by
Jeremy D Morley
Japanese law requires that married couples share the same surname, which can be that of either the husband or the wife. There appears to be no country other than Japan that requires married couples to adopt the same surname. The Supreme Court of Japan recently ruled that this requirement does not violate the Japanese Constitution.
Human
Rights Watch has explained that, “The single-surname system is a legacy of
Japan’s traditional patriarchal family system, which placed men at the top of
the family hierarchy and viewed women as entering the man’s family upon
marriage.” Although the post-World War II Constitution recognized equality
between men and women, and abolished much of the traditional family system, the
single-surname rule remained. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has repeatedly called on the Japanese
government to repeal it.
Article
750 of Japan’s Civil Code provides that, “a husband and wife shall adopt the
surname of the husband or wife in accordance with that which is decided at the
time of marriage.” Likewise, while Japan’s Family Register Act allows divorced
spouses to adopt separate surnames, it contains no such provision in case of a marriage.
Accordingly, a Japanese couple must decide on their shared last name in order
to have their marriage registration accepted.
In
recent years, as the Japanese government has encouraged women to play a greater
role in Japanese society, there has been a growing demand that married couples
should not be required to share the same surname. In 96% of cases, wives take
their husband's surname, and it is asserted that this result contravenes the
equal rights of husband and wife guaranteed in Article 24 of the Japanese
Constitution.
In
2015, the Supreme Court, in a split ten-to-five decision, ruled that the law
was not unconstitutional. The basis of the ruling was that, "As a way to
refer to families, the bedrock of society, it is logical to have one
surname." Several justices suggested at that time that the Japanese Diet
should consider amending the law, and the issue was considered, but the ruling
Liberal Democratic Party is sharply divided on this issue.
Somewhat
surprisingly, the very same issue of the constitutionality of the surname law was
heard again by the Supreme Court earlier this year, although the issues were
framed a little differently. Even more surprising is that, although in June 2021
the Supreme Court again upheld the law, it did not simply repeat its prior
ruling but it was split once again on the very issue that it had decided just a
few years earlier. Some of the judges, albeit in the minority, endorsed the
position that the Court had a broad right to make public policy decisions when
deciding the constitutionality of Japanese statutes. It will be fascinating to
see how that idea plays out in future cases.
It
should also be noted that a slight liberalization about married names was put
in place fairly recently. The maiden name of a Japanese national can now be placed
in parenthetical form on a married persons Japanese passport, in addition to
the married name.