English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Upon dissolution of modern empires, post-imperial states came to different decisions about the legal status to be assigned to residents from their former colonies. Some states preserved their de facto citizenship rights, whereas other states excluded them from the new polity. Japan opted for the latter. It instituted an exclusive citizenship regime, turning (most of) its former colonial residents into foreigners. With an eye on the comparative context, this paper examines this postwar process of policymaking in light of two relevant theories—Rogers Brubaker’s ideational theory and Thomas Janoski’s regime theory. Its findings support Janoski’s approach: the degree of incorporation of former colonial subjects explains Japan’s decision better. However, the paper also argues that the exclusion of Taiwanese and particularly Korean residents was not simply determined by their inadequate institutional integration but occurred rather because they were judged to pose a security threat.

The Difference that Security Makes: The Politics of Citizenship in Postwar Japan in a Comparative Perspective