List of Issues:

1. Legislation
   
   

   Does the Japanese government plan to submit to the Diet a bill for revision of the Civil Code that includes the introduction of a system of separate family names for spouses?
   
   In February of 1996 the Legislative Council, an advisory body to the Justice Minister, submitted to the Minister a bill for the Family Law Reform which includes the retention of separate family names for spouses. Does the Japanese government plan to introduce this draft bill to the Diet? If so, when?
   
   

2. Public Opinion
   
   

   If the date of submission of the draft bill has not been set, or if the government has no plans to submit the bill, please provide reasons. If the reason is that submission is premature in light of public opinion, please provide the basis on which that judgment was made.
   
   What is the current policy of the Japanese government concerning the introduction of a system that allows for the optional retention of one's family name upon marriage?

Background:

1. The current law imposes the same family name for married couples, stipulating that upon marriage, with mutual consent, one spouse must assume the family name of the other (Civil Code, article 750). In practice, in 98% of marriages, it is the wife who has to change her family name upon marriage. Because of having to change their names, many married women experience disadvantages at work or a sense of lost identity. The draft bill to revise the Civil Code that was submitted by the Legislative Council was commendable in that it introduced the optional retention of family names for spouses by stating that spouses can assume the family name of either the husband or wife, or that both can retain their family names.
   
   The Government Report refers to the draft bill, giving the impression that the revision of the Civil Code, including introduction of the optional retention of family names, is making progress. However, in reality, while more than two years have passed since the Legislative Council issued the draft bill, the Japanese government has yet to submit the draft bill to the Diet.
   
   Because there were rigid objections to the draft bill on the part of some legislators and members of the government which resulted in the failure to submit the bill, opposition parties introduced a revised draft bill to the Diet, only to be rejected at a committee level. In June of 1998, opposition parties jointly proposed a draft bill to amend the Civil Code which included the optional retention of family names for spouses, but the prospect for its adoption is quite slim.
   
   
2. The Japanese government claims that it is premature to introduce the optional retention of family names for spouses because the system is not widely recognized among the general public. However, the Prime Minister's Office conducted a public opinion census on the Family Law in June of 1996, and received the following responses concerning the introduction of the optional retention of family names: 39.8% against; 32.5% for revising the law to allow spouses to retain their original family names; 22.5% for spouses assuming the same family name, but for revising the law to allow a spouse who changed his/her original family name to go by his/her original name. The poll shows that a majority, 55% of the respondents, support allowing spouses to retain or to go by separate family names. In particular, the rate of support for the use of separate family names by spouses is higher among people in their 20s and 30s.
   
   Amendment of the Civil Code with the introduction of optional retention of family names for spouses should be made immediately. It is an indispensable measure to respect an individual's identity, and to ensure equality between the sexes as well as between spouses. The Japanese government should clarify its future policy on this matter.