without nationality” should be included in the Guidelines as a positive factor for granting special permission to stay.123 In addition to the above, needless to say, it is important to provide access to experts with sufficient knowledge of statelessness for rapid and effective protection. (3) Reduction Under the current framework, statelessness arising in Category A is not being prevented; therefore, from the perspective of reducing statelessness, providing Japanese nationality through application for naturalization would be a solution. Specifically, it is important to ensure that Article 8(iv) of the Nationality Act is appropriately implemented. Nevertheless, under the current circumstances as described in Case 1, it is possible that the understanding of officials in charge of receiving applications for naturalization is not necessarily adequate and that an eligible individual is unable to apply for simplified naturalization under Article 8(iv) in a smooth manner. Therefore, legal affairs bureaus should collect accurate information on the nationality laws and practice of various States, deepen their understanding of such information, and establish and maintain a system under which simplified naturalization is applied in an appropriate and consistent manner. Category B [State succession] Persons whose country of previous nationality has gone through State succession who cannot have their possession of the nationality of the successor State or the predecessor State confirmed (Sample cases from Ethiopia and Eritrea) Category B is statelessness arising when the country of nationality goes through State succession. The individual in < Case 3 > is from an area which is part of Eritrea’s territory today. Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia when he was young and later became independent. In the process, he fell into a situation where he is not considered as a national by either Eritrea or Ethiopia. provides the following as such grounds: “(i) He or she has obtained permission for permanent residence; (ii) He or she has had a registered domicile in Japan as a Japanese national in the past; (iii) He or she resides in Japan under the control of another due to trafficking in persons; and (iv) The Minister of Justice finds grounds to grant special permission to stay, other than the previous items.” With regard to asylum applicants, similar decisions are made within the refugee status determination procedure (ICRRA, Article 61-2-2 (2)). Further, in recent years, the guidelines specifying the criteria for granting special permission to stay have been made public. Ministry of Justice, “Zairyuu Tokubetsu Kyokani Kakawaru Gaidorain [Guideines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan]”, at http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyukan_nyukan85.html. 123 Under the present circumstances, there may be cases where continued residence in Japan is considered on humanitarian grounds if the individual is stateless and has effectively lost his or her country of origin and it is difficult to establish domicile outside of Japan; however, it is not sufficient as a criterion for protection, as such decisions appear to be made with consideration of various other circumstances and not based solely on the fact that the individual is stateless. Arakaki, supra note 2, p.72. 54