Chen 1968

Chen, after writing his 1968 doctoral dissertation as just I-te Chen, summarized some of his findings in several papers and articles under the by-line Edward I-te Chen (see "Biographical note" below). Here I will introduce related remarks he made in his dissertation and 1983 and 1984 articles.

Chen's descriptions of how Japan originally incorporated Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen into its sovereign empire, and later attempted to legally integrate them into its prefectural system, are reliable as general overviews of legislative and bureaucratic history. His remarks about nationality and other legal status matters related to territoriality, however, include serious errors of commission and omission.

"colonies" and "Japan proper"

In his 1968 doctoral dissertation, I-te Chen described the legal division of jurisdictions and legislative authority within the growing empire of Japan -- referring "Korea and Formosa" -- like this (Chen 1968, page 112).

Though Chen does not use the terms "gaichi" or "naichi" in his dissertation, he is referring to the legal and administrative separation of Japan's sovereign and legal territory into several "exterior" (gaichi) jurisdictions and one "interior" (naichi) jurisdiction consisting of the prefectures.

Here Chen calls Japan's prefectural jurisdiction "Japan proper" -- a common but improper metaphor -- since Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen were as fully and exclusively parts of "Japan" as the prefectures. In other words, Japan as a proper sovereign entity had four territories -- Interior, Taiwan (from 1895), Karafuto (from 1905), and Chōsen (from 1910) -- all of which were parts of "Japan" as much as Hawaii and Alaska as territories, and the District of Columbia, though not Union States, were fully and exclusively parts of the "United States of America".

The 1918 Common Law, which determined applicable law within Japan as a legal entity, defined six legal territories -- Naichi [Interior], Chōsen [Chosen], Taiwan, Kantōshū [Kwantung Province], and Nan'yō Guntō [South Sea Islands]. Because its legal system was already on a par with the Interior, Karafuto was treated as the Interior for the purpose of applicable law. Kwantung Province (lease, from China, acquired from Russia in 1905), and the South Sea Islands (German possessions occupied in 1914, mandated to Japanese administsration by the League of Nations in 1919), were part of Japan's larger legal empire but not part of its sovereign dominion.

It is important to include Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen within "Japan" as a sovereign dominion, for their parity with the Interior as integral parts of Japan was the territorial foundation for the regard of their affiliates, under domestic and international law, as subjects and nationals, hence people, of Japan. In other words, Taiwanese, Karafutoans, and Chosenese were "Japanese" because Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen were parts of Japan.

Top  

"natives" and "Japanese" as "nationality"

Chen's failure (or unwillingness) to include "Korea and Formosa" (or Karafuto) as parts of Japan led him, in his disseration, to speak of "natives" and "Japanese" in "Korea" and "Formosa" as being of different nationalities -- i.e., "Koreans" in Chōsen and "Formosans" in Taiwan were not, in his regard, "Japanese" (Chen 1968, page 163ff).

Top  

Chen 1983

Chen's article in Wray and Conroy 1983 covers much of the same ground as his article in Myers and Peattie 1984 (see below), which originated as a paper for a 1979 conference.

His 1983 and 1984 articles, while somewhat different, have in common Chen's introduction of the terms "naichi" and "gaichi", and the use of "metropolitan Japan" rather than "Japan proper" as an interpretive tag for "naichi".

Top  

"Korea, Taiwan (also known as Formosa)"

Having spoken of "Korea and Formosa" in his 1968 dissertation in the manner of most prewar, wartime, and postwar English usage, in later writing Chen adopted "Korea and Taiwan" -- which mixes standards of reference. Though "Taiwan" in Japanese and "Formosa" in English continued to refer to essentially the same entity, Japanese legalese (and Japanese history written with accuracy in mind) made, and continues to make, a distinction between "Chōsen" and "Korea" that most writers in English decline to make, even when aware of the difference.

Chen's 1983 article opens with this paragraph (page 201, underscoring mine).

Chen is scrambling several systems of nomenclature. Most importantly, though speaking of "Taiwan (also known as Formosa)", he does not speak of "Chōsen (also known as Korea)". He speaks generally of "Manchuria" as "a colony in all but name" -- and also speaks of the "Japanese puppet state" or "puppet kingdom" called "Manchukuo" (also known as Manchoukuo and Manshūkoku).

Top  

gaichi or "outer territory" (dependency)
naichi or "inner territory" (metropolitan Japan)

In the second paragraph of his 1983 article, Chen makes the following distinction between "gaichi" and "naichi" (page 201, underscoring mine)

The word "dependency" is not an appropriate description of any of the "gaichi" territories. Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen were parts of Japan's sovereign dominion, meaning that they were totally beyond the control and jurisdiction of foreign entities. Nor were Kwantung and the South Sea Islands "dependencies" in the sense, say, that the Empire of Korea had been a protectorate of Japan between 1905-1910, or that the Philippines remained a protectorate of the United States after becoming a semi-independent commonwealth in 1935.

Nor is it right to suggest that ordinances of colonial governor's regulated only inhabitants whose "customs and traditions" differed from "those of the Japanese" -- even allowing Chen's exclusion of such inhabitants from "the Japanese". The laws of a particular territory -- whether gaichi or naichi -- were in principle applicable in most matters to everyone in the territories, including aliens, and were also applicable in certain matters in other territorial jurisdictions. The Empire of Japan was, after all, a legal entity, ruled by laws, including a law of laws that determined which territory's laws applied in particular matters and cases.

Later, Chen states that "Sakhalin" -- by which me means Karafuto -- "was more integrated with Japan in many aspects than other colonlies . . . and in 1943 the colony was given the status of naichi" (pages 242-243). Karafuto was formally integrated into the Interior in 1943, but the 1918 Common Law stipulated that, for the purpose of determining applicable law within the Empire of Japan, it was to be included in the Interior (Article 1, Paragraph 2).

Top  

Chen 1984

Chen's article in Myers and Peattie 1984 originated as a paper presented at a conference on the Japanese empire, held in August 1979 at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace , at Stanford University, sponsored by the Social Science Research Council.

Myers and Peattie state in the preface of the volume that its focus is "the formal colonial empire of Japan: Taiwan, Korea, Karafuto (southern Sakhalin), the Kwantung Leased Territory on the Liaotung peninsula, and the Nan'yo (the Japanese mandate islands of Micronesia) -- as opposed to the "informal empire" in China (including, they contend, Manchuria), Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific.

When, in his article, Chen speaks of "Korea" and "Taiwan" in conformity with usage throughout the book. The index directs readers from "Chōsen" to "Korea" and from "Formosa" to "Taiwan". "Korea" and "Taiwan" also characterize usage on most maps in the book -- with the exception of the most general map, called "The Formal Empire", which more properly (legally) shows "Chōsen (Korea)" and "Taiwan (Formosa)" (Map 1, page 53).

Top  

"gaichi" -- "referring to all colonies"
"naichi" -- "meaning metropolitan Japan"

In his article in Myers and Pettie 1984, Chen makes this observation (pages 241-242, underscoring mine).

As I have stated before, "colonies" and "metropolitan Japan" are not translations of "gaichi" and "naichi" but interpretations that emotionally color words which differ little from terminology such as "territory" or "district" or "states" as nomenclature for legal juristictions in, say, the United States.

If "naichi" was "metropolitan Japan" in contrast with "gaichi", then "gaichi" must have been "non-metropolitan Japan" -- i.e., parts of Japan but simply not the "metropolitan" part. But what is gained by imposing a metaphor like "metropolitan" on "naichi"? The Interior was itself complex entity, each prefecture being a legal territory within the general prefectural entity, and not all prefectures were territorially equal.

The term "metropolitan" constitutes a subjective interpretation, not an objective description, and otherwise impedes an understanding of what "gaichi" and "naichi" actually meant in the compartmentalization of legislative and jurdicial territories within the Empire of Japan. Most importantly, failure to speak of "naichi" as simply "the Interior" -- Japan's complex and changing prefectural entity, whether before or after the end of World War II -- obstructs an understanding of the territorial foundations of Japanese nationality as a civil rather than racioethnic status.

Of the five gaichi, only three -- Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen" -- were wholly and exclusively Japanese entities, while Kwantung and the South Sea Islands were non-Japanese entities merely under Japan's legal control and jurisdiction.

Lamley 1999 citing Chen 1984

Chen's 1984 article on the legal integration of Japan has been widely cited by writers who add their own twists to his. Harry J. Lamley, for example, made this observation (Lamley 1999, pages 236-237, note 172, page 257, underscoring mine, source particulars below).

Whether "inner (naichi) colonies" in the text is an error for "outer (gaichi) colonies" is not clear, since in the note Lamley seems to believe that the integration of "Taiwan, Korea, and, eventually, Karafuto" had been completed "at least in appearance". His statements are very odd.

The placement of Chōsen, Taiwan, and Karafuto as external territories under the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1942 was not predicated on the illusion that they had been integrated into the Interior. It was clearly understood at the time that only Karafuto was prepared for prefecturization, owing to its treatment as part of the Interior legal jurisdiction for purposes of the 1918 Common Law, and the fact that practically all of its inhabitants were Interiorites. essentially populated by Interiorites circumstances as a territory which had from a very early point included a history of Japanese involvement that went back to the Edo period, and

Source

Harry J. Lamley
Taiwan Under Japanese Rule, 1895-1945: The Vicissitudes of Colonialism
In: Murray A. Rubinstein (editor)
Taiwan: A New History
Armonk (NY): M.E. Sharpe, 1999
An East Gate Book
xiv, 520 pages, paper cover
Pages 201-260 (Chapter 8)

An expanded edition, with an additional chapter, was published in 2007.

Top  

"nationality" and "liberties and equalities"

In his 1984 article, Chen makes these statements concerning "nationality" and what he calls "liberties and equalities" (pages 245-246, underscoring mine).

Chen's overview of nationality in the Empire of Japan is generally more accurate than most one will find in English or even Japanese today. Yet it is seriously flawed.

"dispose of their properties and emigrate"

Treaties involving the tranfer of a territory from one state to another commonly made provisions for people who wished to leave the territory for whatever reason. In any event, the Treaty of Shimonoseki did not stipulate that people could "emigrate to China" -- but rather that "The inhabitants of the territories ceded to Japan who wish to take up their residence outside the ceded districts shall be at liberty to sell their real property and retire" (Article 5).

"mention of the legal status of the indigenous populations"

Chen writes that "neither the Treaty of Portsmouth nor the treaty of annexation of Korea made any mention of the legal status of the indigenous populations" -- but, in fact, the 1905 Portsmouth treaty, between Japan and Russia concerning Sakhalin (Karafuto) and the northern Kurils (Chishima), made stipulations about the post-treaty statuses of "Russian subjects" in relation to other "foreign subjects and citizens" in the territories.

And, under the 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg, in which Japan and Russia agreed that Karafuto would belong to Russia and the northern Kurils would belong to Japan, categorical "natives" who remained in either of these territorious would be subjects of the the new sovereign of the territory. For example, Karafuto Ainu who did not migrate, say to Hokkaido, within three years of the date the 1875 treaty came into effect, became Russian subjects.

"no problem arose from . . . ambiguity [of nationality in Korea]"

While true that there was no ambiguity in the nationality status of Chosenese in the eyes of Japanese law, numerous problems arose at the time over whether "Koreans" were in fact Japanese. Not a few "Koreans" in Japan (Interior, Taiwan, Karafuto, or Chōsen) did not want to be regarded as nationals of Japan. "Koreans" in Manchuria were ambivalent about their status but generally preferred the protection of Japan as Japanese subjects to their treatment as "Koreans" under Chinese laws. And "Koreans" in China and the United States generally did not appreciate being classified as "Japanese".

The nationality of "Koreans" was particularly problematic for China when negotiating solutions to disputes involving persons in Manchuria who China regarded as nationals of "Korea" but Japan considered its nationals (see Chientao disputes). And during the Pacific War, after the Cairo Declaration in 1943, the United States allowed aliens in the United States who considered themselves "Koreans" to register as such and no longer be regarded as "Japanese" hence enemy aliens.

"peace treaty negotiations in the early 1960's"

At no time did the government of the Republic of Korea and Japan negotiate a peace treaty. The Empire of Korea ceased to exist in 1910, at least in the eyes of Japan and the many foreign states who recognized the annexation, and in any event had never been at war with Japan. And ROK did not exist until 1948.

ROK claimed to have been founded as a provisional government of an independant Korea, during the period of annexation, and also claimed to have been at war with Japan, but the Allied Powers rejected this view. The Allied Powers viewed Koreans and Formosans as "liberated peoples", but under SCAP status rules Koreans in Occupied Japan did not qualify nationals of the United Nations which had mutually declared war on Japan in 1942.

ROK and Japan began to negotiate a normalization treaty and an agreement concerning the status of ROK nationals in Japan, in October 1951, a month after Japan and the Allied Powers signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty. From the beginning of these negotiations, Japan made clear its position that Chosenese would lose their Japanese nationality when the treaty came into force the following year. ROK took the position that what Japan did with its nationality was a matter of Japan's domestic laws and hence not a subject to be discussed at takes between the two states.

Japan had at one time entertained the idea of giving Chosenese and Taiwanese who had settled in the prefectures the option of remaining Japanese, but this became politically -- rather than legally -- difficult. Japan and the Republic of China also agreed that nationality status of Taiwanese would be a matter of ROC's and not Japan's laws.

"Japanese nationals by virtue of annexation . . .
not [by] application of the Japanese Nationality Law"

Chen is correct in contending that affiliates of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea as Chōsen became Japanese by virtue of the incorporation of these territories into Japan's sovereign dominion. It is not quite appropriate, though, to speak of Taiwan and Karafuto as cases of "annexation".

It is also misleading to suggest that it was possible for affiliates of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea as Chōsen to have become Japanese by application of the Japanese Nationality Law. the law was applied to Taiwan in 1899 within a few months of its promulgation and enforcement in the prefectures, and to Karafuto in 1924 along with the Interior Family Register Law and related laws. However, Taiwanese and Karafutoans were by then already subjects and nationals of Japan.

Japan's Nationality Law did not then, and does not today, include a provision that declares people already in registers affiliated with Japan as being Japanese. In other words, it has no initial determination. The law would not have been applied to Taiwan or Karafuto had their registers not already been considered Japanese.

"cumbersome procedural requirements needed
to amend the Japanese Nationality Law"

Japan's Nationality Law is a fairly simple law, and like any law it could be amended any way the Diet pleased. It is simply not the sort of law that would be amended to nationalize or denationalize the members of registers in any territory.

"the governor-general enacted his own
regulation, the Census Registration Act

I am not sure what "act" Chen is referring to.

The People's Register Law (Minsekihō) was enforced by the government of the Empire of Korea, under the guidance of the Residence-General of Korea (RGK), from April 1909. This law continued to be the basic census registration law when Korea was annexed as Chōsen in August 1910. The Government-General of Chosen (GGC) had nothing to do with this measure.

The Chōsen Family Register Order (Chōsen koseki rei), issued by the Government-General of Chōsen in 1922 (GGC Decree No. 154), applied certain provisions of the Interior Family Register Law, regarding the management and control of household registers, to Chōsen's registers, which otherwise continued to be administered under the general provisions of the 1909 People's Register Law. This was an important first step to put the management and control of Chōsen's registers on a bureaucratic par with Interior registers.

"right of . . . free emigration to Japan"

There was no "right of . . . free emigration to Japan". Imperial subjects regarded as Japanese nationals were, however, generally free to migrate within or between Japan's territorial jurisdictions, meaning the Interior, Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen, and resettle at their pleasure, so long as they observed various constraints on travel, including at times the need to obtain transit permits, and so long as they complied with rules and procedures governing household and residential registration.

"civil liberties and racial equality"

What "civil liberties" were guaranteed Japanese subjects in the Meiji Constitution, were guaranteed Japanese subjects of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen as much as Japanese subjects of the prefectures -- so long as these subjects were residing in parts of the empire reached by the Constitution and related laws. Under the 1925 House of Representatives election law, all subjects qualified to vote by gender, age, and length of residence and tax status, within an established election district, had rights of suffrage within the district. Not all Interior polities had election districts. And Interior subjects residing outside established election districts did not qualify for suffrage.

As for "racial equality", Chen must be imagining postwar standards. There were no provisions for "racial equality" in the Meiji Constitution, nor would such a provision have made any sense, since "race" was not a concern of Japanese law. The racial equality clause of the postwar Constitution doesn't make a lot of legal sense either, since Japanese laws have never defined people racially or otherwise differentiated people by their putative race.

Nationality has always been a matter of civil (household) register status, and lineage and other criteria, mostly related to family law, have determined nationality at time of birth, and status changes later in life, as through marriage or adoption (since 1873), or through naturalization (since 1899). And during the imperial years, territoriality within subjecthood and nationality also reflected civil statuses based on territorial family laws.

Top  

"legal integration"

Chen, in his 1984 article, while revising and expanding what he had written in his doctoral dissertation and elsewhere, summarizes the start of the overseeing of Taiwan, Chōsen, and Karafuto under the Naichi bureaucracy in 1942 like this (Chen 1984, page 265, underscoring mine).

Here, as elsewhere, Chen uses the Japanese terms for all entities except Chōsen, which he calls "Korea".

"Ministry of Home Affairs"

Chen refers to Naimushō as the "Ministry of Home Affairs" -- following the usual English name for the ministry. "Home" is an English metaphor for "domestic" as opposed to "foreign" or "international". But the English "home/foreign" metaphors are "nai/gai" -- "internal/external" in Japanese. Naimushō is literally "Ministry of Internal Affairs" and its counterpart, Gaimushō, translated "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" in English, is literally "Ministry of External Affairs".

The Japanese metaphors are significant, for the "internal/external" dichotomy did not accommodate territories like Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen -- which within neither the prefectural domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, or the alien entity domain of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As many people began to argue, it made more sense to place all parts of Japan's sovereign dominion under the control and jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and parts of the larger legal empire under a ministry that specialized in East Asian affairs.

"Karafuto legally part of naichi"

As an Interior polity, Karafuto became the 48th prefecture, ahead of Hokkaidō on north-south ordered lists of prefectures in some statistics. However, it was not merely "announced" in 1943 that it was to be considered part of the Interior. Karafuto was slated for formal integration into the prefectural Interior long beofre 1942, when it was placed under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs -- not for the first time.

Karafuto's comparatively early integration into the Interior was the result of several conditions: (1) Japan's formal claims to Karafuto go back to at least 1855, when Japan and Russia agreed to divide the Kurils (Chishima) but share Sakhalin (Karafuto); (2) in 1873, two years before trading its interests in Karafuto for the northern Kurils, Japan had begun to register it's native (especially Ainu) population, and (3) after Russia ceded Karafuto to Japan in 1905, Russian standards of administration, over the very small population, were quickly replaced by Interior standards, to accommodate the large numbers of migrants that began to arrive from the Interior.

Twenty-five years before it became an Interior polity, however, under the 1918 Common Law, which determined the application of laws in territories under Japan's legal jurisdiction, Karafuto, though categorically a territory in its own right, was treated on a par with the Interior. Karafuto's Russian population (including Ainu and other indigenous people) was quickly outnumbered by Interior migrants who settled and dominated the industrial development of the territory. Some Interiorites who had settled in Karafuto pressed for its inclusion in the Interior and the establishment of election districts to eneable them to send representatives to the Imperial Diet, but there were also economic advantages to maintaining Karafuto's territorial status.

In the closing days of World War II, two and a half years after it became a prefecture, Karafuto was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union and permanenty separated from Japan. Many Interior subjects were evacuated to Hokkaido before or during the invasion, and some others were later repatriated, while a few were taken to Siberia as prisoners of war.

Many Chosenese also settled in Karafuto or came as conscript laborers. Wartime and postwar circumstances forced most of these Chosenese to remain, and they had difficulty repatriating or otherwise leaving. Karafuto natives, including Ainu who had remained in 1875 and their descendants, were enrolled in registeres under 1909 and 1921 laws. The Interior Family Register Law and Nationality Law were applied to Karafuto in 1924. In 1933, Karafuto Ainu registers were merged with Interior registers in Karafuto, after which Karafuto Ainu were free to migrate to the prefectures move their registers there.

The registers of non-Ainu natives, namely Gilyak and Orok, though they functioned as family registers, had been differentiated from Ainu registers in 1926, and were not integrated with Interior registers. But postwar Hokkaido courts recognized that Karafuto natives living in Hokkaido, who had served Japan as its subjects, should be treated on a par with Karafuto registrants, who had not lost their nationality in 1952, and hence they could establish family registers.

Karafuto and Naimusho

Karafuto governors reported directly to three authorities before prefecture was prefecturized in 1943.

Minister of Home Affairs (Naimusho, Naimudaijin)
1907-1910, 1912-1917, 1942-1943

Prime Minister (Soridaijin)
1910-1912, 1917-1929

Minister of Land Development (Takumusho, Takumudaijin)
1929-1942

Integration of Karafuto

As a counterpart to Chen's story of how Japan attempted to integrate its sovereign empire, consider the status of Karafuto.

On 10 June 1929, after being under either Home (Interior) Minister or Prime Minister Minister, the Karafuto Government (樺太庁 Karafuto-cho), established in 1907, was placed under the Land Development Ministry (拓務省 Takumusho). But from 1 November 1942, when this "colonial ministry" was dissovled, Karafuto was again placed under the Home Affairs Ministry, and from 1 April 1943 (Law 85 of 26 March 1943) it was integrated into the Interior as a prefecture.

Disintegration of Karafuto

On 9 August 1945, the Soviet Union began its invasion of Karafuto, and by 28 August its forces had occupied Japan's half of Sakhalin. On 29 January 1946, a SCAP directive on "Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan" excluded Karafuto from "Japan" as an occupied country, in effect recognzing the Soviet Union's claim to the territory.

On 30 January 1947, a 1946 Imperial Ordinance (No. 55) concerning reform of the Home Affairs Ministry administration system came into effect, resulted in Karafuto affairs being put under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 1 June 1949, Karafuto ceased being an administrative organ of the state.

The effectuation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, from 28 April 1952, permanetly separated Karafuto from Japan's territory. A 19 April 1952 Civil Affairs notification, issued by the Attorney General's Office, clarified that, while Chosenese and Taiwanese would be separated from Japan's nationality as a result of the territorial separations of Chōsen and Taiwan (Korea and Formosa) from Japan, people whose registers had been in Karafuto would not lose their nationality, though those whose registers had been lost would have to reestablish them.

For more about Karafuto and its integration into the Interior, see Karafuto: The road to prefecturehood.

Top  

Selected topics

Internal, external, and land development affairs

Formally, as a legal term, "naichi" (内地) referred to Japan's prefectural jurisdiction, including both Okinawa and Hokkaido. Informally, some people spoke have used "naichi" exclusive of Okinawa, in reference to what today is more commonly called "hondo" (本土) meaning the "principal land" or "mainland" of Japan, in the sense that "honshū" (本州) refers to the "principal province" or "main island".

This sense of "hon" is similar to the "hon" in "hontō" (本島), meaning the "principal island" or "main island" of a group of islands. The "hon" of the same word used to mean "this island" is comparable to the "hon" in "honnin" (本人), meaning "said person" or "person in question" or "person himself/herself".

The term "honseki" (本籍) refers to one's principal or main registration or domicile address as a polity affiliation equivalent, in Japanese law, to nationality or "kokuseki" (国籍). The term "hongoku" (本国) refers to a one's "home country" as a matter of legal status based, usually, on nationality. Phrases like "hongoku hō" (本国法) and "hongoku seifu" (本国政府) mean "home country law" and "home government".

The English metaphor "home"

Mizuno Naoki (水野直樹), a specialist on Chōsen at the Institute for Research in Humanities (人文科学研究所 Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo) at Kyoto University, has made a number of interesting observations about the question of the status Chōsen and Taiwan as parts of the Empire of Japan. Elsewhere I have examined an article he published in 1997 on "Interiorization" (see Subnationality and integration: The merging of exterior polities into the Interior).

Here I will look at some remarks he made in the first of the following two rleated talks he gave in 2002, as transcribed on the Internet (I have not been able to confirm the accuracy of the transcription against what he actually said, but the manner of agrumentation is very much his).style of argumentation and by a e remarks he made in the following 2002 talk as transcribed on the Internet on a website called Salon Yoshidayama (サロン吉田山), referring to Mt. Yoshida and Yoshida Shrine by Kyoto University.

Mizuno 2002a

水野直樹
日本は朝鮮半島を植民地支配し、何をしたのか〜戦前
2002年6月13日
朝鮮植民地支配の実相
講演会 1
講演記録より (文責 編集部)
http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~tosikenn/mizunoa.html

Mizuno Naoki
Nihon wa Chōsen hantō o shokuminchi shihai shi, nani o shita no ka -- Senzen
[ Japan did colonial rule of the Chōsen peninsula, and did what? -- Prewar ]
13 June 2002
Chōsen shokuminchi shihai no jissō
Kōenkai 1
Kōen kiroku yori (Bunseki: Henshūbu)
[ The facts about colonial rule of Chōsen
Lecture meeting 1
From lecture record (Transcription: Editorial department) ]

Mizuno 2002b

水野直樹
植民地支配については日本はいかに反省したか〜戦後
2002年7月11日
朝鮮植民地支配の実相
講演会 2
講演記録より (文責 編集部)
http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~tosikenn/mizunob.html

Mizuno Naoki
Shokuminchi shihai ni tsuite wa Nihon wa ika ni hansei shita ka -- Sengo
[ How has Japan reflected on [its] colonial rule? -- Postwar ]
17 July 2002
Chōsen shokuminchi shihai no jissō
Kōenkai 2
Kōen kiroku yori (Bunseki: Henshūbu)
[ The facts about colonial rule of Chōsen
Lecture meeting 2
From lecture record (Transcription: Editorial department) ]

Mizuno 2002b, the second lecture, covers a lot of postwar issues, included those related to nationality and suffrage.

Mizuno 2002a, the first lecture, of interest to me here, concerns a division of opinion over whether or not Chōsen and Taiwan were "colonies" (植民地) of Japan. Mizuno wishes to refute claims that Chōsen and Taiwan were not ruled as "colonies" -- and while I don't feel it serves any purpose to call them colonies, I would not object to them being called "colonies". For my purposes, it makes no difference what they were called -- they were, by any name, part of "Japan" as a sovereign dominion, from which in Japan's eyes, and in the eyes of the world, Chosenese and Taiwanese were regarded as subjects and nationals of Japan -- i.e., "Japanese" in every legal sense of this word.

What interests me is the language in which Mizuno, while accepting that Chōsen and Taiwan were territories within the dominion of the Empire of Japan, were "colonies" because they and the "home country" (本国 hongoku) were different "legal territories" (法域 hōiki). He equates "home country" with the legal territory called the "Interior" (内地 Naichi), as Japan called its prefectural entity.

Mizuno Naoki recognizes that the definition of "colony" (植民地 shokuminchi), is not easy, but one -- which he feels reflects the thinking of the government of Japan at the time -- is that colonies differ from the home country in the nature of their laws (植民地というのは法律のあり方が本国と違っている). A legal territories (法域), Chōsen and Taiwan differed from the Japan Interior (日本内地と朝鮮、台湾は法域が違う). As territories (領土) they were ruled as territories of the Empire of Japan (大日本帝国), but their legal territories were different. Mizuno then says that legal scholars maintain that Chōsen and Taiwan were "colonies precisely in that their legal territories differ" (法域が違うところこそ植民地). Laws determine the a basic nature of politics and society, and those of a colony differ from those of the home country. Opinions divide over whether a coloney is something that is an object of exploitation (搾取の対象), he says, but not with respect to the regard of a coloney as that which is legally different from the home country. Hence Mizuzo cannot understand what is wrong with speaking of "colonial rule" (植民地支配) with reference to Chōsen and Taiwan. It may be labeled a "leftwing expression" (左翼用語), they were clearly colonies.

Next Mizuno makes this interesting statement, by way of linking the terms he has been using -- namely, "Naichi" (内地) meaning "Interior" and "Hongoku" (本国) meaning "home country" (my translation).

The term "legal territory" refers to a territory reached by the effects of laws and ordinances.

I would make three points, concerning (1) the 1898 Rules of Laws, (2) the 1918 Common Law, and (3) the implications of these laws on the meaning of "hongoku" down to Japan's surrender in 1945, but even until the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952, and in the post-Occupation (post-Treaty) legacy cases involving applicable law in the Empire of Japan and Occupied Japan -- which were different legal territories.

1898 Rules of Laws

The 1898 Rules of Laws (法例 Hōrei) established rules for determining applicable laws in matters involving conflicts of jurisdiction or applicability in, say, a private matter in Japan between an alien and a Japanese, or between two aliens of the same nationality or of different nationalities, or perhaps of no nationality. Article 1, which concerned rules for establishing the dates that Japanese laws were to be enforcement, required a second paragraph to clarity the exceptional rules for Taiwan, Hokkaido, and Okinawa. The clarifications were required for Taiwan because, though part of Japan, it was not part of the Interior, and for Hokkaido and Okinawa because, though parts of the Interior, they had been prefecturized somewhat later and differently than the prefectures that were formed from pre-Meiji domains, from territories that had been nationalized after the start of the Meiji period.

Taiwan was clearly not to be regarded as a foreign entity under this law, which was promulgated and enforced one year before extraterritoriality would end in Japan. Having a law of laws was regarded as an essential part of Japan's demonstration that it deserved recognition, in the eyes of with the foreign states with which it had concluded unequal treaties in the 1850s and 1860s, that it deserved to be treated as a peer.

1918 Common Law

My second point concerns the 1918 Common Law (共通法 Kyōtsūhō), in particular Article 1, which defines Japan's legal territories.

The term "gaichi" was not used in formal descriptions of legal jurisdictions. Narrowly it referred to parts of Japan's sovereign dominion other than the Interior (naichi), the sovereign dominion Broadly it referred to all legal jurisdictions under Japan's flga. , were embraced by the As an informal term, "gaichi" Territories other than the Interior were generally referred to by name, as each territory was different. This is clearly seen in the 1918 Common Law, which lists all territories, including the Interior, as discrete entities, and then states that for purposes of the law Karafuto would be treated as the Interior.

Even the word "shokuminchi" (coloney) was generally not used by the government in formal description of what, under Japanese law, were simply territories under Japan's sovereign and/or legal jurisdiction. Again, most government documents describe Japan's various jurisdictions by their specific name -- Interior, Taiwan (1895), Karafuto (1905), Kwantung Province (1905), Chōsen (1910), or the South Sea Islands (1919).

The overseeing of state affairs had long been divided into essentially inside (internal, "Home") affairs and outside (external, "Foreign") affairs. The acquisition of territories that were parts of Japan's sovereign dominion but not parts of its prefectural polity (Taiwan, Karafuto, Chōsen), and of territories that were under its legal control and jurisdiction but not part of its sovereign dominion (Kwantung Province, South Sea Islands), presented a classification and problem.

Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen became parts of Japan's sovereign dominion, and as such did not qualify as "foreign affairs". At the same time, they were not prefectures and so did not qualify as "home affairs". Kwantung Province and the South Sea Islands were foreign territories -- the former leased to Japan by China (and later, in Japan's regard, from Manchoukuo), the latter mandated to Japan's administration by the League of Nations -- but were under Japan's flag and subject to its rule.

Land development administration

Enter, from 1929 to 1942, the Takumushō (拓務省) -- literally the "ministry of land development affairs" -- dubbed the "Ministry of Overseas Affairs" and the "Colonial Department" in English. The ministry was responsible for the exploitation and settlement of territories under Japan's flag outside the prefectures. The ministry's mission was to coordinate economic and industrial development and emigration.

The Takumushō originated in 1910 as a bureau (拓務局 Takumukyoku) directly attached to the Imperial Cabinet (帝国内閣 Teikoku Naikaku), which of course was headed by the Prime Minister.

The ministry created in 1929 had overall responsibility for the following five territories -- namely, all the territories, other than the Interior, defined by the 1918 Common Law.

Government-General of Chosen (朝鮮総督府 Chōsen Sōtoku Fu)
Government-General of Taiwan (台湾総督府 Taiwan Sōtoku Fu)
Karafuto Government (樺太庁 Karafutochō)
South Seas [Islands] Government (南洋庁 Nan'yōchō)
Kwantung Government, 関東庁 (Kantōchō)

The grouping of these territorial governments under the new ministry did not, however, greatly affect the manner in which they actually operated. The governments-general of Chōsen and Taiwan had more direct authority than prefectural governments, and the Government-General of Chōsen probably had nearly as much legislative power as the Imperial Diet. Their authority and powers were subject, of course, to Imperial sanctions. governors, and the governor-general of Chōsen , and especially of were especially Taiwan, and Karafuto

For more about the integration of legal administration, see Subnationality and integration: The merging of exterior polities into the Interior.

Though Karafuto had already been groomed for integration into the Interior, Taiwan and Chōsen were no where near ready for legal integration, and their grouping under the Home Affairs Ministry was with the understanding that they would continue to be overseen much as they had when under the Land Development [Colonlial] Ministry.

The Home Ministry was then responsible for all manner of domestic affairs from regional (municipal and prefectural) administration and land and construction (civil engineering), to social hygiene (public health) and policing. Police were deeply involved in community affairs other than those directly related to traffic and crime.

"Korea, Taiwan (also known as Formosa)"

Three points need to be made with reference to the scope, viewpoint, and influence of especially Chen's 1984 article.

The 1942 shift of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen to the "Ministry of Home Affairs" -- or, as it was also called, "Interior Ministry" -- more clearly drew the line that had already been established between the "domestic" (sovereign) empire -- including the prefectures, Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen -- and Kantōshū and Nan'yō, which were not part of Japan's sovereign nation but foreign territories under its legal juristiction.

1. Chen attempt to describe the complexity and importance of the "naichi/gaichi" legal divide is laudable but inadequate. Not only does the divide have a much longer history, but the divide was not so neat, and of course there were multiple divides within territorial categories.

2. The legal effects of "naichi/gaichi" divide continued both after Japan's formal surrender in 1945 and after the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952. The distinction between "naichi" and "gaichi" household register statuses continue to be made in Japanese laws and court decisions that determine the legal statuses under some people today.

3. Chen, like many others, raises issues of race and ethnicity in Japan past and present. While concerns about racial and ethnic discrimination are not improper in their place, they tend to be conflated with legal status issues in such a way that obscures a clear understanding of, say, nationality as a legal status. In fact, Japanese nationality before 1945, between 1945 and 1952, and since 1952 cannot be understood without continuing to make the legal distinction between "naichi" and "gaichi" -- and this distinction is based on territorial registers, not race or ethnicity.

Some scholars, especially those critically concerned with racial and ethnic discrimination, and interested primarily in the "discriminatory" aspects of colonialism and empire, are inclined not to recognize the efficacy of Japanese law. They dislike the formal renaming of "Korea" as "Chosen" -- they dislike the recognition of "Taiwan" and "Chosen" as parts of Japan in the world of nations -- they dislike the recognition by other countries of "Taiwanese" and "Chosenese" as Japanese nationals -- they dislike the manner in which "former imperial subjects" were partly alienated during the Occupation of Japan then separated from their Japanese nationality in 1952. But like these terms and conditions or not, the legal issues cannot be understood except in such terms and conditions.

From the point of view of law, the distinction between "naichi" and "gaichi" is no different than the distinction in, say, the United States between States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and various kinds of Territories, as classifications of legal entities for purposes of determining legislative powers, court jurisdictions, and applicable law. Race and ethnicity, and colonialism and empire, are different dimensions.

Independence of "status" and "race and ethnicity"

Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea as Chōsen were regarded as parts of Japan when they joined the sovereign empire in 1895, 1905, and 1910. How they joined the empire of Japan, and whether their incorporation into the empire is recognized today, does not change the historical factuality of the effects of their joining at the time, or the perpetuation of these effects in present-day status laws.

The present-day status of Special Permanent Resident, for example, is accorded only to aliens who qualify under criteria that go back to the naichi/gaichi distinction before, during, and after the Occupation of Japan. The SPR status is not defined by race or ethnicity. It is not even defined by nationality. In fact, it is defined only by a treaty-related separation from Japanese nationality in 1952 and conditions of residence tied to Japan's general surrender in 1945. The evolution of the SPR status in Japanese law cannot be understood without recognizing that Japanese nationality is an artifact of membership in a household register affiliated with a local polity that is part of Japan's sovereign dominion -- and without recognizing that household register status has been based on family law, not race or ethnicity, for as long as Japan has had a family (household) register law.

Japanese statistics -- or at least those compiled and published in Japanese -- spoke of Naichi, Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen as parts of Japan. Writers in some other languages, as are writers today even in Japanese, are inclined to alienate Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen by referring to Naichi as "Japan" and excluding their inhabitants, as defined by household registers, from "Japanese". But this does not accord with the legal realities of territorial and personal status, as regarded under domestic or international law.

For five years between 1905 and 1910, the foreign affairs of the Empire of Korea were overseen by Japan, represented by the Residence-General of Japan and Japanese consulates in Korea and by Japanese embassies and consulates in other foreign countries. From 1910, however, Korea became Chōsen, which like Taiwan and Karafuto was a Japanese entity and within the provence of domestic rather than international concern.

The territorial status of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen as parts of Japan's sovereign dominion was recognized by foreign entities, who accordingly viewed the affiliates of these territories as being subjects of Japan who possessed Japanese nationality. Under the laws of the countries that recognized Japan, and its claims to Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chōsen, their affiliates were Japanese on account their Japanese nationality.

China of course recognzied Taiwanese as Japanese, though it also encouraged some Taiwanese of Chinese ancestry to identify as Chinese. China had difficulty, however, recognizing "Chosenese" on a par with "Japanese" in Manchuria, owing to issues involving treaties between Japan and China over the status of Koreans before and after the annexation of Korea as Chōsen.

The United States, Great Britain, and Russia, having recognized Japan's annexation, also regarded Chosenese as Japanese, and issued visa's accordingly. Chosenese thus obtained Japanese passports to enter the Untied States on US visa's issued to them as Japanese. Not ontil 1943 did the United States, anticipating the "liberation" of "Korea" and "Koreans" from Japan, begin to allow Koreans in America to register as non-Japanese, hence no longer enemy aliens, for purposes of alien registration.

Still, the Allied Powers treat Taiwanese and Chosenese suspected of having committed war crimes as Japanese nationals. Moreover, they had no choice, under the international conventions that governed the postwar Occupation and settlements, but to treat Taiwanese and Chosenese who remained in Occupied Japan under SCAP and Japanese jurisdiction, as Japanese nationals until treaties between Japan and concerned states determined otherwise.

The naichi/gaichi distinction essentially defines the watershed of entity relationships and affiliations. Status, defined by household register affiliation with a territorial entity, is a dimension in and of itself. Race and ethnicity, which were never matters of law in Japan, constitute a dimension in the social realm, and at times in the ideological consideration of policy in the political realm, both dimensionally different from the legal realm. Time is yet another dimension.

Take a brother and sister who are Chosenese, and a brother and sister who are Interiorites, at a given point in time. The Chosenese man marries the Interiorite woman, she migrates to his Chōsen household register in compliance with family laws applying to Chōsen and thereby becomes Chosenese. Their children, born into their parents' register, are also Chosenese according to Chōsen affiliation laws. Likewise, the Interiorite man marries the Chosenese woman, she migrates to his register, thereby becoming an Interiorite, and their children are Interiorites by birth.

Under the status rules introduced during the Occupation of Japan, all residents of Occupied Japan in Chōsen and Taiwan registers are regarded as retaining their Japanese nationality. At the same time, they are partly alienated as "non-Japanese" or "aliens" for the purposes of some Occupation policies and laws on account of their register status as Chosenese or Taiwanese. Occupation policies and laws did not categorically regard them as "aliens" but some measures treated them on a par with aliens. People in Interior registers, however, remain simply "Japanese". Then, as a side effect of the direct effects of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Chosenese and Taiwanese lost their Japanese nationality and thereby became aliens -- i.e., people who do not have Japanese nationality.

Such changes in legal status affected people for reasons having only to do with their objective register status. A person's putative "race" or "ethnicity" -- whether in the person's own eyes or in the eyes of another person -- had no bearing on register status. Obviously many people who were of Chosenese status were also "Chosenese" in racialist regard, as most Interiorites or Taiwanese were "Interiorites" or "Taiwanese" in such regard. But a person's legal status was not defined by the person's putative race or ethnicity. And this was true before and during the Occupation of Japan, as was after the Occupation, and as it is today.

Why is it important to make such distinctions? Because, in the consideration of who and who wasn't Japanese as a matter of legal status based on nationality, one cannot understand the problems of individuals and families in Japan before Japan's surrender, during the Occupation from 1945-1952, and after the Occupation, without separating legal status, social race and ethnicity, and political viewpoints. The very definition of "Japan" also changes during these periods.

The loss of Japanese nationality in 1952 by Chosenese and Taiwanese -- meaning people in registers affiliated with the former Japanese territories of Chosen and Taiwan -- was predicated on the territorial separation from Japan of Chōsen and Taiwan under the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, pursuant to the terms of surrender set down in the Potsdam Declaration, which reflected the objectives of the Cairo Declaration. Former Interiorites who had become Chosenese and Taiwanese through alliances of marriage or adoption lost their nationality. Former Chosenese and Taiwanese who had become Interiorites did not. Though Karafuto was also separated from Japan, people in Karafuto registers did not lose their nationality.

As parts of China and Russia, matters concerning Taiwan and Karafuto had been under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Korea before annexation had also been a matter of Foreign Affairs, though for five years before its annexation it had been a diplomatic protectorate of Japan hence its foreign affairs were proxied by Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon their incorporation into Japan's sovereign dominion, these territories lost their status as foreign entities, and hence were no longer in the domain of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, while they had become part of Japan's sovereign jurisdiction, they were not prefectures, and hence did not fall in the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs. For as long as it took Japan to decide what to do with them, they would have to be managed as sub-foreign, supra-Interior territories. There is, of course, no foundation for translating "gaichi" as "colonies" or "naichi" as "metrAs he did in his 1983 article, renders "naichi" as meaning "metropolitan Japan" rather than "Japan proper" -- though neither English expression rings true to the metaphors of the "naichi/gaichi" distinction in Japanese, which he more accurately captures when describing "gaichi" as "outside" jurisdictions.

Chen's article, though widely quoted, is seriously misleading. Terms like "internal affairs" (内務 naimu) and "external affairs" (外務 gaimu) is very old in Japan, and they came to be used to differentiate between domestic and foreign affairs. The term "naichi" was clearly used to refer to the constitutional sovereign empire of Japan, as distinct from Taiwan, shortly after Taiwan became part of Japan's sovereign empire in 1895. The formal distinction between "naichi" and other jurisdictions of the Empire of Japan is clearly made in the 1918 Common Law, which determined applicable law within the empire.

Article 1 of the 1918 Common Law states that, for the purpose of the law, "territory" refers to Naichi [Interior], Chōsen, Taiwan, Kantōshū [Kwantung Province], and Nan'yō and Guntō [South Sea Islands]. Paragraph 2 of the article qualifies that, under the law, Karafuto would be treated as part of Naichi [Interior]. In other words, Karafuto was not actually part of Naichi, but because by then its laws were essentially the same as Naichi laws, there was no need to formally differentiate the two territories when determining applicable law.

Top  

Fingerprinting

Top  

Chen's article, though widely quoted, is seriously misleading. Terms like "internal affairs" (内務 naimu) and "external affairs" (外務 gaimu) is very old in Japan, and they came to be used to differentiate between domestic and foreign affairs. The term "naichi" was clearly used to refer to the constitutional sovereign empire of Japan, as distinct from Taiwan, shortly after Taiwan became part of Japan's sovereign empire in 1895. The formal distinction between "naichi" and other jurisdictions of the Empire of Japan is clearly made in the 1918 Common Law, which determined applicable law within the empire.

Article 1 of the 1918 Common Law states that, for the purpose of the law, "territory" refers to Naichi [Interior], Chōsen, Taiwan, Kantōshū [Kwantung Province], and Nan'yō and Guntō [South Sea Islands]. Paragraph 2 of the article qualifies that, under the law, Karafuto would be treated as part of Naichi [Interior]. In other words, Karafuto was not actually part of Naichi, but because by then its laws were essentially the same as Naichi laws, there was no need to formally differentiate the two territories when determining applicable law.

Top  

Biographical note

After completing his graduate work in political science and international relations at the University of Pensylvania in 1968, I-te Chen joined the faculty at Bowling Green State University in Ohio as an associate professor of Japanese history, from which time he added Edward to his by-line.

The following three articles were also consulted.

Chen 1970

Edward I-te Chen
Japanese Colonialism in Korea and Formosa:
A Comparison of the Systems of Political Control
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Harvard-Yenching Institute)
Volume 30, 1970
Pages 126-158

Chen 1972

Edward I-te Chen
Formosan Political Movements under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1914-1937
Journal of Asian Studies
Volume 31, Number 3 (May 1972)
Pages 477-497

Chen 1973

Edward I-te Chen
Japan: Oppressoror or Modernizer?
(A Comparison of the Effects of Colonial Control in Korea and Formosa)
In Andrew C. Nahm (editor)
Korea Under Japanese Colonial Rule
(Studies of the Policy and Techniques of Japanese Colonialism)
The Center for Korean Studies
Institute of International and Area Studies
Western Michigan University, 1973
Pages 251-260
Korean Studies Series II
Proceedings of the Conference on Korea
November 12-14, 1970

Chen 1977

Edward I-te Chen
Japan's Decision to Annex Taiwan: A Study of Ito-Mutsu Diplomacy, 1894-95
Journal of Asian Studies
Volume 37, Number 1 (November, 1977)
Pages 61-72

Top