The aims of this paper are: (a) to analyze continuities and changes in American international relations (IR) theories in the post-war era in terms of their basic propositions, norms, policy prescriptions, and methodologies and (b) to examine the relationship between the changes in the IR theories on the one hand and the developments of international politics and changes in the American position in world politics on the other.
The United States' academic community accepted the balance-of-power (BP) theory as its central IR theory in the 1940s and 1950s, not because of its logical consistency and explanatory power but mainly because of its norms (national interests) and policy prescriptions for the United States in the Cold War setting. Since the late 1950s the BP theory has been used as a descriptive and explanatory model of international politics as well as a policy guide for the United States, and it was, along with other IR theories, subjected to rigorous scientific analysis. There existed a belief that humans are able to control international politics and particularly to achieve peace (rather than undefined national interests) through such scientific analysis.
However, since the late 1960s, due to the Vietnam trauma, the BP theory has been seriously challenged even though it has never lost its status as a major IR theory in the United States. New theories have been sought in order to explain new developments in international politics, such as international economic instability and ecological constraints. The interdependence theory, which not only takes into account varied kinds of actors in international politics but also is applicable to varied issue areas, has emerged as a fairly comprehensive IR theory. Furthermore, due to a lack of indigenous theories on reasons for international hierarchy, the dependency theory was introduced into the United States in order to analyze relationships between developed and developing countries.
Currently, three major IR theories are widely accepted in the United States: the BP theory; interdependence: and dependency (presently this is developed into a more comprehensive world system approach). Each has its own basic propositions, its own specialized fields (politico-military, international economy and the Third World, respectively), and its own norms (national interests/peace, maximization of welfare, and distributional justice, respectively). Each also gives a different identity to the United States in world politics (the major military and political power, the primus inter pares in the international economic system, and the nation which exploits the Third World, respectively).
American IR the ories have both “particularity” bound by the American position in world politics, and enough universality so that others can utilize them to analyze international politics.

抄録全体を表示

The classical international norms, which developed in the Westphalia System, were based on two main principles: nationalism and anarchism. The present essay investigates (1) why these classical norms could function adequately in the Westphalian type of international society, and (2) whether or not they can apply to present international society.
The first chapter of the essay demonstrates that the following conditions, which existed in the Westphalia System, made the classical norms desirable and feasible: (1) The nation-states were the only dominant actors in the international system; (2) If the nation-states pursued universal justice or a unitary international power structure, international society could fall into misery and confusion, as had happened in the Thirty Years' War; and (3) Even if the nation-states pursued their individual national interests at their own free will, the stability and peace of international society could be significantly maintained by virtue of the impermeability which each nation-state had, and the balance of power mechanism.
The second chapter shows that the classical norms cannot apply to present international society because the conditions which have been above presented no longer exist. It further contends that new types of international norms, which are based on universal justice, are necessary to solve the major political, socio-economic, cultural and ecological problems in present global society.

抄録全体を表示

This paper is trying to point out the theoretical characteristics of the theory of Montesquieu's international politics from the viewpoint of his critique of Imperium.
Through the 17th and 18th centuries the nation state was constructed and aimed at being an Imperium (particularly Louis XIV's France). Montesquieu denied the construction of Imperium and developed his ideas of the new international relations.
One direction of his denials of Imperium is a critique against the internal Imperium in which the king would control the absolute and perpetual power of the state (sovereignty). Montesquieu established a new method of politics and thoroughly criticized the theory of sovereignty which included the desire of conquest.
The other direction was that Montesquieu attempted to elucidate the fate of collapse of the external Imperium in a new historiographical method. He claimed that the spirit of commerce was dominant in his time and created the western state system. He stated states had interdependent relations with each other just like regions within a state. In addition legal, political, and military causes made Imperium impossible to construct (in France, the universal monarchy).
Montesquieu established new international politics to oppose the dominance of Imperium. He bormulated that each state must remain small or middle since the subject of international politics must have self-restraint. He proposed that the small state should associate with each other and constitute a transnational state (the federative republic). These two state models must have dual self-restraint; internal and external. Internally the decision-making of foreign policy has to subjugate to the parliamental discussion. Externally the principles of the international law has to restrain the hegemonical foreign policy.
In the genesis of the nation state, Montesquieu's ideas of the international politic aimed at hindering the degeneration of nation state to Imperium. Furthermore his ideas made the nation state relative, which will be suggestive of new international relations.

抄録全体を表示

The Peace Study Group is an intellectual group formed in Japan in the late 1940s to discuss and make policy suggestions regarding the problem of war and peace. The group made three major appeals for peace: A Statement by Scientists in Japan on the Problem of Peace (1948), A Statement by the Peace Study Group on the Problem of the Peace Settlement for Japan (1950), and On Peace for the Third Time (1950). The paper analyses the peace thought and ideas of the group as expressed in these statements.
First, a distinction is made between peace thought and peace idea. The former is highly individualistic, the latter more abstract. The peace thought of the Group is rooted in a strong opposition to war born of a sense of “guilt” over not having shown enough “courage” and “effort” to try and prevent Japan's aggressive war. In contrast, peace ideas are born of a general experience (e. g. Japan as the aggressor in the war), pacifistic principles (e. g. the non-war clause of the constitution), intellectual cogitations (e. g. peace as the supreme value), and so forth. The paper suggests one of the important contributions the group makes to the development of peace ideas is this latter idea of peace as the supreme value. The group argued that peace must be the supreme value because, in a nuclear era, the outbreak of war would mean “not one Rome, but two Carthages.” In short, to make peace the supreme value is to make human life the supreme value.
In order to bring about a world where peace is the supreme value, the group pointed to the importance of the world view adopted. By adopting a world view accepting co-operation between East and West (a “co-operative view of reality”), and acting based on this view, then reality could be changed in the direction of co-operation, and this could in turn enhance the possibility of creating a peaceful world where peace as the supreme value is not simply an idea, but also a reality. In this sense, the Group's statements on war and peace can still be a source for the future development of peace research.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this article is to examine the development of Soviet Marxism as an ideology of international politics. Marx and Engels, founders of Marxism, regarded the balance of power system of the 19th century Europe as an archenemy of international revolution. Lenin, who professed himself to be a legitimate successor of Marxism, shared his predecessors' hostile views on the European system.
With the acquisition of power, the Bolshevik leaders hoped at first for successive revolutions in Europe, but, once disappointed in it, they began to learn from traditional diplomacy. The adoption of Stalin's doctrine of “socialism in one country” not only cut the path to peaceful co-existance with capitalist countries. It also brought about a decisive turning point of Soviet political history, at which the task of building socialism in the Soviet Union was given precedance to the task of international revolution. Later in the 1930's, the Soviet Union took part in power political games for security, while it assigned to international communist movements a new task to prompt western democracies to cooperation with it against fascist powers. During 22 months following the conclusion of the non-aggression treaty of 1939 with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union revived the logic of revolution to disguise its territorial claims for security. Hitler's war against the Soviet Union, however, changed the situation, and the Soviet Union pursued the policy of alliance with western powers, which led even to the liquidation of the Comintern in 1943.
In the post-War period, the Soviet leaders intended to promote national security, apparently assuming that friendship with western powers could be compatible with the forming of sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Faced by the growth of the United States as an overwhelming global power and the declaration of the Truman Doctrine, the Soviet Union tightened its control over East European countries through an official reinterpretation of people's democracy, while instigating communist parties elsewhere to resist the “imperialistic, antidemocratic” camp. The intensification of the Cold War, which resulted in a protracted war in Korea, however, made the Soviet Union turn to the so-called peace offensive particularly leaning on the world wide clamour for peace. In an article contributed to the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Stalin set a certain value on international peace movements. It was only the beginning of the far-reaching change of the Soviet doctrine regarding international relations. After Stalin's death, the C. P. S. U. under the leadership of Khrushchev gave up the Lenin's theses on the inevitability of war, and struck out a new grand design for the victory of socialism through peaceful competition with leading capitalist countries. When that turned out to be an illusion, the Brezhnev regime resorted to a new strategy of promoting national security through detente on the basis of military “balance”, and through strategically winning over selected developing countries. The doctrine of compatibility of detente with “world, revolutionary process” is an ideology corresponding to this new line of policy.
The above discussion leads this writer to an opinion that the development of the Soviet ideology of international relations has essentially been subject to needs of the Soviet state with a self-imposed task of building socialism and even communism in one country. The Soviet doctrine of world situation, international revolution and western state system has suffered changes according as the Soviet Union has grown as a superpower under assumedly inimical circumstances.

抄録全体を表示

In the traditional image of international system in the Islamic Middle East, the world was divided into two conflicting worlds, the World of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the World of War (dar al-harb). The perpetual state of war between these two worlds should continue till the whole world came into the control of Muslims. In the World of Islam, there should be only one political body, an Islamic universal state. Accordingly there was no room for the international relations among Muslims. International relations could exist only between the two conflicting worlds. These relations could not be reciprocal but unilateral. This proto-image of the Islamic international system had been accepted through centuries even after the circumstances had changed so greatly.
On the eve of the rise of the West, the Ottoman Empire was ruling over the Islamic Middle Eastern World as an Islamic universal empire. The Ottomans accepted the proto-image of Islamic international system. Only in the eighteenth century when the Western Impact began to threaten the Ottomans, the traditional Islamic international system began to transform in its reality and in its image. Modern western international system destroyed the traditional Islamic system little by little. Western nationalism undermined the traditional basis of identity of the members of the empire. The national awaking and national liberation movements of the Balkans drived the Ottomans themselves to seek for new basis of identity and new world order in order to keep thier empire. However the change of tide could not be halted.
The Ottoman Empire as an Islamic universal empire dessolved. In the ruin of the universal empire there emerged a group of nation states. The Islamic Middle Eastern World as a self-consistent entity lost its consistency and was incorporated into the modren international system as its sub-system or an area.

抄録全体を表示

In the Soviet Union today, Islam has two aspects: an official, public one and a nonofficial, underground one. Until recent time only the former was visible to the observers from without. Now, however, we have evidence that the sufi brotherhoods have revived and that their influence among Soviet Muslims is rapidly growing, especially in the North Caucasus.
In the present article the author tries to examine briefly the relationship of the Sufi brotherhoods to the Soviet authority, their history and current condition.
Then he concludes the strength of the tariqa suggests that Soviet Muslims are strongly influenced by the traditionalist ideas of the tariqas, and the tariqa has the mass and social base necessary for success of its aggrandizement.

抄録全体を表示

This is a research note about the thought on international politics in the ancient India mainly on the basis of The Artasastra of Kautilya. First of all, reexaminations with relation to this famous literature are conducted. Secondly, the meaning of the State in Hindu Times is reconsidered on the stand point of a Japanese scholar, Prof. Fukuo Noda. After going through these steps, the main theme of this paper, that is, the Mandala (international relations) is summarized from a new angle of the Peace and War which is one of the most important problems in the contemporary world. The author gives a general view of Sadhi (peace) and Vigraha (war) in the ancient India.

抄録全体を表示