List of Issues:

1. To what degree is the government aware of the actual number of children with no nationality who live in Japan?
   
   
2. What measures has the government taken to avoid the occurrence of children who have no nationality?
   
   
3. Does the government have any plans to abolish discrimination against children born out of wedlock in their obtaining nationality, specifically, concerning the timing of the fathers' acknowledgement? If not, what are the reasons?
   
   
4. Does the government plan to improve the treatment under Article 12 of the Nationality Law which deals with loss of nationality? If not, what is the reason?

Background:

1. The number of foreigners coming into Japan has increased rapidly since 1990. According to the statistics by the Ministry of Justice, the number of children without nationality under the age of 4 also has increased; at the end of 1990 there were 74 children under 4 with no nationality, 138 in 1992, 266 in 1994, 734 in 1996, and 933 at the end of 1997. Their numbers have increased by more than 10 times in just 7 years. The actual number of children in Japan with no nationality is probably greater than these figures suggest because an increasing number of parents, out of fear of being deported for over-staying their visas, will not report the birth of their child to the authorities.
   
   
2. Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Nationality Law is a regulation that is meant to prevent the occurrence of children with no nationality. However the regulation is of no effect when a child is born in Japan to foreign parents by whose own countries' laws the child may not obtain nationality in Japan. It is therefore impossible to avoid the occurrence of children with no nationality.
   
   The said subparagraph stipulates that a child born in Japan acquires Japanese nationality if "neither the father nor mother can be known." Regarding the burden of proof of this condition, the Supreme Court charged the state in January 1995 to prove that "either the mother or the father is known" in denying a child Japanese nationality. However, depending on the interpretation it is still possible that this law leaves a child stateless.
   
   
3. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Nationality Law provides that a child receives Japanese nationality if at the moment of birth either the legal father or mother is a Japanese national. A child born out of wedlock to a foreign mother and a Japanese father can obtain Japanese nationality if the father acknowledges his parenthood only before the birth of the child, but not after its birth. On the other hand, Article 3 of the Nationality Law provides that, if its Japanese father and foreign mother marry, a child born out of wedlock who has been acknowledged by his father after its birth can obtain Japanese nationality as a "legitimate" child. This is clearly discriminatory against children born out of wedlock in obtaining nationality.
   
   There is an ongoing trial involving two sisters born out of wedlock to the same parents. The elder sister was not able to receive Japanese nationality as she was acknowledged by her father after her birth, but the younger sister was able to receive Japanese nationality because she was acknowledged at birth.
   
   In another case, the Supreme Court upheld in October 1997 that a child born out of wedlock to a Japanese father and a foreign mother to acquire Japanese nationality who was acknowledged by his father after its birth.
   
   
4. Article 12 of the Nationality Law provides that "unless there is a showing of purpose to retain his or her Japanese nationality, a Japanese national who obtained foreign nationality upon birth in foreign country will lose his or her Japanese nationality going back to the point in time that he or she was born." The Census Registration Law provides that the period for reporting one's intention to reserve the right to Japanese nationality is three months from birth. Since this condition is not widely announced, there are a growing number of children born abroad between a Japanese parent and a parent of foreign nationality who have not been able to claim Japanese nationality even though they should have been able to do so. In particular, there are tens of thousands of Japanese-Filipino children who were born in the Philippines to Philippine women married to Japanese men, but these children are simply left alone by the Japanese government.

List of Issues:

1. What efforts has the government made to deter the rampant use of corporal punishment?
   
   
2. Current legal punishments and administrative orders directed towards the teachers who are the assailants have not been effective in deterring corporal punishment. Is the government seeking to improve this? If not, what is the reason for it?

Background:

1. Corporal punishment is prohibited by Article 11 of the School Education Law and the Ministry of Education has also issued a notification on this point. However in reality, physically painful violence along with verbal abuse by teachers still not been eradicated thus caused students psychological pain and suffering.
   
   In July of 1995, a high school student died after hitting her head heavily on a concrete pole while she was being beaten by her teacher. Also, in October of 1993, a junior high school student who had been corporally punished killed himself after writing a will in which he said, "I do not want to be with teachers who beat me up." In September of 1994, a sixth grade boy killed himself right after he was corporally punished by his teacher.
   
   Just looking at the numbers of cases known to the Ministry of Education, for all elementary, junior, and senior high schools in the country the occurrence of corporal punishment in 1994 stood at 865 cases involving 1,472 people, and in 1995 at 1,026 cases involving 1,766 people, and these numbers appear to be increasing in recent years.
   
   The criminal liability of teachers who have committed corporal punishments, aside from cases in which there is death or serious injury, is limited to being fined in accordance with a summary procedure. Teachers at public schools are not charged with individual civil liability, and above all, compensation for damages is extremely low. Cases in which administrative measures (disciplinary actions) were taken against teachers stood at 70 cases in 1994, and 77 cases in 1995; in most of these cases the measure taken against the teacher was as light as a simple reprimand, not creating a working deterrence against the rampant use of corporal punishment.

List of Issues:

What kind of measures has the government taken to prevent or decrease the occurrence of bullying?

Background:

Bullying that takes place between school children is still a serious problem. A junior high school student in Nishio city, Aichi prefecture, and another junior high school student in Kamigoe city, Niigata prefecture, left wills saying that they had been bullied before killing themselves in November 1994 and 1995. Besides visible bullying such as group violence and blackmailing, there are various kinds of malicious bullying that occur where the tormented victim can neither resist nor name his or her assailant.

Regarding these matters, the Ministry of Education and specialists in the field of education have issued notifications saying that schools should be managed from the children's point of view. They recommend such things as re-examining strict school rules, and the placement of school counselors in the schools. However, these are measures for the most part treat only the symptoms and are not effective at stopping bullying. Rather, they should take more fundamentally reformative approach by, for example, allowing parents concerned to access information concerning bullying that is kept at school.