List of Issues:

1. Please elaborate in concrete terms on the legal measures taken by the Japanese government since its submission of the 3rd Periodic Report of 1993 to eliminate discriminatory practices concerning the employment of permanent resident foreigners, including resident Koreans.
   
   
2. Please clarify the circumstances, by the types and positions of work, of employment of permanent resident Koreans and other foreigners in the national and local civil service.
   
   
3. The Japanese government does not have legal provisions concerning foreigners working in the national and local civil service. However, under the general principle of national sovereignty, it has denied those who do not possess Japanese nationality the right to work in jobs which entail the exercise of public power or decision-making on national matters. Are there any plans to enact laws concerning foreigners working in the civil service? Also, please provide in concrete terms the criteria to decide which types of work concerns "the exercise of public power or decision-making on national matters."
   
   
4. Japanese local governments uniformly limit the foreign teaching staff at public schools to full-time lecturers, who do not participate in daily school management and in decision-making of school rules or curricula. Is not this practice discriminatory treatment that is prohibited under "other status" of Article 2 of the Covenant? Are there any plans to give instructions to the local governments to correct such discriminatory practice?

Background:

Without specific legal provisions, the Japanese government has been of the view that, as a natural consequence of the principle of "national sovereignty," foreigners are not constitutionally guaranteed to work in civil service

However, while premised on the above view of the government, some local governments have come to employ foreigners in positions that do not concern "the exercise of public power or decision-making on national matters." The government as well stated in its 3rd Periodic Report that Japanese nationality is not necessarily required to be qualified for civil servant jobs that do not participate in the exercise of public power or in decision-making on national matters.

But the view of the Japanese government cited in the first paragraph has a problem in that it is premised on the denial by nationality of the right to work in the civil service provided for under Article 25(c) of the Covenant. It is also problematic in that the criteria of work that does not concern "the exercise of public power or decision-making on national matters" are not clear.

As a consequence, foreigners, including 600,000 permanent resident Koreans, are deprived of opportunities to be employed as national civil servants except as teaching staff of national or public university, etc. Only a small number of foreigners have been employed as civil servants in some of the local governments. Even in this case, the types of work are limited to (public health) nurses, etc., and they are not allowed to do regular clerical work, work in fire stations, tax offices, etc.

Furthermore, promotion to managerial positions is limited to them. In this regard, a lawsuit is pending in the Supreme Court over a refusal of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government against a Korean public health nurse to allow her to take the examination for the promotion to a section chief. In this case, the Tokyo High Court ruled that the refusal violated the Constitutional freedom and equality of occupation, as the Tokyo Metropolitan Government completely deprived her of an opportunity to take the examination even though Japanese nationality is not a requirement for some positions as a section chief. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government appealed to the Supreme Court in an objection to the High Court's decision.

In the first place, "work that concerns the exercise of public power and decision-making on national matters" is quite vague as a criterion. General exclusion of foreigners by such a vague criterion from a wide range of civil service jobs is an unreasonably discriminatory measure against those of "other status (Article 2)." It also lacks due process. Specifically, the majority of permanent resident foreigners in Japan are Koreans who had held Japanese nationality until the effectuation of the postwar 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty and their descendants. It should not be disregarded that they live in fact as permanent members of Japanese society while being deprived of opportunities to work as civil servants of their own local communities, and that it is only a quite vague criterion that has allowed such discriminatory practice.

The Committee took up this very issue in its last review of the Japanese Government's Report in 1993. Its list of issues reads "Please clarify what concrete measures have been taken, and with what results, to improve the situation of nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan, following the conclusion of a Memorandum between Japan and the Republic of Korea, in the fields of residence, employment and education. (I-g)" And the principle subjects of concern in the Committee's Comments included the following: "The Committee notes with concern at the continued existence in Japan of certain discriminatory practices against social groups, such as Korean permanent residents ... (paragraph 9)"

The JCLU hopes that the Committee will have further constructive discussions in the present review and will issue stronger recommendations to the Japanese government regarding permanent resident foreigners' access to civil service positions.