国際関係にみる二つの競合するアプローチ

抄録

A recent debate in the United States has been focused on the “state-centric” and “transnational” approaches to the study of international relations. These two contending approaches are debated because they do not apply equally well to the international reality in all time periods and we do not know when and why one approach gives way to the other. History shows that nationalism and transnationalism alternated their primacy and that political nationalism and economic transnationalism have often existed side by side, as have political transnationalism and economic nationalism.
Among the factors that might account for such paradigmatic changes in the international system are: (1) warfares or international tensions, which greatly enhance the importance of the nation-state; (2) the peaceful hegemony of an imperial or world power (e. g., the Pax Britannica), which is likely to cause high economic interdependence; and (3) the low degree of structural balance in the international system, which is likely to lead to the transnational approach to international relations.
The theory of structual balance, being derived from social psychology, seems to explain well the rise of detente in the late sixties when hitherto hostile nations began to develop cross-cutting ties among themselves. As a state Japan greatly facilitates a reduction of tension and low structural balance in Asia by maintaining important ties with both China and the Soviet Union. Of all modern states, postwar Japan has perhaps to the greatest degree learned the lessons that transnationalism seeks to impart. The current setback of Soviet-American detente and the temporary growth of tensions caused by the oil crisis of 1973 may paradoxically prove to be a healthy step toward a flourishing transnationalism. (Prepared by M. Nishihara, translator)