN-822 leaves the impression that people were expected to "repatriate" to their place of ascribed nationality -- "Japanese" outside Japan to Japan, and "non-Japanese" in Japan to their respective "former" domiciles outside Japan.

In actual practice, "Japanese nationals" in many places outside Japan had little or no choice but to "return" to a country they had left long ago or never been. Whereas "non-Japanese" in Occupied Japan were relatively free to choose whether to stay or leave, and many stayed -- not a few because they would have been more "displaced" in the places where SCAPIN-822 assumed they had been "formerly domiciled".

Definition of "non-Japanese"

As shown below, Annex I contains the basic definition of "non-Japanese" for purposes of repatriation (bold emphasis is mine).

The language of SCAPIN-822

Of some interest is how SCAP instructions are translated into Japanese -- given the conceptual and linguistic disconnects between the shakiness of SCAP views and English terminology, and the relative precision and clarity of Japanese legal and bureaucratic usage. When and why did SCAP speak of "Chosen" rather than "Korea" in English? What choices did translators make when faced with SCAP references to "homeland" or "Japan proper" or even just "Japan"? And terms like "repatriation" and "return"?

Here I will examine usage in a translation of SCAPIN-822 and its annexes that has been posted on a website called toaniuniu. The website, dedicated to Korea-Japan relations, presents numerous SCAPINs that touch upon the Chōsen hantō (but also Chosenese in Occupied Japan). Its manager -- xiaoke (小可しゃおこー) -- states that materials are from the following publication.

竹前栄治 (監修)
連合国軍最高司令官総司令部 [原編]
GHQ指令総集成
東京：エムティ出版・平凡社、1993-1994
総目次、全15巻

Takemae Eiji (kanshū) [supervision]
Rengōkoku saikō shirei kan, Sōreibu [genpen]
[Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General Headquarters (original compilation)]
GHQ shirei sōshūsei
[General compendium of GHQ instructions]
Tokyo: Emuti [MT] Shuppan / Heibonsha, 1993-1994
General Index and 15 volumes

Takemae Eiji is a widely published authority on the Occupation of Japan. Some of his work is represented, not without some serious problems, in Inside GHQ (The Allied Occupation of Japan and its Legacy), New York: Continuum, 2002 -- a translation, and substantial revision and expansion, by Robert Ricketts and Sebastian Swann, of a 1983 Japanese work. I have reviewed parts of this book as Takemae 2002 under Nationality in the Bibliographies section of this website.

Images and English transcriptions

The webpage presents readable images of the SCAP documents, followed by English transcriptions and Japanese translations. I have vetted my representations of the English transcriptions against the images.

Received Japanese translations

I have not seen Takemae's compendium, so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translations. The website manager states that some obvious errors in the translations have been corrected and gives an example. These matters do not, however, particularly concern me here. I am mainly interested in the received translations as examples of how someone has attempted to make sense of the SCAP documents.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the treatment of English metaphors, and in places the translations are more interpretive than structural. The variations in usage in the received translations suggest the complexities of rendering SCAP's English terms -- which reflect points of view that were intentionally (if not sometimes unintentionally) at odds with Japanese law -- into Japanese terms which are generally used with considerable precision in Japanese laws and bureaucratic materials.

My general impression of the received translations, though, is that they generally done with care. They show evidence that the translators -- most likely multiple hands -- sought to make linguistic distinctions in Japanese that were not necessarily clear on the surface of the English -- aware, for example, of the cline between "Japan" as a legal entity before the Occupation, and "Japan" as redefined by Occupation authorities.

Japanese, non-Japanese

SCAPIN-822 precisely speaks of (1) the "repatriation [to Japan] of Japanese nationals in formerly Japanese occupied territory", and (2) the "[repatriation of] non-Japanese [to their homelands] from Japan". A certain Japanese translation (see note at end of this section) generally renders "Japanese nationals" as "Nihon kokumin" (日本国民) and Japanese as ""Nihonjin" (日本人), while "non-Japanese nationals" and "non-Japanese" are both "hi-Nihonjin" (非日本人).

Chinese, Formosans, Koreans, Ryukyuans

Apart from occasionally different orders of these four categories of "non-Japanese" for purposes of repatriation, the labels for the categories vary in some interesting ways.

"Chinese, Formosans, Koreans and Ryukyuans" is rendered "Chūgokujin, Taiwanjin, Chōsenjin oyobi Ryūkyūjin" (中国人、台湾人、朝鮮人及び琉球人) -- more literally "Chinese, Taiwanese, Chosenese and Ryukyuans".

"Korean, Chinese, or Formosan nationals, or Ryukyuans" is rendered "Chōsenjin, Chūgokujin mata wa Taiwanjin mata wa Ryūkyūjin" (朝鮮人、中国人または台湾人または琉球人).

The translations of both phrases attempt to be structurally faithful to the English phrasing. Metaphorically, though, the second translation is somewhat less faithful -- in that, like the first translation, it uses "persons" (人 jin) rather than "nationals" (国民 kokumin) of Korea, China, and Formosa.

Whereas SCAPIN-746 (see above) spoke of "Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans" as "nationalities", we Annex VI of SCAPIN-822 has spoken of "Korean, Chinese, or Formosan nationals" -- but "Ryukyuans" rather than "Ryukyuan nationals".

In fact, references to "Korean nationals" and "Chinese nationals" are common in SCAP documents -- while references to "Formosan nationals" are rare -- and I find no examples of references to "Ryukyuan nationals" in SCAPINs. From this scarcity or absence of references to "Formosan nationals" or "Ryukyuan nationals", I would speculate that at least some SCAP officials, while treating "Koreans, Chinese, Ryukyuans and Formosans" as "non-Japanese", (1) understood that neither "Formosa" nor "Ryukyu" qualified as entities for nationality purposes in the sense of state nationality, and (2) anticipated that "Formosans" would become "Chinese" while "Ryukyuans" would eventually resume being "Japanese".

Note in this regard that the 1947 Alien Registration Order, while alienating Chosenese and some Taiwanese (namely, those who had not become Chinese), it did not alienate Ryukyuans, or anyone else affiliated with Japans Interior (Naichi) territory. This was especially significant in the postwar disposition of Japanese nationality, which drew a clear line between Interior and non-Interior (Chōsen and Taiwan) registers.

There are, though rare, occasional references to "Ryukyuan nationals" in United Nations reports and U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands documents, among others publications.

The 1952 Demographic Yearbook (New York: Statistical Office of the United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs, 1953) gives the population of Japan in 1950 as 83,199,637 and qualifies this figure as "Excluding foreigners and some Koreans, Formosans and Ryukyuans".

The same UN publication qualifies the "de jure population" of Japan in 1940 as that of the "Territory of Japan proper, i.e., including the Kurile Islands, the Ryukyu Islands south of 29 N. Latitude and the Bonin Islands" -- but not "Taiwan and Southern Sakhalin (Karafuto) which were [sic] part of Japan proper in the years 1942-1945". No mention is made of Korea, which like Taiwan was never part of "Japan proper" (the Interior). The phrase "Ryukyu Islands south of 29 N. Latitude and the Bonin Islands" is an extreme simplification of a list of territories islands which Article 3 of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty would place under the sole administrative authority of the United States under the United Nations trusteeship system. So-called "de jure" populations are based on honseki register populations. National censuses enumerate "de facto" populations, meaning they count people where they are living as opposed to where they are registered, though honseki addresses are also recorded for cross tally purposes.

Japanese government statistics today qualify the same 1950 figure as that of the "former Interior" (旧内地 kyū Naichi) minus Interior territories to which Japan's administrative authority did not then extend -- including Okinawa prefecture, the Chishima and other islands associated with Hokkaido, the Ogasawara islands associated with Tokyo, and islands associated with Shimane and Kagoshima prefecture. Karafuto has also been excluded. For purposes of comparing present-day and past populations, however, government statistics show the 1950 population inclusive of the territories that have since been returned to Japan as 84,114,574.

Demographers commonly adopt descriptive labels to accommodate particular views of political boundaries. Irene Taeuber for example, in a table called "The population of Japan and the former Empire, 1920-1940", lists "Japan" as a subtotal of "46 prefectures" and "Okinawa", and "Outlying areas" as a subtotal of "Korea, Taiwan, Karafuto, Kwantung, and Nanyo-gunto" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958, Table 16, page 60). The "Total" of course is the population of the de jure Empire of Japan defined by its legal territories. The 73,114,[000] figure she gives for 1940 corresponds to the 73,114,308 given in Japanese government statistics today for what was then the Interior (内地 Naichi) consisting of 47 prefectures including Okinawa. The term "outlying areas" was also used by SCAP to refer to the "exterior" (外地 gaichi) territories of the Empire of Japan.

Taeuber variously refers to "Japan" as "the home islands" (page 59), "the home country" (page 59 ), "Japan itself" (page 59), and "the mother country" of the empire (page 60) -- in reference to the legal entity called the Interior (内地 Naichi) or, when more consciously referring to it as a defunct entity, the "former Interior" (旧内地 kyū Naichi) -- though it still exists in the hindsight of legacy law. She speaks of "Japanese and subject peoples" (page 59), of the "out-movement of Japanese" and the "in-movement of colonials" with reference to "Japan" (page 60). The latter are enumerated as "Non-Japanese in Japan", while the distribution of "Japanese" inside and outside the Japanese Empire is described as one of "the ethnic Japanese" (page 61). The intent of "ethnic Japanese" -- which has no foundation in Japanese nomenclature -- is not explained.

Japan proper

SCAPIN-822 generally speaks of "Japan" but twice refers to "Japan proper". In Annex I "Japan proper" is translated "Nihon" (日本), but in Annex II it is translated "Nihon hondo" (日本本土), meaning "Japan mainland". "Hondo" (本土) continues to be used today, especially in Okinawa, to refer to the rest of Japan. In SCAP usage, both "Japan" and "Japan proper" refer to Japan as redefined by the Allied Powers.

The Japanese translation of "Japan" in many parts of Annex VI uses "Naichi" (内地) or "Interior" or "Nihon Naichi" (日本内地). For example, the phrase "Japan, Korea, Formosa, Kwantung Province, and north China" is rendered "Naichi, Chōsen, Taiwan, Kantōshū oyobi Kahoku" (内地、朝鮮、台湾、関東州及び華北). And "Japan" in several reference to savings books, insurance policies, checks, certificates of deposits, and other such documents issued by institutions "in Japan" is rendered "Nihon Naichi" (日本内地).

My impression is that the translators have used "Naichi" and "Nihon Naichi" in order to clarify that by "Japan" SCAP must have been thinking of (1) the formal prefectural entity (legal jurisdiction) of the Empire of Japan called "Naichi" (内地) or "Interior" -- as opposed to (2) "Japan" as downsized by the Allied Powers for purposes of the Occupation.

Legally, the distinction between pre-Occupation "Japan" as a sovereign state, and "Japan" as an occupied state under the sovereignty of SCAP, is very important. Sovereign "Japan" at the time the war ended included the Interior, Taiwan, and Chōen, hence the Japanese nationality not only of Interiorites but also of Taiwanese and Chosenese. Whereas "Japan" under SCAP was essentially the Interior (so-called "Japan proper") minus Karafuto, the northern and southern Chishima islands, the Nansei islands (the Ryukyus, including Okinawa, and other islands), and the Ogasawaras among other islands.

For a look at the formal and informal meanings of "naichi" in Chinese and Japanese, see Linguistic notes on "Interior" in "The Interior: The legal cornerstone of the Empire of Japan".

homeland

The received translation renders "homeland" as "hongoku" (本国), and SCAPIN-822 uses these terms mainly in reference to SCAP has defined as "non-Japanese" for repatriation purposes.

As legal terms, "hongoku" and "home country" refer to one's country of nationality. They are standard term in laws of laws that determine applicable law -- as in the expression "home country law" or "law of one's home country" (本国法 hongokuhō).

Metaphorically, "hongoku" does not mean "ancestorland" or "fatherland" or "motherland" or "native land" -- but refers only to the country that is regarded as one's principal affiliation for nationality purposes -- as opposed to "domicile", which is where one legally resides.

The term "honseki" (本籍) in Japanese law means "principle register" in reference to the address of the local polity with which one is primarily affiliated as a matter of household or family registration (本籍地 honsekichi). Japanese nationality is territorially associated with family registers of polities within Japan's sovereign dominion. The "honseki" of aliens, who do not have honseki registers in Japan, is taken to be their country of nationality.

repatriation, return

"Repatriation" and related terms use the metaphor "hikiage" (引揚) meaning "withdraw" or "pullback".

"Return" is typically "kikan" (帰還) or "sōkan" (送還). The former "return" is closer "come back (to)" or "go back (from)" and is most commonly used for Japanese. The latter is nearer "send back (to)" and is used mainly for non-Japanese.

Both "returns" are also used to translate "repatriate" -- with the same intransitive and transitive (hence also passive) distinctions. The latter (transitive) "return" is the root of the expression "kyōsei sōkan" (強制送還) meaning "forcibly send back" -- i.e., "enforced (compulsory) repatriation" or "deportation".

Bank of Chosen

The Allied Powers spoke mainly of "Korea" -- both out of habit, and out of regard for the position taken by Korean liberationists who refused to speak of Chōsen. The formal name of the peninsula as a territory of Japan, however, was "Chosen" -- and the United States used "Chosen" used on numerous official documents, including US immigration cards in "Chosen, Seoul" to Chōsen subjects, whose nationality was "Japanese".

Only a few early Allied documents documents speak of "Korea (Chosen)". SCAPINs generally speak of "Korea" -- except where, unavoidably, formal usage requires "Chosen". Annex VI of SCAPIN-822 -- concerning currency, securities, and other documents and possessions -- refers to the "currency of the Bank of Chosen, the Bank of Taiwan, and the Central Bank of Manchuria" (朝鮮銀行券、台湾銀行券、満洲中央銀行券) -- using the formal English names of the issuing organs.

"Bank of Korea" -- established as a private bank in the Empire of Korea -- was renamed "Bank of Chosen" when Korea was annexed by Japan as Chōsen. The bank continued to be known by this name until dissolved in 1950, when the Republic of Korea established the Bank of Korea as its central bank.

Top  

SCAPIN-852

Entry and Registration of non-Japanese in Japan

2 April 1946

Instructs the Government of Japan to establish procedures for
the legal entry into Japan and the registration in Japan
of non-Japanese other that Occupation Forces personnel

This directive was rescinded by SCAPIN-2137 of 16 January 1951, which was also titled "Entry and Registration of Non-Japanese Nationals in Japan".

Koshikawa introduces the SCAPIN-852 without naming it as such like this (page 7).

As SCAPIN-852, the memorandum is formally titled "Entry and Registration of Non-Japanese Nationals in Japan".

Note that Koshikawa is using "gaijin" (外人) to mean "outsiders" in the sense of "outside the jurisdiction of Occupied Japan" while "gaikokujin" (外国人) is the operational term for "aliens" or "foreigners".

As transcribed in the appendix to Koshikawa's 1949 report, SCAPIN-852 reads as follows (pages 322-324). I have underscored selected words and shown their received translations in (parentheses). Koshikawa does not use the term "SCAPIN" or assign numbers to the memoranda that correspond to SCAPINs. I have not seen a facsimile of SCAPIN-852 and so cannot ascertain the completeness or accuracy of the following text.

Top  

SCAP statement on Koreans in Japan

20 November 1946

On 11 November 1946 SCAP reportedly announced that "the nationality of Koreans in Japan shall be determined through their recognition as its nationals by a government which shall be duly established in Korea in the future." On 12 November, the following day, a press release attributed to SCAP stated that "Koreans who refuse to return to their homeland under the SCAP repatriation program will be considered as retaining their Japanese nationality until such time as a duly established Korean government accords them recognition."

An addendum to a memorandum from the Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan to the Diplomatic Section of GHQ/SCAP, dated circa 10 August 1951, cites the above line from the 11 November 1946 SCAP announcement as support for its claim that Koreans in Japan had already become ROK nationals pursuant to its 1948 Nationality Law (see 10 August 1951 Koreans in Japan ROK nationals for the fully texts.

Writers on Koreans in Japan have widely cited, or cited citations of, the 12 November 1946 press release from an article published early the following year by David Conde in "The Korean Minority in Japan" in Far Eastern Survey (26 February 1947, Volume 16, Number 4, pages 41-45). The first to cite Conde was probably Edward W. Wagner in The Korean Minority in Japan, 1904-1950, first published in 1951 (New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1951, pages 58-59, note 49, which attributes the citation to page 45).

Chang Hyo Sang, writing in "Nationality in Divided Countries: A Korean Perspective" (Chapter 6) in Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective also refers to the 12 November press release and to a similar statement made a week earlier (Chang 1990: 298, in Ko 1990, both in Bibliography).

Whenever whatever was announced by SCAP, and whatever was addressed in the press release, on 20 November 1946, a SCAP spokesman issued a statement calling "entirely incorrect" press statements alleging that "this Headquarters recently issued an order that Korean nationals remaining in Japan after 15 December 1946 must obtain Japanese citizenship" -- whatever "obtain Japanese citizenship" could possibly mean -- since (1) Japanese law defined only nationality, not citizenship, and (2) Koreans in Japan still possessed Japanese nationality and were therefore Japanese nationals.

The SCAP press release is worth reading in its entirely, and so I take the liberty of showing it as I have received it.

The bold emphasis is mine.

Conde also cited the above statement in his 1947 Far Eastern Survey report. According to Lee, Conde's article was "based on his personal observations in postwar Japan, where he served as an officer in the Civil Information and Education Section of SCAP" (Lee 1967: 98).

For what it is worth, Lee criticized SCAP for not promoting and facilitating more repatriation (ibid., page 95).

Inasmuch as 98 per cent of the Korean population in Japan had come originally from the provinces of South Korea, had SCAP encouraged repatriation, the problem of the Korean minority would not have assumed the proportions that it did.

However, Koreans who stayed presumably calculated that they were better off in Japan. And not a few of those who did repatriate found reason to sneak back into Japan. Later, when it becomes possible for ROK nationals to come to Japan for study and other purposes, some who had been in the prefectures before the end of the war, when they were Japanese subjects, "returned" to Japan.

Top  

SCAPIN-1543

Registration of Chinese Nationals

25 February 1947

China's mission in Japan will register Taiwanese who claim China's nationality
and those with registration certificates will be presumtively Chinese subjects
and thus United Nations nationals for purposes of exercising criminal jurisdiction.

The following text is transcribed from United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States, 1947, The Far East, Japan, Occupation and Control of Japan, pages 183-184, of pages 156-595. I have embedded the text in a standard SCAPIN template.

Note 38 describes DOS's copy of SCAPIN-1543 as follows (Ibid. page 183, underscoring mine).

Copy [of SCAPIN-1543] transmitted to the [State] Department in despatch 885, February 28, from Tokyo; received March 12. In the despatch, Mr. Bishop [POLAD] stated: "There is every reason to believe that with the completion of the registration of Chinese citizens (including Formosans) in Japan, many of the vexatious problems concerning treatment of Formosans by Japanese police authorities will be obviated." (740.00119 Control (Japan) 2/2847)

Exemption from capital levy

The immediate chronological context of SCAPIN-1543 is a telegram from the acting POLAD (Political Adviser) in Japan, Bishop [Max Waldo Bishop (1908-1994)], also dated 25 February 1947, concerning the exemption of United Nations nationals from the capital levy in Occupied Japan.

Bishop mentions ReDeptel 45, dated 11 February 1947, which "suggested consideration by SCAP of a 100,000 yen exemption from a capital levy only for Koreans intending to remain in Japan" (894.512 2-1147)" (Ibid. Note 35, page 182). The telegram goes on to say this (Ibid. 183).

Top  

"Dual nationality" during Occupation

The effect of SCAP's definition of "non-Japanese" in 1945 and 1946 was to impose a "non-Japanese" nationality on the Japanese nationality of Koreans, Formosans, and Ryukyuans. The "dual nationality" of Chosenese (Koreans) and Taiwanese (Formosans) led to their regard as "aliens" for the purpose of enforcing the 1947 Alien Registration Order. And this "alienation" set the stage for their separation from Japanese nationality in 1952 when, under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Chōsen and Taiwan were separated from Japan's national territory.

Nationality under Japanese law

Nationality has always been, in the domestic laws of states, a primary cause for differentiating "nationals" from "aliens" for the purpose of treating them differently. The legal principle of treating nationals differently from aliens, as recognized in international law, did not essentially change in Japan after the war.

Under Japanese law, "Chosen" and "Taiwan" were not nations, but territories, and "Chosenese" and "Taiwanese" were not nationality but territorial statuses. I have called them "subnationalities" in the sense that they were territorial subdivisions of Japanese nationality, but they were not, under international law, nationalities. Chosenese and Taiwanese were Japanese, not aliens.

The territorial principle of Japanese nationality -- i.e., the principle of nationality as an artifact of membership in a household register affiliated with the state -- remains in the 21st century the same as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. All that changed in 1952, when Chosenese and Taiwanese lost their Japanese nationality, was the definition of Japanese territory.

Nationality under SCAP rules

Territorial changes set in motion in 1945 and finalized in 1952 -- not changes in Japan's definition of its state nationality -- resulted in the separation of Chōsen and Taiwan from Japan, hence the separation of their registrants from Japan's nationality. SCAP's status rules, based on the territorial break-up of the Empire of Japan under the terms of surrender, had the effect of imposing an additional "nationality" on Japanese nationality.

Until the Occupation of Japan, Chosenese and Taiwanese were Japanese. During the Occupation they remained Japanese but also became "non-Japanese" (and "aliens" for certain legal purposes) of "Korean" (Chosenese) and "Formosan" (Taiwanese) nationality. After the Occupation, they lost their Japanese status and became merely aliens, defined as persons who do not possess Japanese nationality.

Since Chōsen and Taiwan had been separated from Japan's control and jurisdiction for purposes of military occupation and government, and would be permanently separated from Japan's sovereignty, Chosenese and Taiwanese were regarded as different nationalities.

Between 1945 and 1952, Chosenese and Taiwanese, and some others who were Japanese in the eyes of Japan's laws, were partly alienated by policies of the Supreme Commander for Allied Forces (SCAP). The definitions of Japanese and alien in Japanese law did not change, but SCAP imposed measures that caused some Japanese to be regarded as "non-Japanese" or treated as "aliens" for the purpose of the Allied Occupation of Japan.

Generally speaking, under the 1947 postwar Constitution and other laws revised or introduced during the Occupation of Japan between 1945 and 1952, aliens residing in Japan after the Occupation have been treated more like nationals than before the Occupation. The before, during, and after distinctions are important because, during the Occupation of Japan, Japan's definitions of "Japanese" and "aliens" were augmented -- not suspended but supplemented -- by conflicting SCAP definitions of "Japanese" and "non-Japanese".

SCAP's status rules constituted a union of Japan's distinction of "Japanese" (J) and "Alien" (A). This union of (J) and (A) created a status of "Japanese-Alien" (JA) -- meaning people who would remain in "Japan" and be treated as "Japanese" (J) until determined by future treaties. In the meanwhile, though, they would also be treated as "aliens" (A) for certain Occupation purposes.

Nested statuses

The concept of treating some people as both nationals and aliens was familiar in the domestic laws of the United States, which also differentiated between nationals and citizens. Neither of these distinctions were familiar in Japan, which had drawn a clear line between nationals and aliens, and did not define citizens apart from nationals.

Yet such distinctions were not incompatible with Japan's domestic status laws. As in most countries, an individual's civil status consist of nested territorial affiliations -- i.e., multiple affiliations centering on local municipal and prefectural status, overlayed by a regional status, in turn overlayed by national status.

During the Occupation, an additional territorial "nest" was simply added to the conventional "nests" of affiliation" -- namely, the "nest" of territories provisionally separated from Japan's sovereign dominion under the terms of surrender signed on 2 September 1952 -- the "nest" of territories that the Allied Powers determined were outside "Japan" in the sense of "Occupied Japan" as a legal jurisdiction. The SCAP-defined nest included Korea and Formosa (Chōsen and Taiwan), which were exterior (gaichi) territories, but also some parts of the Interior (naichi), most notably the Ryukyus (Okinawa).

Japan as redefined by the Allied Powers regained its sovereignty on 28 April 1952, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force. Under provisions of the treaty, Korea and Formosa were formally separated from Japan, but Japan would retain residual sovereignty over the Ryukyus and other Interior territories then under US control and jurisdiction. Consequently, among the Japanese who had been partly alienated as "non-Japanese", only those in registers affiliated with Korea or Formosa would be separated from Japanese nationality concomitant with the territorial separations affected by the treaty. In other words, SCAP's partial alienation ultimately anticipated changes in nationality for the "liberated nationals" -- meaning people affiliated with Japan's exterior (gaichi) territories -- Korea and Formosa -- as opposed to the Interior (naichi).

Legal territories and laws of laws

Procedurally, it was easy for the government of Japan to accommodate SCAP's status rules within the framework of Japan's own status laws. Laws are full of provisos and supplementary regulations that make exceptions to general rules -- and this is precisely what happened during the Occupation of Japan. Occupation laws used provisos and supplementary regulations to exceptionalize the treatment of Japanese that SCAP wished to treat as "non-Japanese" for some purposes.

In the meantime, throughout the Occupation of Japan, Japanese nationality continued to be linked to registers in territories still regarded as parts of Japan for purposes of applying its laws with Occupied Japan. One of the most important laws that continued to operate during the Occupation was the 1918 Common Law, a law of laws that determined applicable law within the legal empire. Another important law was the 1898 Rules of Laws, which determined applicable law between the empire and foreign entities, but also included provisions for the enforcement of laws in "Taiwan, Hokkaidō, and Okinawa prefecture, and [certain] other insular lands [places] [that are part of Japan's sovereign territory]".

Consequently, both during and after the Occupation of Japan, status and applicable law in Japan continued to be determined in accordance with the naichi/gaichi register distinctions made before Japan lost Chōsen and Taiwan (both of which were gaichi) and even parts of the Interior (Naichi). Japanese laws today also continue to reflect the legacy of the prefecturization of Hokkaido and Okinawa, and the nationalization of other islands, during the Meiji period.

"Choice" versus "Recovery and Naturalization"

There were various opinions within SCAP and the Japanese government, which made agreement within each side much less between them difficult. In the end, SCAP accepted Japan's conclusion that Chosenese and Taiwanese would lose their Japanese nationality when Japan lost Chōsen and Taiwan. In other words, the Allied Powers would leave issues of the nationality and status of Chosenese and Taiwanese to negotiations and agreements between Japan and the concerned states -- which turned out to be the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China.

Legally, there were all manner of ways that standing laws could have been amended or new laws enacted to give Chosenese and Taiwanese residing in Occupied Japan a "Choice" of nationality, including the option of retaining their Japanese nationality when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. Some ways would have involved more administrative difficulties than others, but none would have been legally difficult. Politically -- within the government and legal bureaucracy on the streets of Japan, and even on tables between Japan and ROK and ROC -- the "Recovery and Naturalization" solution, based on the logic of denationalization as a reversal of nationalization, proved to be the simplest and least controversial.

Top  

1949 Cabinet Order No. 51

The manner in which this order was originally drafted -- and then rewritten to comply with SCAP guidance -- reflects how Japanese law differentiated people regarded as possessing Japanese nationality according to the territory with which their family registers were legally affiliated.

The first draft of this order is interesting in that, while inspired by the manner of exceptionalization of Chosenese and some Taiwanese in the 1947 Alien Registration order, it used the means of exceptionalization found deployed in the revisions to the election law made in December 1945, which had adopted the same means of specifying who is to be included or excluded from the applicability of Interior laws before Japan's surrender -- namely, the territoriality of household registers.

Top  

Early 1949 draft of Cabinet Order 51

Definitions of aliens and Japanese

The loss of control and jurisdiction, and the later loss of sovereignty, resulted in Japanese with registers in areas which Japan did not control or have jurisdiction being regarded as neither fully Japanese nor fully aliens. It was recognized that they were nationals of Japan, but because their Japanese nationality was tied to territories no longer under Japan's control or jurisdiction, they were treated as quasi aliens for purposes of resident (alien) registration and immigration (exit and entry procedures).

I am indebted to Simon Nantais, who shared with me copies of some of the GHQ/SCAP documents he collected concerning Cabinet Order 51, including the following background information (based on his correspondence, 3 August 2008).

Cabinet Order 51 was submitted to the FIB (Foreign Investment Board) on 10 February 1949. The FIB held a meeting on 14 February and the minutes state that:

Top  

1949 Cabinet Order No. 51 as promulgated

15 March 1949

Cabinet Order No. 51 of 1949 (15 March)
Promulgated on and enforced from 15 March 1949

Revised by Law No. 88 of 1952 (12 April)
Revision enforced from 28 April 1952

Abolished by Law No. 65 of 18 December 1979

外国人の財産取得に関する政令

Gaikokujin no zaisan shutoku ni kan suru seirei

Cabinet order concerning property acquisition by aliens

Cabinet Order No. 51 was revised by Law No. 88 of 1952, promulgated on 12 April and effective from 28 April 1952, the day the Peace Treaty came into force.

Below I have transcribed parts of a Japanese and an English version of Cabinet Order 51 as promulgated on and enforced from 15 March 1949, and have transcribe and translated parts of Law No. 88 as promulgated on 12 April 1952 and enforced from 28 April 1952.

Aliens = 1 + 2
       = (1c - (1p - 1pp)) + (2c - 2p)
       = 1c - 1p + 1pp + 2c - 2p

Aliens = All natural persons
       - those in Japan's present Interior family registers
       - those in Japan's former exterior family registers
          if they had Japanese nationality on day of surrender
          and if they have resided in Japan since day of surrender
          and if they have not acquired another nationality
           or received a recognized certificate of nationality  
       + those who have Japanese and another nationality
       - dual nationals who have
           had a domicile in Japan since day of surrender
           or repatriated to Japan after day of surrender
           or been allowed to enter Japan for permanent residence

Top  

1952 revision of 1949 Cabinet Order No. 51

28 April 1952

Law No. 88 of 1952 (12 April)
Promulgated on 12 April 1952
Enforced from 28 April 1952

ポツダム宣言の受諾に伴い発する命令に関する件に基く経済安定本部関係諸命令の措置に関する法律

Potsudamu Sengen no judaku ni tomonai hassuru meirei ni kan suru ken ni motozuku Keizai Antei Honbu kankei shomeirei no sōchi ni kan suru hōritsu

Law concerning measures for various Economic Stabilization Board related ordinances based on matters concerning ordinances issued in conjunction with the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration

Rush to revise laws to reflect Peace Treaty

After the signing of the Peace Treaty in San Francisco on 8 September 1951, there was a rush to make legal preparations for effects of the treaty from 28 April the following year -- including the regaining of sovereignty by Japan, and its formal abandonment of sovereignty and other rights over Taiwan and Chosen.

Law No. 88 of 1952 specifically revised ordinances under the supervision of the Economic Stabilization Board (ESB), which was established in August 1946 to facilitate Japan's economic recovery. There were similarly titled laws for other government agencies to revise ordinances under their supervision.

Legalists debate when Japan lost its sovereignty over Taiwan and Chosen. Leaving aside the belief that Japan never legally had sovereignty over Korea, on the basis only of how the Allied Powers regarded Formosa and Korea, Japan lost its sovereignty over these territories from either (1) 2 September 1945 when its signed the Instruments of Surrender in which the terms of Potsdam Declaration were restated, or (2) 28 April 1952, when the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force.

While true that Japan lost its own sovereignty from 2 September 1945, and at the same time agreed that it would no longer possess Formosa and Korea, among other territories, as part of its sovereign dominion, the following matters make it clear that Japan did not formally lose the sovereignty it had gained in the eyes of international law in 1895 and 1910 until 28 April 1952.

1. Allied declarations and agreements between Japan and the Allied Powers preparatory to, and legal measures imposed by the Allied Powers during, the Occupation of Japan
2. the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers
3. the terms of all treaties and other agreements made between Japan and other countries pursuant to the Peace Treaty
4. the manner in which Japan revised and continues to revise its domestic laws pursuant to the Peace Treaty and related treaties and agreements
5. the way in which Japanese courts have generally interpreted the above matters

Definitions of aliens and Japanese

The earlier loss of control and jurisdiction, and the later loss of sovereignty, resulted in Japanese with registers in areas which Japan did not control or have jurisdiction being regarded as neither fully Japanese nor fully aliens. It was recognized that they were nationals of Japan, but because their Japanese nationality was tied to territories no longer under Japan's control or jurisdiction, they were treated as quasi aliens for purposes of resident (alien) registration and immigration (exit and entry procedures).

Cabinet Order No. 51 of 1949 was revised, as were several other domestic laws, shortly before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force, to reflect its effects -- including the denationalization by Japan of all Japanese whose family registers were in the former Japanese territories of Taiwan and Chosen, including those who were residing in Japan.

Top  

Legal status of SCAP's "non-Japanese" (Koshikawa 1949)

The following report, written by a judge doing research at the Judicial Research Institute, an institution supervised by the Supreme Court, from 1948 to 1949, was published in December 1949 by the Attorney General's Office of Japan

法務府
法務資料
第三百八號
(禁轉載)
昭和二十四年十二月
日本に在住する非日本人の法律上の地位
(特に共通法上の外地人について)
4 (序)、15 (目次)、436 (本文) ページ

Hōmufu [Attorney General's Office]
Hōmu shiryō [Legal resources]
Dai 308 gō [Number 308]
(Kin tensai) [Reproduction prohibited]
Shōwa 28 nen 12 gatsu [December 1949]
Nihon ni zaijū suru hi-Nihonjin no hōritsu-jō no chii
(Toku ni Kyōtsūhō-jō no gaichijin ni tsuite)
[Legal status of non-Japanese residing in Japan
(Especially concerning exteriorites under common law)
4 (preface), 15 (contents), 436 (main text) pages
Softcover (A5)

The copy in Yosha Bunko (my library) was one I made from an original copy in the East Asiatic Library of the University of California in the early 1970s (EAL 4846.4/42224).

The document was published by the Resources Section of the Fourth Legislation Opinion Bureau (法制意見第四局資料課 Hōsei Iken Dai-4-Kyoku Shiryō Ka) of the Attorney General's Office. All four legislation opinion bureaus later become the four departments of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau (内閣法制局 Naikaku Hōseikyoku), which examines drafts of pending legislation, and expresses opinions and gives advice to cabinet members regarding existing and pending laws and related legal matters.

The document is presented as a research report by Koshikawa Junkichi (越川純吉), Gifu District Court Judge, Fiscal 1948 Judicial Researcher. The latter title refers to Koshikawa's status during fiscal 1948 (April 1948 to March 1949) as a researcher at the Judicial Research Institute (司法研修所 Shihō Kenshūjo), now called the Legal Training and Research Institute in English. The facility, affiliated with the Supreme Court of Japan, trains and examines attorneys and judges, and also facilitates judicial research.

The main body of the report consumes the first 290 pages. The rest of the report, called a "supplement" or "appendix" (附録 furoku), consists of a bibliography, alien registration statistics, and a collection of related laws and orders, including numerous SCAP directives. The SCAPINs includes those he cites as examples of how SCAP defined "non-Japanese", the last of which is SCAPIN-1961, which is followed by the text of Cabinet Order 51, which it partly inspired. Both SCAPIN-1961 and CO-51 are dated shortly before the preface of Koshikawa's report.

The appended materials end with the 1948 constitutions of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), which concern ROK and DPRK claims over the same territory and people, followed by ROK's Provisional Ordinance Concerning Nationality (國籍に關する臨時條例 Kokuseki ni kan suru rinji jōrei) (South Korea [Minami Chōsen] Transitional Government Law No. 11 of 11 May 1948), and finally ROC's Regulatory Law of Disposition of Nationality of Taiwan Sojourners Abroad (在外臺僑國籍處理辦法 Zaigai Taikyō kokuseki benhō) (promulgated by ROC's Legislative Yuan).

The appendix includes what the text of the 1947 Alien Registration Order, an abridged version of the law which abolished Naimushō effective from 1 January 1948, and the text of the Alien Registration Order Enforcement Regulations.

The separately paginated preface, presumably by Koshikawa, is dated 17 April 1949.

Object of study

Koshikawa's object is to explore the statuses of all people residing in Occupied Japan who the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces (SCAP) defined as "non-Japanese" for Occupation purposes. He translates the SCAP term 非日本人 (hi-Nihonjin), and the term remains an essentially "alien" term which has no foundation in Japanese law.

Koshikawa writes at length about the dissonance between SCAP's determinations of who was to be considered "Japanese" and "non-Japanese" for the purposes of achieving the aims of the Allied Occupation of Japan -- and who actually qualified as "Japanese" and "aliens" under Japan's domestic laws. While addressing the status problems of all "non-Japanese" as defined by SCAP, he is especially concerned with the status of 外知人 (gaichijin) or "exteriorites" (my translation), by which he means Japanese whose nationality is tied to household registers in Taiwan (台湾) and Chōsen (朝鮮), as distinct from Japanese whose nationality is tied to registers in Japan's prefectures or Interior (内地 Naichi).

Koshikawa is to some extent concerned about the future nationality status of Taiwanese (台湾人 Taiwanjin) and Chosenese (朝鮮人 Chōsenjin), which he clearly recognizes possess Japanese nationality (国籍 kokuseki) at the time he is writing, and are therefore nationals (国民 kokumin) of Japan, and therefore Japanese (日本人 Nihonjin). His main concern, though, is the impact of SCAP's "non-Japanese" classification on the treatment of exteriorites under the 1918 Common Law (共通法 Kyōtsūhō), a domestic law of laws which determined which laws, of which legal jurisdictions of the Empire of Japan, would apply in a specific case, depending on the place of origin of the case and the statuses of the litigants. Note that Japan's 1898 Rules of Laws was a law of laws for purposes of international rather than domestic private matters.

"people of outlying areas" as "former exteriorites"

Koshinaga summarizes how the 1890 and 1947 Constitutions provided that the Nationality Law define those qualified to be "subjects" (1890 constitution) or "nationals" (1947 Constitution), thus distinguishing between "inlanders" (内国人 naikokujin) and "outlanders" (外国人 gaikokujin). "Outlanders" [aliens, foreigners] are simply those who are not "inlanders" or "Japanese" (日本人 Nihonjin) as the 1899 Nationality Law, then still in effect, calls those who possess Japanese nationality. (Pages 6-7)

Koshikawa then cites and discusses six examples of how SCAP defined "non-Japanese" for its purposes (pages 7-11), beginning with SCAPIN-852 of 2 April 1946, concerning "Entry and Registration of Non-Japanese Nationals in Japan". This SCAPIN, he says, uses "non-Japanese" (非日本人 hi-Nihonjin" to mean "all outsiders including aliens, stateless persons, and so-called exteriorites" (外国人、無国籍人、所謂外地人を含む外人全体 gaikokujin, mukokusekijin, iwayuru gaichijin o fukumu gaijin zentai).

The text of SCAPIN-852, as transcribed in Koshikawa's appendix is, is reproduced elsewhere on this page as SCAPIN-852.

In conjunction with SCAPIN-852, Koshikawa cites at length the basic definition of "alien" (外国人 gaikokujin) in the Alien Registration Order was promulgated and enforced on 2 May 1947, the day before the new Constitution came into force. Article 2 of the order -- the last imperial ordinance to be issued under the 1890 Meiji Constitution -- defined "aliens" as persons who do not possess Japanese nationality and excepted some aliens from regard as "aliens" for the purposes of the law. Article 11, however, provided that, for the time being, Chosenese, and some Taiwanese, would be regarded as "aliens" for the purpose of the law -- implying that they were not "aliens" according to the definition of in Article 2.

See 1947 Alien Registration Order for a closer examination and analysis of this ordinance.

The last of the six definitions of "non-Japanese" Koshikawa introduces is SCAPIN-1961 of 14 January 1949, titled "Business Activities of Non-Japanese in Japan" (page 9). This directive, he says, uses the term "non-Japanese" (非日本人 hi-Nihonjin) for "outsiders in toto" (外人全体 gaijin zentai).

Koshikawa then observes that, for the purpose of clarifying the study bounds (研究範囲 kenkyū han'i) of the present report, he will limit [restrict, confine, define, qualify] (限定する gentei suru) (1) "Japan" (日本 Nihon) as "the territorial bounds where [within which] the political and administrative authority of the present Government of Japan reaches" (現在日本政府の政治的行政的権能の及ぶ地域的範囲 Genzai Nihon Seifu no seiji-teki gyōsei-teki kennō no oyobu chiiki-teki han'i), (2) "non-Japanese" (非日本人) as "outsiders" (外人), and (3) "people in outside [outlying] areas [exteriorites]" (外地人) as "former exteriorites" (旧外地人).

In other words, he says, the bounds of the present report are the legal statuses of "all outsiders" (一切の外人 issai no gaijin) residing within the bounds of by the authority of the present Government of Japan respect to this definition of Japan's political and legal authority -- especially with respect to "Taiwanese, Chosenese, Kwantung provincials, and Nan'yo islanders" (台湾人、朝鮮人、関東洲人 [sic = 関東州人]、南洋群島人) (page 11).

"future prospects"

Koshikawa explores "future prospects" in terms of the "peace treaty" and "the status of aliens" (pages 29-31). He refers to provisions in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to provisions concerning human rights in peace treaties between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers and their Satellite Powers in Europe, beginning with some provisions in the peace treaty signed with Italy, as he specifically notes, on 10 February 1947, and then some provisions in treaties with Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Finland, which were signed on the same day. He also refers to the 1947 Constitution of Japan as a foundation for human rights of aliens under Japanese domestic law.

He finds some provisions in the European treaties useful benchmarks for considerations of the sort of provisions that might be made concerning the human rights of aliens in Japan in the peace treaty Japan would at some point be signing with the Allied Powers. Other provisions, he observes in conclusion, such as those concerning Albania and Ethiopia in the treaty with Italy, are not so easily arguable in the case of Japan, owing to "the peculiarity of the occupation management [control] policies in Japan and other special circumstances in Japan" (日本の占領管理政策の特殊性其の他日本の特殊事情 Nihon no senryō kanri seisaku no tokushu-sei sono hoka Nihon no tokushu jijō) (page 31).

"third nationals"

Koshikawa's report -- concerned mainly with applicable law in consideration of conflicts between SCAP's and Japan's definitions of the legal status of people regarded as "non-Japanese" (outsiders) and "persons in outlying areas" (former exteriorites)" -- reviews numerous jurisdictional issues that SCAP had to address in the course of its government of Occupied Japan. The appendices is full of SCAP materials transcribed in English and translated into Japanese, including the following Press Release from the Kyoto Military Government Team on 3 June 1947 (Item 31, pages 379-381). I have shown only the English but have shown received Japanese translations of terms of interest in (parentheses). The [bracketed numbers] also reflect numbering shown in the Japanese translation.

A note to the Japanese translation points out that "proper court" refers to an Allied Authority Court or a Japanese Court.

While a relatively minor issue, handled by a regional authority under GHQ/SCAP's overarching national authority, this press release exemplifies the complications created by SCAP's imposition of "non-Japanese" status on Koreans and Formosans, among others, for purposes of repatriation. The press release came out one months after the enforcement, from 2 May 1947, of the Alien Registration Order, which regarded Chosenese and some Taiwanese as "aliens" for purposes of the order. Yet, under SCAP's rules, Taiwanese who had remained in Japan but not migrated to Chinese nationality, and Chosenese who had remained in Japan, would continue to be nationals of Japan and subject to Japan's laws as Japanese nationals.

"law and order"

The principle of leaving law and order issues essentially to the Imperial Japanese Government is clear from the very beginning of the Occupation of Japan, as seen in the following memorandum dated 26 September 1945 (Koshikawa 1949, page 336).

A 25 July 1946 memorandum concerning taxes and non-Japanese nationals states that SCAP has no objections to the obligation of non-Japanese to pay ordinary national and local taxes -- except that "the official salaries of military personnel, of civilians attached to the occupation forces, and of personnel accredited by the Supreme Commander for the Allied powers [sic] as having a diplomatic status" (pages 341-343).

28 November 1945 memorandum concerning employment policies stipulates that the Imperial Japanese Government was to insure . . . no discrimination (差別待遇 sabetsu taigu "discriminatory treatment"). . . for or against any worker . . . in wages, hours or working conditions by reason of nationality, creed or social status (国籍、信仰又は社会的地位 kokuseki, shinkō mata wa shakai-teki chii). The memorandum goes on state that "Koreans, Formosans and Chinese who elect to remain in Japan rather than to accept repatriation will be guaranteed the same rights, privileges and opportunities in employment as are extended to Japanese nationals (日本人 Nihonjin) in comparable circumstances" -- among other non-discriminatory provisions related to employment (pages 352-353).

Criminal offenses against Japanese by occupation troops are covered by a 27 September 1945 memorandum (pages 353-355). A 19 February 1946 memorandum provides that Japanese courts will not exercise criminal jurisdictions in cases involving defendants who are United Nations nationals, or cases involving the security of Occupation Forces or the killing or assaulting of a member of such forces, et cetera (pages 356-361).

There are numerous other memoranda concerning criminal and civil jurisdiction issues, some involving Koreans and certain other nationalities.

Registered aliens circa mid 1948

Aliens registered as of July (or June) 1948 are broken down by "nationality" (国籍 kokuseki) and prefecture. "Aliens" are defined as such by various provisions of the 1947 Alien Registration Order. Military and civilian Occupation personnel were excepted from "alien" status. Taiwanese and Chosenese, though not defined as aliens by the order, were declared "aliens" for its purposes.

The 46 prefectures are listed from Aichi to Yamanashi) -- i.e., in what would have been their alphabetical order had their names been romanized. The following table shows nationality entities (not necessarily states) with tallies of 200 or more. The order of these entities in the report is based on their underlying English names, which I have shown after an "equal" (=) sign (pages 303-305; the romanizations and SCAP-esque translations mine).

Romanizations  = Translations     Number

Kanada         = Canada              567
Chuugoku       = China            20,421
Eikoku         = England             473
Taiwan         = Formosa          14,958
Furansu        = France              346
Doitsu         = Germany             728
Oranda         = Holland             231
Chousen        = Korea           591,410
Hitou          = Philippines         286
Toruko         = Turkey              328 
Amerika        = United States     2,364
Souren         = USSR                338
Hakkei Roshiya = White Russia        343
Mukokuseki     = Stateless           579

[ Other "nationality" entities omitted ]

Kei            = Total           635,142

Note that, under the operational definition of "aliens" for the purpose of the law, the above aliens do not include foreigners SCAP has recognized as related to the Occupation of Japan, or foreign government officials. Nor does it include anyone affiliated with Interior territories that have been separated from "Japan" as an occupied entity -- i.e., "Ryukyuans" are not alienated under the 1947 Alien Registration Order.

GHQ/SCAP Memorandum (21 June 1948)

This memorandum, a rescission of SCAPIN-1757 of 4 August 1947, which also concerned "Definition of United, Neutral, Enemy, Special Status and Undetermined Status Nations". Note that SCAPIN-1757 was a rescission of SCAPIN-217 of 31 October 1945, which defined only United Nations, Neutral Nations, and Enemy Nations.

Of the many "nations" listed under these five categories, the following are of special interest.

United Nations

China
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic
United Kingdom of Great Britain
United States of America

Enemy Nations

Germany
Japan

Special Status Nations

Austria
Italy
Korea
Siam (Thailand)

China was of course a principal member of the United Nations -- the collectivity of nations, not yet the present United Nations, which had jointly vowed to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan on 1 January 1942. The USSR, which had signed a neutrality pact with Japan in April 1941, did not denounce the pact until April 1945.

Austria (which had been a part of Germany), and Korea (which had been a part of Japan), were regarded as "liberated" entities. Italy, among the three Axis enemy states, had surrendered in 1943 and joined the Allied cause against Germany. Siam had allied itself with Japan, to the extent of permitting Japanese forces to pass through and mount operations from its national territory, but had not joined the Tripartite Pact.

ROK and DPRK constitutions

The last two items appended to the report are Japanese translations of the 1948 constitutions of ROK and DPRK. The object of providing such materials is to show how ROK and DPRK defined their geographical and demographic territories.

1948 ROK constitution

Article 3 of ROK's constitution, following the style of Japan's 1890 and 1947 constitutions, stipulated that the qualifications for being its "nationals" (國民 J. kokumin) were to be determined by a statute law. The statute was its 1948 Nationality Act. Article 4 defined ROK's sovereign territory as the "Han peninsula and associated islands and straits" (韓半島及びその附属島嶼 (J. Kan hantō oyobi fuzoku tōsho) (Article 4).

Article 8 of ROK's constitution stipulated that all nationals were equal under the law, and would not be subject to discrimination in their political, economic, or social life on account of their sex, [religious] beliefs, social status (社会的身分 J. shakai-teki mibun), et cetera. Unlike Japan's 1947 Constitution, "race" (人種 jinshu) was not listed as a cause of discrimination. And unlike DPRK's constitution, no mention was made of "racioethnic minorities" (see below).

1948 DPRK constitution

DPRK's constitution speaks of its "people" (人民 J. Jinmin) rather than nationals. Article 11 provided that all "citizens" (公民 J. koōmin) of DPRK were had equal rights regardless of their sex, racioethnicity ["nationality"] (民族 J. minzoku), status (身分 J. mibun), [religious] beliefs, et cetera. "Racioethnic minorities" ["national minorities"] (少数民族 J. shōsū minzoku) in DPRK were to have the same rights as "Chosŭn; citizens" (朝鮮公民 J. Chōsen koōmin).

However, the equality of some people was qualified. A few articles restricted the property and suffrage rights of Koreans who had collaborated with Japanese during the period of Japan's rule. Article 83 disqualified those who had served as a judge or prosecutor under Japan's rule from holding such posts in DPRK.

Top  

Effects of 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty

Japan, its talks with ROC out of the oven by early April 1952, and its talks with ROK by then in the freezer, announced on 19 April 1952 the effects that the permanent or indeterminant separation of parts of its sovereign dominion from its national territory would have on nationality and family registers.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty resulted in the permanent separation from Japan's sovereign dominion of a number of territories which had been occupied by foreign states other than the United States, while a few parts of its sovereign dominion would, for the time being, remain under the administration of the United States. These territories shared in common the fact that people in their household registers had been Japanese nationals on account of the territories being part of Japan's sovereign dominion.

The effects of the territorial provisions in the treaty on status of the members of such registers were clarified in an Attorney General's Office notification bearing the title "Concerning the disposition of nationality and family register matters regarding Chosenese, Taiwanese, and others, associated with the effectuation of the Treaty of Peace". The notification was issued on 19 April 1952, a Saturday -- and the provisions of the treaty came into effect on 28 April, a Monday, nine days later.

The notification stated as a matter of fact that (1) Chosenese and Taiwanese would lose their Japanese nationality from the day the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect, (2) people who had household registers on Karafuto or Chishima would not lose their Japanese nationality, and (3) that matters concerning the registers of people in the Nansei Islands south of the 29th parallel of north latitude (which included Okinawa), the Ogasawara Islands, the Iou Islands, and Minami-torishima -- which had not yet been returned to Japan -- would be dealt by sub-branches of the Fukuoka Legal Affairs Bureau and the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau.

For the text of the 19 April 1952 notification, and my structural translation, see Civil Affairs A No. 438 notification.

The notification is concise and lean. It does not elaborate on the coarser and finer points of domestic law that Japan's legal bureaucrats had debated amongst themselves for considerable time before resolving that only members of registers affiliated with the prefectural Interior entity of the former Empire of Japan would remain actual or virtual Japanese nationals.

Though Ryukyuans had been partly alienated by SCAP rules, all people in Interior registers, if they were domiciled in Occupied Japan, had qualified for rights of suffrage in the first postwar elections in 1946. And they had not been alienated by the 1947 Alien Registration Order.

People in Chōsen and Taiwan registers, however, had been alienated not only by SCAP rules, but by Japanese laws effected by SCAP's insistence that registers in Korea (Chōsen) and Formosa (Taiwan) were no longer Japan's business. Members of Chōsen and Taiwan registers had not been reached by the revised election law, their they were alienated for purposes of alien registration.

People in Chishima and Karafuto had began evacuating shortly before the Soviet Union invaded these territories in mid-August 1945. Formal evacuation from Karafuto after its occupation by the USSR resumed for a while from December 1946, but a number of people remained for personal reasons. In principle, though, the Karafuto registers of people domiciled in Japan would continue to justify their treatment as Japanese nationals.

Registers in the Nansei Islands (including Okinawa) and other islands temporarily under US administration continued to be serviced under Interior laws. The civilian government of the Ryukyus adopted localized versions (somewhat Americanized) version of Japanese laws, including the Family Register Law. Japan made provisions to service the family registers of Ryukyuans domiciled in Japan. Ryukyu versions of Japanese laws were Japanese when Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972.

One point in Japan's decision is the continuity of actual or virtual legal servicing of Interior registers not directly under the control and jurisdiction of Occupied Japan from 1945, or of Japan as a reborn sovereign state from 28 April 1952. Whereas Japan's influence over registers in Chōsen and Taiwan ceased when these territories were surrended.

Another point is the correlation between the manner in which SCAP rules, and Japanese legal measures influence by SCAP's rules, had already essentially alienated Koreans and Formosans from Japan's civil nationality. The formal territorial severance of Korea (Chōsen) and Formosa (Taiwan) from Japan left Japan with no legal foundation for continuing to regard Chosenese and Taiwanese as Japanese.

Other provisions could have been made for them to easily retain their Japanese status, or to easily regain it without the fuss of naturalization. Those options, though, are another matter -- and one in which neither ROC nor ROK showed the least interest. Any gesture on Japan's part to provide options other than naturalization would have been a purely unilateral act within the prerogatives of its sovereign domestic laws.

Top