in Japan and both of the parents are unknown or without nationality”, a child acquires Japanese nationality by birth. Under the case law, administrative practice, and authoritative academic theory, “father” in Article 2(iii) is understood to refer to the “legal father” and not the factual (biological) father of the child. (This means that which country’s “law” should be considered in this regard varies by individual. Under Japanese law, for example, while the legal mother-child relationship is considered to have been automatically established by the mere fact of delivery, 197 the legal father-child relationship is to be only established with the completion of the legal action, i.e., the parents’ marriage and, with regard to a child born out of wedlock, the father recognizing his paternity.) Thus, even if the biological father is known, as long as there is no legal parent-child relationship between that father and the child, and the mother is also unknown or is stateless, the person born in Japan can acquire Japanese nationality under this provision. 3. Developments in the application of Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act (1) Trends in the application of Article 2(iii) With regard to family court adjudications up to around the 1970s, there are several cases where a person who has been raised by a third person as a result of being separated from his or her biological parents due to the war or other reasons petitioned for the creation of his or her family register after reaching the age of majority, where even his or her memory as to the identity and place of birth of his or her biological mother and father was uncertain.198 In such cases, the courts used to previously authorize the creation of the family register after examining the facts—such as the concerned person’s appearance, the fact that he or she only speaks Japanese, and the credibility of the person’s statement with regard to how he or she has been raised—and concluding that the persons concerned were “born in Japan of unknown parents.” However, subsequently, Japan started to receive a larger number of foreigners, which resulted in the increase of persons who stay in Japan irregularly after their residency permit expires. The number of incidents increased where a biological mother who appears to be a foreigner leaves behind her child at a hospital or other places. Even in this sort of case, if it is a typical case of a foundling where the parents’ whereabouts are completely unknown, he or she will be granted Japanese nationality under Article 2(iii). However, the issue is when there is fragmentary and inaccurate information available about the mother. In this regard, the so-called “Baby Andrew” 199 case is one which clarified the way to measure how “unknown” parents are, as well as the burden of proof to establish it. 197 The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 April 1962 (Showa 37 Nen), Minshu Vol.16, No. 7, p. 1247. Okuda, supra note 33, pp.121-125. 199 The Supreme Court, Judgment, 27 January 1995 (Heise 7 Nen), Minshu Vol.49, No.1, p. 56. See also the Abe Report, supra note 2, pp. 36-37. 198 97