Abstract
The study in Japan of modern Japanese foreign affairs has been dominated by diplomatic historians. Consequently, we still have a poor understanding as to how much Japanese diplomatic experiences actually support the general theories of international relations. This paper attempts to rectify the problem in the area of alliance formation. It tests Stephen Walt's balance-of-threat hypothesis while taking into account the “bandwagon for profit” argument advanced by Randall Schweller. Its core finding is that the Japanese cases overwhelmingly support the balance-of-threat hypothesis: Japan formed 12 alliances against threats out of its 14 threat-facing experiences (in the remaining 2 cases, Japan could not find alliance partners and did not bandwagon with the sources of threat). The paper also identifies one case of “bandwagon for profit” (the third Anglo-Japanese alliance). It furthermore has found many dual-purpose alliances in which Japan used its alliance not only as a military instrument against threats but also as a political tool to manage its hegemony over subordinate polities.
