Jus in Sanguinis Japan

The Origin of Citizenship in

a Comparative Perspective *

CHIKAKO KASHIWAZAKI**

ABSTRACT This paper examinesthe origin of jus sanguinis (citizenshipattribution by parentage) in Japan as an illustration of the emergenceof membershipcriteria in the modem state. Three European cases�Britain, France and Germany�providea comparativeperspective. Previous literature has tended to associatejus sanguinis with ethnic nationalism or an ethnocultural understandingof the nation. In fact, the principle of citizenship that emphasizes descent rather than birthplace appears to fit well with the image of the ethnically exclusive nature of contemporary Japanese society. However, I will argue that in Japan, as in the three European countries, the initial adoption of particular membership criteria had little to do with conceptions of nationhood or nationalism. An analysis of the factors leading to the legislation of the 1899 nationality law reveals that Japan had potentials for developing citizenship criteria with an emphasis on birthplace (jus soli) and residence (jus domicili)just as those in Britain and France. Yet a relatively strict system of jus sanguinis, as in Germany, was instituted. The paper identifies other determinants of the principle of citizenship, including legal practices prior to the emergence of the modern state, the state's efforts to organize the populations subject to its rule, and domestic and international security concerns.

1. Introduction ,

THE TRANSMISSION of Japanese citizenship follows the principle of jus sanguinis (by parentage). Non-Japanese immigrants and their descendants, even if they were bom in Japan, remain foreigners unless they go through the process of naturalization. The rule emphasizing descent rather than birthplace appears to fit well with the image of the ethnically exclusive nature of contemporary Japanese society. However, its original codification dates back to the late nineteenth century,

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in New York. The author wishes to thank anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. ** Department of Sociology, Brown University,Providence, USA. 279 and one cannot simply assume that the goal of ethnic homogeneity led to descent- based citizenship. This paper examines the origin of jus sanguinis in Japan as an illustration of the emergence of membership criteria in the modem state. Three European cases-Britain, France and Germany-provide a comparative perspective. I will argue that in Japan, as in the three European countries, the initial adoption of particular membership criteria had little to do with conceptions of nationhood or nationalism. The paper identifies other determinants of the principle of citizenship, including legal practices prior to the emergence of the modern state, the state's efforts to organize the populations subject to its rule, and domestic and international security concerns.

2. Analytical Framework .

Full citizenship, or 'nationality,' defines formal membership in a state. Two legal principles govern the attribution of citizenship at birth: jus soli (by birthplace) and jus sanguinis (by parentage). Under the system of jus soli, second-generation immigrants who are bom in the host society acquire citizenship, whereas under jus sanguinis they remain non-citizens. Another principle that may be combined with these two is jus domicili (by residence). This is a principle in which citizenship rights and duties are extended on the basis of long periods of residence rather than origin. How did cross-national differences in citizenship criteria emerge? What pro- duces and sustains different principles? In his comparative study of French and Ger- man citizenship, Brubaker (1992) demonstrates how conceptions of nationhood are related to the principle of citizenship. In his view, an expansive, assimilationist un- derstanding of the French nation led to the adoption of jus soli for second-generation immigrants, whereas an ethnocultural understanding of the nation has supported jus sanguinis in Germany. However, the legal practices of defining state membership, or distinctions be- tween subjects/citizens and foreigners, had developed before the era of modem na- tional states. Jus soli in England originated from the feudal relationship between the lord and the subject.2 In France, the parlements between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries developed a set of criteria for defining who was or was not French, with emphasis on one's birth and residence in the French territory (jus soli and jus domi- cili components) (Wells, 1995; Brubaker, 1992:37-38). In Germany, member states in the German Confederation developed an inter-state system for organizing state membership in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. Out of concern for the influx of the migrant poor (also 'Germans') from neighboring states, they adopted jus san- guinis as the principle of transmission of state membership (Brubaker, 1992:64-71). In all of these cases, the initial adoption of particular rules about the attribution and transmission of membership had little ideological justification. Yet these original