Legal Terms in Japanese
“Minzoku” – “clan of partners” or “tribe of people” – does not appear in citizenship law or other laws that provide legal status in the subnations of the Empire of Japan, the term was used by the government of the Empire of Japan. In November 1942, the Ministry of Health integrated all its research organizations to simplify its operations during the war. The agency was dissolved in May 1946. , founded in November 1942, under which several other research agencies were grouped together in the Ministry of Health, for example, if a government had used such a child, it temporarily becomes a “Japanese without Honseki” (本籍を有しない日本人) – an anomaly in which a person meets the legal requirements to be Japanese, but there is no registry in which the person can be registered. Someone would appeal to a family court, and if the court agrees that the child meets the place of birth criteria of Japan`s nationality law, it will grant permission to establish a registry (就籍 shūseki) within ten days (Family Registration Law, Article 110). When translating laws, it is very important to distinguish between legal and social terrains. Although it may be fashionable in the heavily Americanized neighborhoods of “English” Japanese society to speak of “citizens” and “citizenship” in American popular parlance, Japan`s legal terrain concerns “nationals” and “nationality.” Note that even after 1899, the term “naturalization” – which refers to a legal procedure for obtaining citizenship by application and permission – did not apply to cases where a foreigner became Japanese by notification, such as when the foreigner married or was adopted by a Japanese – which became possible in 1873 and continued to be possible under the Citizenship Act of 1899. Registration of foreigners is the legal equivalent of registration of residents. The residential address of a registered alien is the address specified by the alien registration. A foreigner`s citizenship rights and obligations are based on his or her residential address and administered, as is the case for a Japanese resident. While only British citizens automatically have the right of residence in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, those with other categories of British citizenship are treated differently from foreigners.
British protected persons do not actually have British citizenship, but legally they are not foreigners, and because they are probably not stateless, they have what I can call “virtual citizenship”. The position of “Nihonjin” on the legal map of Japan can be precisely triangulated from synonyms that serve as semantic landmarks. Such a triangulation establishes that 日本人 (Nihonjin) as a legal term was not only raceless, but also devoid of ethnic, cultural, linguistic or similar qualities. Only when the implications of this are fully understood can the authority of Japanese laws without race be asserted to convince against racism and racism on its various social terrains. English, like Japanese, is also able to meet virtually any conceptual or expressive need. Japanese and English cater to the needs of their native speakers, neither of whom is linguistically or otherwise homogeneous. Successful translation is one that makes a term specific to Japanese law understandable to an English reader whose legal mind may have been shaped by concepts of American law without affecting the legal meaning of Japanese law. Since the disclaimer is a legal statement and only the Japanese versions of the laws are authoritative, it seems that the user could actually hold the government responsible for the inaccuracy, reliability and timeliness of the English version. Kwantung Province and the South Sea Islands were only territories over which Japan had jurisdiction. Japan ruled the Kwantung as leased territory and ruled the South Sea islands under a League of Nations mandate. The purpose of translating a Japanese law into another language, such as English, is to represent the intrinsic precision and clarity of Japanese legal expression in English. While translators should also be concerned about whether their language changes are understandable to English readers, the purpose of translation is to draw the reader of English into the world of Japanese law, not to adapt Japanese law to the reader`s world.
In non-legal contexts, gaikokujin and gaijin are used to identify people perceived as non-Japanese for racial or racial reasons. Like other words of this type, their meaning is subject to a variety of potentially contradictory implications and conclusions. Different rights and obligations come with different political affiliations in Japan. But the terms used to designate these affiliations do not themselves mean “citizens”, and the rights and duties associated with them are not themselves called “citizenship”. For a more in-depth discussion of affiliation and the rights and obligations associated with it, see the “Affiliation” section of the “Thematic Glossary” below and the elements of citizenship in the “Nationality” section. The terms “hakudatsu koken” (剥奪公権) and “teishi koken” (停止公権) appear several times in the penal code. In post-war electoral laws, however, these terms are not preserved. Nor do they appear in the heavily revised and partly popular penal code. Gaikokujin is the legal term for “foreigner” which refers to any person who is not Japanese, including a stateless person. Like Nihonjin, it was used in the Meiji laws of 1873 and 1890 cited above, among others, to designate “foreigners” as a legal “status” (分限 bungen), based on what was called “national status” (国民分限 kokumin bungen) and then “nationality” (国籍 kokuseki).