Doctoral Thesis / Dissertation from the year 2006 in the subject Law - Public Law / Administrative Law, grade: Ausgezeichnet, Hiroshima University (Department for Public Law), course: Ph.D. Studium, 142 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: In this thesis a comprehensive discussion of the current immigration and deportation systems of both Japan and Austria provides the basis for qualitative and quantitative comparisons. The first section explains the basic methodology, the idea of comparative public law and respective international regimes that influence the alien law in either or both countries. In the second part the immigration system of both Austria and Japan are explained in considerable detail (introducing only high-profile case law, though) including new legislation introduced in most recent years. The system of residence titles in both countries is discussed with reference to particular group of immigrants such as family members of already residing foreign nationals, work related immigration, short-term and long-term visitors. An overview of the respective organization of the immigration control administration is provided before the last chapter of part two compares the immigration laws of both countries. The quantitative comparison employs, extends and adjusts the Quantitative Index for the Integration of Immigrants by H. Waldrauch (associated also with the work of Prof. U. Davey). Part three is extensively discusses the system of "termination of stay" in both countries. This also includes the newly introduced (2004) revocation of residence titles (zairyū shikaku no torikeshi) and the departure order (shukkoku meirei) on the Japanese side and the new system of residence bans (Aufenthaltsverbote) etc. on the Austrian side (2005). This part also features (1) detailed case law on both systems (for Japan particularly in regard to the special residence permit), (2) a short explanation of detention facilities and detention related problems, (3) a discussion of problems inherent to each system and ends with a (4) qualitative and (5) quantitative analysis similar to the one provided for the immigration systems.