Common use of The importance of blood Clause in Contracts

The importance of blood. Although the Anglo-Japanese with one Japanese national parent can become Japanese citizens at birth regardless of where they are born (Xxxxxxxx, 2003), they cannot obtain dual-nationality (Ministry of Justice, 1998-2006). They have to choose either of their nationalities before the age of twenty-two (ibid.). In spite of their right to Japanese nationality, the notion of ‘pure’ blood would appear to condemn them ‘to the second class’ in Japan as their blood is mixed (Befu, 2009, p. 33). This is because mixed-blood implies impurity (ibid.). In Japan attempts were made in the early 1900s to scientifically prove ‘the existence of distinct racial groups, which is predicated upon the assumption of breeding isolation’, (Xxxxxxx, 1992 p. 27). Such scientific investigations were influenced by German blood studies between 1900 and 1930 (Yoshino, 1992), which suggests that a European-style racist ideology can be found in pre- World War II Japan (Lie, 2001 p. 124). The academic interest in blood types dwindled after World War II, but since the 1970s, in ‘uni-racial’ post-war Japan, the notion of ‘blood’ as lineage has been resurrected (Yoshino, 1992). The notion of Japanese ‘blood’ as immutable (Yoshino, 1992) runs so deeply in Japan that it would appear to underpin the Nationality Law. Japan as does Germany15 (Brody, 2002) differs from Britain and the USA in that it has traditionally only granted nationality according to the principle of jus sanguinis the ‘law of blood’, which is based on parental nationality as opposed to the granting of nationality on the basis of jus soli the ‘law of soil’, whereby those who were born within a country’s borders have the right to nationality16 (Sellek, 1997). This may be because in Japan ‘nationality is considered an extension of the family; one belongs, organically as it were, to a nation as one does to a family’ (Lie, 2001, p. 144). Moreover, nationality (kokuseki) is thought to be an extension of household registry (koseki17) and as such it is considered to be ‘a native or natural concept’ (ibid.). Thus, the notion of uni-raciality is maintained by the legal and psychological designation of Koreans and Chinese, who are permanent residents in Japan, as foreigners (Creighton, 1997, p. 231) as they have no Japanese blood (Arudou, 2013a). Yoshino (1992) tries to defend the reference to blood in the Nihonjinron sense of the word. He argues that, ‘Japanese blood’ is used to positively identify the Japanese and it represents ‘a 15 Jewishness is also based on the principle of (maternal) blood (Xxx-Xxxxx, 1972). 16 This situation may be changing in Western countries like the UK where the nationality law is being amended.

The importance of blood. Although the Anglo-Japanese with one Japanese national parent can become Japanese citizens at birth regardless of where they are born (XxxxxxxxSugimoto, 2003), they cannot obtain dual-nationality (Ministry of Justice, 1998-2006). They have to choose either of their nationalities before the age of twenty-two (ibid.). In spite of their right to Japanese nationality, the notion of ‘pure’ blood would appear to condemn them ‘to the second class’ in Japan as their blood is mixed (Befu, 2009, p. 33). This is because mixed-blood implies impurity (ibid.). In Japan attempts were made in the early 1900s to scientifically prove ‘the existence of distinct racial groups, which is predicated upon the assumption of breeding isolation’, (XxxxxxxYoshino, 1992 p. 27). Such scientific investigations were influenced by German blood studies between 1900 and 1930 (Yoshino, 1992), which suggests that a European-style racist ideology can be found in pre- World War II Japan (Lie, 2001 p. 124). The academic interest in blood types dwindled after World War II, but since the 1970s, in ‘uni-racial’ post-war Japan, the notion of ‘blood’ as lineage has been resurrected (Yoshino, 1992). The notion of Japanese ‘blood’ as immutable (Yoshino, 1992) runs so deeply in Japan that it would appear to underpin the Nationality Law. Japan as does Germany15 (Brody, 2002) differs from Britain and the USA in that it has traditionally only granted nationality according to the principle of jus sanguinis the ‘law of blood’, which is based on parental nationality as opposed to the granting of nationality on the basis of jus soli the ‘law of soil’, whereby those who were born within a country’s borders have the right to nationality16 (SellekXxxxxx, 1997). This may be because in Japan ‘nationality is considered an extension of the family; one belongs, organically as it were, to a nation as one does to a family’ (Lie, 2001, p. 144). Moreover, nationality (kokuseki) is thought to be an extension of household registry (koseki17) and as such it is considered to be ‘a native or natural concept’ (ibid.). Thus, the notion of uni-raciality is maintained by the legal and psychological designation of Koreans and Chinese, who are permanent residents in Japan, as foreigners (CreightonXxxxxxxxx, 1997, p. 231) as they have no Japanese blood (Arudou, 2013a). Yoshino (1992) tries to defend the reference to blood in the Nihonjinron sense of the word. He argues that, ‘Japanese blood’ is used to positively identify the Japanese and it represents ‘a 15 Jewishness is also based on the principle of (maternal) blood (XxxBen-XxxxxDasan, 1972). 16 This situation may be changing in Western countries like the UK where the nationality law is being amended.

The importance of blood. Although the Anglo-Japanese with one Japanese national parent can become Japanese citizens at birth regardless of where they are born (Xxxxxxxx, 2003), they cannot obtain dual-nationality (Ministry of Justice, 1998-2006). They have to choose either of their nationalities before the age of twenty-two (ibid.). In spite of their right to Japanese nationality, the notion of ‘pure’ blood would appear to condemn them ‘to the second class’ in Japan as their blood is mixed (Befu, 2009, p. 33). This is because mixed-blood implies impurity (ibid.). In Japan attempts were made in the early 1900s to scientifically prove ‘the existence of distinct racial groups, which is predicated upon the assumption of breeding isolation’, (Xxxxxxx, 1992 p. 27). Such scientific investigations were influenced by German blood studies between 1900 and 1930 (Yoshino, 1992), which suggests that a European-style racist ideology can be found in pre- World War II Japan (Lie, 2001 p. 124). The academic interest in blood types dwindled after World War II, but since the 1970s, in ‘uni-racial’ post-war Japan, the notion of ‘blood’ as lineage has been resurrected (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992). The notion of Japanese ‘blood’ as immutable (Yoshino, 1992) runs so deeply in Japan that it would appear to underpin the Nationality Law. Japan as does Germany15 (Brody, 2002) differs from Britain and the USA in that it has traditionally only granted nationality according to the principle of jus sanguinis the ‘law of blood’, which is based on parental nationality as opposed to the granting of nationality on the basis of jus soli the ‘law of soil’, whereby those who were born within a country’s borders have the right to nationality16 (Sellek, 1997). This may be because in Japan ‘nationality is considered an extension of the family; one belongs, organically as it were, to a nation as one does to a family’ (Lie, 2001, p. 144). Moreover, nationality (kokuseki) is thought to be an extension of household registry (koseki17) and as such it is considered to be ‘a native or natural concept’ (ibid.). Thus, the notion of uni-raciality is maintained by the legal and psychological designation of Koreans and Chinese, who are permanent residents in Japan, as foreigners (CreightonXxxxxxxxx, 1997, p. 231) as they have no Japanese blood (Arudou, 2013a). Yoshino Xxxxxxx (1992) tries to defend the reference to blood in the Nihonjinron sense of the word. He argues that, ‘Japanese blood’ is used to positively identify the Japanese and it represents ‘a 15 Jewishness is also based on the principle of (maternal) blood (Xxx-Xxxxx, 1972). 16 This situation may be changing in Western countries like the UK where the nationality law is being amended.

The importance of blood. Although the Anglo-Japanese with one Japanese national parent can become Japanese citizens at birth regardless of where they are born (Xxxxxxxx, 2003), they cannot obtain dual-nationality (Ministry of Justice, 1998-2006). They have to choose either of their nationalities before the age of twenty-two (ibid.). In spite of their right to Japanese nationality, the notion of ‘pure’ blood would appear to condemn them ‘to the second class’ in Japan as their blood is mixed (Befu, 2009, p. 33). This is because mixed-blood implies impurity (ibid.). In Japan attempts were made in the early 1900s to scientifically prove ‘the existence of distinct racial groups, which is predicated upon the assumption of breeding isolation’, (Xxxxxxx, 1992 p. 27). Such scientific investigations were influenced by German blood studies between 1900 and 1930 (Yoshino, 1992), which suggests that a European-style racist ideology can be found in pre- World War II Japan (Lie, 2001 p. 124). The academic interest in blood types dwindled after World War II, but since the 1970s, in ‘uni-racial’ post-war Japan, the notion of ‘blood’ as lineage has been resurrected (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992). The notion of Japanese ‘blood’ as immutable (Yoshino, 1992) runs so deeply in Japan that it would appear to underpin the Nationality Law. Japan as does Germany15 (Brody, 2002) differs from Britain and the USA in that it has traditionally only granted nationality according to the principle of jus sanguinis the ‘law of blood’, which is based on parental nationality as opposed to the granting of nationality on the basis of jus soli the ‘law of soil’, whereby those who were born within a country’s borders have the right to nationality16 (SellekXxxxxx, 1997). This may be because in Japan ‘nationality is considered an extension of the family; one belongs, organically as it were, to a nation as one does to a family’ (Lie, 2001, p. 144). Moreover, nationality (kokuseki) is thought to be an extension of household registry (koseki17) and as such it is considered to be ‘a native or natural concept’ (ibid.). Thus, the notion of uni-raciality is maintained by the legal and psychological designation of Koreans and Chinese, who are permanent residents in Japan, as foreigners (CreightonXxxxxxxxx, 1997, p. 231) as they have no Japanese blood (Arudou, 2013a). Yoshino Xxxxxxx (1992) tries to defend the reference to blood in the Nihonjinron sense of the word. He argues that, ‘Japanese blood’ is used to positively identify the Japanese and it represents ‘a 15 Jewishness is also based on the principle of (maternal) blood (Xxx-Xxxxx, 1972). 16 This situation may be changing in Western countries like the UK where the nationality law is being amended.