Method in practice

The following four research chapters explore two kinds of topics, ‘rights and residence', and ’patriality' in Britain and Japan. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the ‘rights and residence' chapters correspond to the examples of separating the concepts of citizenship and nationality, while the ‘patriality’ chapters set out to connect the two concepts.

In the ‘rights and residence' chapters, I shall discuss to what extent the status of permanent residence is stable in Britain and Japan, and assess the criteria of entitlement to rights. In the ‘patriality’ chapters I shall discuss what kind of rights or

privileges are attached to the 'right of descent’. This framework comes from what is called 'the function of nationality’ (kinoutcki kokuseki) in Japanese. This divides

‘functions of nationality' between its function as a criteria entitling various rights and its function as entitling state membership or citizenship itself (Onuma, 1979b, 1985, Kidana. 1996). This method of distinction is shared by other Japanese authors (such as Tanaka, 1974, Kondo, 1996a). There are two premises for this approach. First, there is a clear distinction between the statuses of aliens and citizens. Second, having citizenship status in the Japanese case, 'Japanese nationality' is important as an entitlement to rights and duties. This is not necessarily true in the British case.

In the British case, it would be difficult to use a clear-cut distinction between 'alien' and 'national'. For instance, the object of external control (immigration) and the object of internal control (alien registration) does not coincide. Furthermore one of the crucial differences between Britain and Japan is that in the latter case, most of the former empire subjects in question are already resident in Japan and became the target of alien registration/immigration control; in the British case, the former empire subjects were domiciled outside the British Isles. However, it is also true that immigration and nationality issues are strongly connected in the British case.

The research techniques I shall use are secondary sources (library work) such as books and official publications, and some primary sources such as law reports, news paper archives, and some supplementary interviews by those who are active in

disputes or specialist academics where possible. In order to select similar cases between two countries, the style is likely to be similar to ‘case studies’. In the following, I shall examine the use of law reports and how to select or match similar cases in particular.

There are useful frames of reference on impact analysis by Wasby (1970), who divides areas into; the legal systems and political culture, the power of interest groups, and court and communication (media reports) (p.58). This study will examine the last two sources in particular. On case selection, the study will refer to the criteria set by Legomsky:

...whether the issues were reasonably susceptible to differing solutions, whether the language of the opinion reveals useful information, whether the decision is representative or aberrational, and whether the problems posed by the various cases are sufficiently similar to permit the spotting of patterns (1987:8).

As I mentioned above, my contrasting perspective is set out from the Japanese perspective and I shall bring it into the British context. Firstly, on the Japanese part, I consulted publications on 'aliens' in Japan and their legal status. There, I listed the most important and relevant cases regarding Koreans and other former empire subjects. Then I collected some information about those cases from authoritative digest such as; Jurisuto. for the up-date and short-note information, Horitsu Jiho

(Japanese monthly legal periodicals), and law reports such as Hanrei Jiho, and

Hanrei Taimuzu (hereafter, Hanji, Hanta), as well as newspapers, and whenever

possible, obtain first hand materials and information from some lawyers involved and academics.

For the British case. I also consulted literature on immigration and nationality issues first, then identified important cases. I then collected information about those often- cited or well-known cases from law reports, newspapers and periodicals, and at the same time, some official publications. Regarding the characteristics of ‘parliamentary sovereignty' of Britain, 1 referred to parliamentary debates which was not necessarily the case in the Japanese context, in order to provide a better understanding of Britain.

3.11 Summary

This chapter has discussed comparative methods and methodology. It explored comparative studies in general, comparison of Britain and Japan and then examined similarities and difference between Japan and Britain within the literature related to this field. Given a number of similarities and differences, it then considered whether comparative methods could be applied in a strict sense, or as a more flexible methodological approach. The similarities can be found in historical and ideological issues, while the differences are found at an institutional level. While there are a number of works which include chapters on Britain and Japan respectively regarding a topic, not many consider the comparative method. In this case, it is not possible to attempt to establish scientific/proper comparison, due to the many differences in

institutional/organizationa! levels. However, as the focus is about impact on public policy by the minority litigations, it will set out to contrast the effect or style of influence which emerged in both countries.

This chapter also examined methodological issues such as the limitation of scope and problems of translation which are related to these comparative studies. Finally, it noted that in adopting the style of comparing ‘case studies', there may be some bias in selecting and matching ‘similar' issues. Wherever necessary, the study will provide an explanation as to why it is appropriate to compare and contrast the evidence selected.