enforced in 1899. The Constitution of Japan enacted in 1946 after World War II provides in Article 10: “The conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law.” The Nationality Act was enacted in 1950 in accordance with this provision in the Constitution (the former Nationality Act was repealed accordingly). The Nationality Act was greatly amended in 1984 largely due to the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Until the 1984 amendment, the jus sanguinis principle in the Japanese Nationality Act85 passed on nationality through patrilineal descent. In Okinawa, children born to a father stationed in an American military bases and a Japanese mother often became stateless as a result of conflicting nationality laws between the two countries. Worse yet, when an American soldier deserted his Japanese family, his child, unable to prove the father’s American citizenship, often became de facto stateless. 86 When a Japanese woman trying unsuccessfully to divorce an American who had deserted her had a child with a Japanese man out of wedlock, this child could become stateless. Article 772 of the Japanese Civil Code presumes the father to be the American husband if the child was conceived during the marriage. While this presumptive father’s nationality cannot be confirmed if he is missing, the genuine father could not pass on his Japanese nationality to the child because of the operation of the Civil Code. Desertion-by-American-husband cases comprised 90% of stateless children in Okinawa.87 The 1984 revision of the 85 Yasuhiro Okuda states “There is a tacit agreement on using jus sanguinis as a criteria for citizenship. If we are to veer away from this principle, we may need to reconsider the fundamentals of the State. Although minute changes may be made in the principle of jus sanguinis, substituting this principle for another would be inconceivable.” Okuda, Kazoku to kokuseki (Family and Nationality)(rev.2003),p.14.Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau Director Mr. Kiyoshi Hosokawa commented at the time the Nationality Act was revised in 1984 that “Japan does not need to adopt the jus soli principle due to the scarce possibility that it would accept a large number of immigrants.” He also referred to reasons for continuing to abide by the jus sanguinis principle: “Japan as a country has always been a mono-ethnic State with a single language, culture and history. A deeply rooted tradition of jus sanguinis lies within society, and this has been related to the country’s identity. Jus sanguinis in our Nationality Act has been established on this tradition and consciousness, and at present, the Japanese would not be a in a position to accept jus soli”. Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau Legal Affairs Study Group ed., Kaisei kokusekiho, kosekiho no kaisetsu (Interpretation of the Revised Nationality Act, Family Registry Law) (1985), p.8. 86 Kiyoko Kaneshiro, “Kokusekiho ikensosho to kanikika seido(Supreme Court Ruling on Nationality Act and Naturalization”, Jurist No.745(1981),p.112. The number of stateless persons residing in Okinawa Prefecture due to reasons cited in the text who have registered as aliens was 73 as of the end of June 1980. According to Ministry of Justice Immigration Bureau records, among this 73, those under 20 were 49, (23 Americans, 22 Chinese and 4 others). (Government Response no.4 House of Councilors Interpellation no.93-4, November 25, 1980 The U.S.-Japan joint international welfare consultation group reported that as of November 18, 1980, 35 cases had been dealt with and 39 were pending. Yuko Taniguchi and Kennnen Yoseda,”Okinawa ni okeru mukokusekiji no jittai to kaiketsusaku no genjo (Reality of Stateless Children in Okinawa and Prospects for Solutions)”, Jiyu to seigi (Liberty and Justice), Vol.32, No.11 (1980), p.20. 87 Tsukida, supra note 1 pp.99. ） 34