In a Judgment in the Tokyo High Court, the judges considered whether a Taiwanese man born in Sept. 1929, during the period when Japan exercised sovereignty over Taiwan, and who acquired Japanese nationality by birth to Japanese parents, later actually lost Japanese nationality due to the events and aftermath of WWII in the Pacific, including Japan's new constitution, the 1952 treaties, Japan's derecognition of the ROC, as well as the abrogation of the Treaty of Taipei in 1972. The issue of whether this man had any claims to regaining Japanese nationality was also considered.

---

As for the governments of the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China," neither became a signatory to the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which came into force April 28, 1952. This treaty provides in Article 2(b) that

"Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

The Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (Treaty of Taipei), is a subsidiary treaty under Article 26, and recognizes this treaty provision.

Treaty of Taipei, Article 2 It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.

However, neither treaty makes clear what state Taiwan shall belong to after Japan waived its territorial rights.

As to when the Taiwanese people with Japanese nationality (as recorded in their family register in Japanese Taiwan) actually lost that Japanese nationality, the treaties do not offer any specific language, however this court holds to the view that, at the latest, this occurred upon the coming into force of the later treaty, which was Aug. 5, 1952. After that date, under the terms of Article 10 of the latter treaty, the inhabitants of Taiwan with family registers were deemed to be Republic of China nationals.

Based on the historical and legal facts, it is seen that the Taiwanese who acquired legal status as Japanese nationals as a result of the 1895 Shimonoseki Treaty, and their descendants, then later lost that nationality under the terms of the post-war treaties when Japan waived her territorial rights over Taiwan.

For a Taiwanese person who gained Japanese nationality by being born in Taiwan to local parents during the period when Japan exercised sovereignty over Taiwan, he/she would of course lose the Japanese nationality at the latest as of Aug. 5, 1952.

In other words, Japan recognized, in the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China, that those of Taiwan who had had Japanese nationality should be deemed nationals of the Republic of China. This is a natural consequence of Taiwan ceasing to be a territory of Japan.

According to the Joint Communique establishing diplomatic relations between the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China, Sept. 29, 1972, beginning upon that date the Government of Japan recognized the Government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and disaffirmed the Government of the Republic of China. Accordingly, the Aug. 5, 1952 peace treaty (Treaty of Taipei) must be interpreted to come to an end, and lose all further significance, on the date of Sept. 29, 1972.

In paragraph 3 of the above Joint Communique, the government of Japan declared that it fully understood and respected the stand of the People's Republic of China that Taiwan was an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China, and hence maintained its stand that Taiwan was not Japanese territory. This is an issue of "domain." There is a consistency in the terms of the provisions of the post-war treaties and the Joint Communique to the effect that Japan has fully recognized that Taiwan does not belong to Japan.

Therefore, in consideration of domain, those inhabitants of Taiwan never regained Japanese nationality.

Furthermore, in this court's view, it would be impossible to interpret paragraph 3 of the Joint Communique to say that only Taiwan territory shall belong to the PRC, but the inhabitants of the territory who formerly had Japanese nationality then regained their Japanese nationality.

To sum up, the content of the Joint Communique has no influence upon the Japanese nationality that Taiwanese people lost as a result of the post-war treaty arrangements, which would have occurred no later than Aug. 5, 1952.

We do not find that the loss of Japanese nationality in any way violates the provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is a provision that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality" (Article 15 (2)).

As to whether, those Taiwan inhabitants who lost Japanese nationality shall be deemed to acquire nationality of the People's Republic of China on the ground of the Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of People's Republic of China, as this question is not something for the judiciary to decide, we set it aside, with no review.

The Constitution of Japan provides that the conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law, but there is no provision in the (Japanese) Nationality Law about the change of nationality accompanying a cession of territory and, as stated above, there is no established customary international law. Therefore, those conditions must be provided explicitly or implicitly by treaties.

Regarding the allegation that due to the fact that "the Republic of China was a political power of those who had came from the Chinese continent and did not represent the will of the Taiwanese, the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China should not bind the Taiwanese people, and hence they could not be held to have lost their Japanese nationality, . . . . etc." we regard this as a matter belonging to the domestic affairs of another state. This court will not dwell upon it. There is no reason why Japan should have the duty of protecting the appellant as a Japanese national until the establishment of a political power [in Taiwan] supported by him.