Abstract
This article is a case study on judicial policymaking and cause lawyering focusing on the Japanese Nationality Case of 2008. The Japanese Nationality Case of 2008 was a rare decision in which the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Japanese Nationality Act denying certain Japanese-Filipino children (born of Japanese fathers and Filipino mothers) Japanese nationality was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Japanese Constitution. The case was brought by JFC Network, an organization that has long supported the rights of Japanese-Filipino children. The fact that an important national issue - eligibility for Japanese nationality was decided by the Court as a result of litigation by a group long involved in the issue provides valuable material to consider the merits of judicial policymaking and cause lawyering in the Japanese context. Several issues arise, including the effectiveness of litigation in bringing about desired change; the ability of courts to decide on policy-related questions; the legitimacy of judicial intervention in a democracy; and the relationship between lawyers and plaintiffs. This article attempts to add to the discussion of these issues through a detailed case study of the Japanese Nationality Case. It is based on interviews with the lawyers who litigated the case, and with detailed examination of the activities of the JFC Network. In particular, it looks at the wide-ranging activities of the JFC Network and its involvement in litigation, as well as its efforts after the Supreme Court decision to secure desirable changes in the law from the executive and legislative branches, and its support for Japanese Filipino children and their mothers in the implementation stages of the decision.
