a matter which is ultimately to be decided by China; therefore, the minor shall be treated as stateless, and whether or not the requirements for protection are met shall be considered based on Japanese law, which is the law of the country of habitual residence of the minor.30 (4) Inconsistent Criteria for Determination of “Statelessness” As describe above, there are instances where the determination of whether or not an individual is stateless is made under the Nationality Act, ICRRA, and the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws; and under the current situation, the criteria for such determinations differ depending on the procedure, the responsible agency, and the content of the provisions under each law. Therefore, sometimes there are gaps. For example, on the one hand, the Immigration Bureau considers a person from Tibet as “stateless” in entry and residence procedures for the reason that the person does not possess a document to prove Chinese nationality, and on the other hand, the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice appears to have a view that, in applying Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act which allows a child born in Japan from a stateless mother to acquire Japanese nationality, a Tibetan person’s nationality should be recognized as “Chinese” unless the person has in fact lost his or her Chinese nationality.31 Similarly, in deciding the governing law for marriage, the nationality of such a person should be determined as “Chinese” unless the person’s Chinese nationality has been lost.32 Also, since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and China in 1972, Japan has recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only government of China and does not recognize Taiwan as a State; however, the administrative treatment of a Taiwanese person’s “nationality” differs depending on the procedural situation. First, in deciding the governing law under the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, the civil code of Taiwan is applied, with the understanding that the individual’s “country of origin” (i.e., nationality) is Taiwan, which is not recognized as a State.33 On the other hand, in a case where the determination of nationality was in question with regard to a child born out of wedlock by a Taiwanese woman, the Nationality Law of China was applied, 30 Sendai Family Court, unpublished adjudication on 24 June 2016. The adjudication was made available by the goodwill of Tazuru Ogawa, Representative of the Board of Directors, Across Japan, which is a general incorporated association. 31 Koseki Jihou, No.349 (1987), pp.62-67. In a commentary on nationality matters by the staff of the Civil Affairs Fifth Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, it is stated that Japan has never recognized Tibet as an independent State and that Tibet is considered to have become part of Chinese territory according to Chinese documents. 32 Hiroyuki Ishii, legal specialist, Civil Affairs First Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, “Koseki, Kokuseki Jimuwomeguru Saikinno Shomondai (1) [Recent Issues concerning the Family Register and Nationality Matters (1)]”, Koseki, No. 854 (2001), pp.9-10. 33 Yasuhiro Okuda, Kokusekihou to Kokusai Oyakohou [Nationality Law and International Parent-Child Law] (Yuhikaku, 2004), pp. 82-83; Koseki No. 373 (1975), p.69. 28