Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Using the strong state concept, this study examines the pluralization of refugee in Japan, focusing on country-based emergency measures. Through ISA circulars, it shows how bureaucratic autonomy is used to selectively determine who is deserving of support versus those who remain under surveillance.

Paper long abstract

Japan has long faced international and domestic criticism for its restrictive refugee policies, often described as "refugee isolationism" (nanmin sakoku). In recent years, several changes—including the implementation of resettlement and complementary pathway programs, the introduction of complementary protection, and country-based emergency measures—have emerged, characterizing what Naoko Hashimoto terms the pluralization of “refugee” (nanmin no tagenka). Utilizing the concept of the "strong state," this study focuses on country-based emergency measures, analyzing administrative circulars and parliamentary debates to demonstrate how the Immigration Services Agency (ISA) navigates external criticism and pressure. Based on primary sources, It explores how the ISA responds to humanitarian emergencies—including those in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Ukraine—while maintaining its discretionary power.

In response to the 2021 Myanmar coup, Japan introduced an emergency measure (kinkyu hinan sochi) promising that no Myanmar citizens would face repatriation against their will, regardless of their legal status. To ensure this non-refoulement policy, the ISA allows individuals to obtain a “Designated Activities” (tokutei katsudo) resident status under specific conditions. Following the crises in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, and Sudan, the ISA implemented comparable approaches but maintained significantly different conditions based on nationality. For instance, Ukrainians are treated as an "exception of exceptions," receiving one-year residency, full work permits, and social support. In contrast, Afghans initially required a financial guarantor to cover living expenses and future repatriation costs, while Myanmar nationals who failed to extend their previous status due to their "own fault" received only six-month permissions with restricted work hours.

Over time, emergency measures for Myanmar and Afghan nationals have been standardized, yet the treatment of Ukrainians remains uniquely exceptional. The ISA maintains these as country-based measures, allowing the agency to modify conditions through administrative discretion without requiring parliamentary approval. The October 2024 modification excluding Myanmar technical interns who failed to complete programs due to their "own fault" serves as a symbolic example. I argue the ISA utilizes Japan’s "strong state" structure to preserve its discretionary power, selectively determining who is "deserving" versus those who remain under surveillance. This research reveals how the Japanese state reconciles international humanitarian expectations with a domestic agenda of migration control.