In order to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapon states as well as nuclear weapon states must reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policies. Japan is no exception to this rule. Appealing to the world for nuclear disarmament not to repeat the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has relied on nuclear deterrent provided by its ally, the United States, for decades.

Recently, however, Japan’s political environment for discussing the nuclear policy has changed inconspicuously. In the past, it had been impossible even to seriously discuss ways to reduce the role of U.S. nuclear deterrent for Japan under the so-called 1955 regime. But the sharp confrontation between the left and the right over the Japan-U.S. alliance came to an end as a result of the end of Cold War and the dissolution of the 1955 regime. Today, there seem to be no insurmountable political obstacles for major political parties, which support the Japan-U.S. alliance, to enter policy discussions over the function of U.S. nuclear deterrent for Japan’s security.

Actually, it is reasonable for them to do so, because the current policy is not without defects. The Japanese government has refused to support the “no-first-use” policy, tacitly accepting the U.S. policy of “calculated ambiguity”, for the former policy would harm U.S. nuclear deterrent. Such an argument, however, contains illogical elements and is not totally consistent with the realities of international politics. Moreover, the policy of “calculated ambiguity” involves the risk of falling into a “commitment trap” in a contingency situation. On the other hand, there are merits in renouncing the policy to lower Japan’s dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrent. Although it would not be easy to revise the current policy for various reasons, it should be reexamined for Japan to contribute more actively to promoting nuclear disarmament.

There are two purposes of the paper. One is to sketch the medical, psychological, and social effects of the atomic bombings learned from previous studies. The other is to examine messages from the Atomic-bomb Survivors.

The most remarkable characteristic of A-bomb damage is the late effects of radiation in humans. An obvious increase in leukemia occurred approximately 5 years after the A-bombings. The following are well known as diseases resulting from exposure to atomic radiation: leukemia, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, gastric cancer, colon cancer, cataracts, chromosomal aberrations, etc. A-bomb Survivors cannot escape the risk of these diseases. For example, the risk of fatality due to leukemia in those who were exposed to 1 gray is approximately 5 times as large as for unexposed persons. A-bomb Survivors also have to live with anxiety over the onset of these diseases. We can clearly state that one of the most serious A-bomb afflictions at present is anxiety about the condition of their health.

Many A-bomb Survivors continue to suffer from psychological consequences caused by their atomic-bomb experiences in addition to medical afflictions. For example, many A-bomb Survivors still dream of or remember their A-bomb experiences. Causes include deaths of family members, acute symptoms, and social discrimination such as “discrimination against marriage”. Previous studies pointed out that the A-bomb afflictions affect every aspect of human life, socioeconomic and psychological, and each aspect is mutually and dynamically related. This paper shows the same result as with previous studies.

The present paper also examined messages from A-bomb Survivors by using the answers toward open-ended question asking the respondents to write about their A-bomb experiences and their message in the Asahi Newspaper Survey in 2005. The paper analyzed the fifty most common words among their answers using statistical methods called multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering. The result shows that the core of their message is “the total abolition of nuclear weapons” and “world peace”. Atomic-bomb Survivors promulgated the ideology, “the total abolition of nuclear weapons” due to their tragic experiences and lead the movement for “only one A-bombed country”. We have a responsibility to live up to their efforts.

The main purpose of this article is to compare four reports on the issue of the elimination of nuclear weapons, namely Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons published in 1996, Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the 21st Century published by the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in 1999, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms published by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission in 2006, and Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers published by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament in 2009.

The author selects nine topics that are regarded as vital issues for the promotion of nuclear disarmament, and carefully reviews how those topics are dealt with in each report. The topics are as follows: definition and treatment of nuclear abolition, actual process of reduction of nuclear weapons, non-first use of nuclear weapons, reduction of the role of nuclear weapons, de-alerting of nuclear weapons, early entry-into-force of the CTBT and banning nuclear tests, treaty banning the production of fissile materials, expansion of nuclearweapon-free zones, and protection of the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

After examining the four reports regarding the above points, the author attempts to measure the influence of those reports on the nuclear policy of the Obama administration by reviewing the Nuclear Posture Review Report (NPR) published by the US Department of Defense in April 2010. Although there is no description of non-first use and nuclear-weapon-free zones, other issues are mentioned in the NPR, and the author recognizes that to some degree there is linkage between the proposals made by the four reports and the contents of the NPR.

Over the years, there have been many calls for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. The recent global trend toward nuclear disarmament, in particular, has provided civil society with an opportunity to intensify calls for a more comprehensive approach, including through the achievement of a legally binding, verifiable Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC).

This paper outlines efforts and initiatives by civil society to pursue an international agreement on the commencement of negotiations toward such a legal framework, including an NWC, with a view to its early conclusion. It begins by providing a brief description and history of such efforts, including the formulation of a model NWC, following the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the threat to use or use of nuclear weapons. This paper argues that a more comprehensive approach would be able to overcome some inherent defects of the traditional “step-bystep” approach preferred by nuclear weapon states, as well as by other states relying on a nuclear umbrella, by providing fair and transparent measures for confidence-building. The paper describes some of the concrete proposals and actions by various sectors of the international community, including mayors of municipalities, parliamentarians and the United Nations Secretary-General.

This paper then focuses on the debates and outcomes of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The agreed recommendations for follow-on actions made reference, for the first time in an NPT Final Document, to the NWC and the international humanitarian law. The paper concludes that such outcomes necessarily highlight the issue of the legitimacy of the Japanese “nuclear umbrella” policy and that a shift in the policy will be required if Japan is to maintain and enhance its moral authority.

Since the U.S. President Obama’s Prague Speech on “A World without Nuclear Weapons” in April 2009, the tide and expectation toward it are mounting all over the world. But his vision itself is a reflection of the U.S. strategic and security interests and it is now facing a grave difficulty emanating from U.S. domestic politics and the logical gap between the U.S. pursuit of superiority and the search for “a world without nuclear weapons”.

This paper tries to situate the agenda for “a world without nuclear weapons” in a broader perspective of transformation of the world into less conflict prone structure where mutual confidence rather than mistrust could play a larger role. We argue that without such structural transformation in perspective those efforts for “a world without nuclear weapons” may turn out to be fatally flawed. The paper first tries to discuss the problems originating from the security dilemma where fear and uncertainty of the future force the states into a spiral of mounting mistrusts in an anarchic structure of international politics. We argue that if the security dilemma remains the basic feature of the international politics it is quite difficult to create a stable structure of “a world without nuclear weapons”. Then the paper talks about the process of the end of the Cold War as a concrete example of solving the security dilemma. We argue that the redefinition of the security issues as a common one by Palme Commission and the capacity and the security dilemma sensibility of the political leaders were the keys to creating a mutually trusting relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and overcoming the Cold War. The paper goes on to discuss the asymmetric conflicts between the powerful nations and the nuclear proliferators, the failing states and terrorists. We call for a unilateral action for tension reduction from the side of the powerful in order to create a more preferable environment for a less conflict prone and trust based world.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the logic of ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ in the context of inequality in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The ‘Negative Security Assurance’ (NSA) and ‘Positive Security Assurance’ (PSA) measures have so far been regarded as significant security assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States. Since the 1960, international society has called upon Nuclear-Weapon States to provide ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ in the form of an internationally legally binding instrument. In particular, the legally binding NSA is expected to (1) ease the inequality in the NPT, (2) rule out the possibility of a nuclear attack by Nuclear-Weapon States, (3) diminish the political and military roles of nuclear weapons, and as a result, (4) bring the world closer to nuclear disarmament.

Scholars have made numerous attempts to propound the logic of inequality in the NPT and ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’. We can divide their view into two categories. The first is that legally binding ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ would ease the inequality in the NPT, and the other is that such legally binding security assurances would not only strengthen the inequality in the NPT, but also cause further nuclear proliferation in the world. However, previous research has never examined which conditions would ease and/or strengthen the inequality in the NPT.

First, this paper confirms the relationship between the inequality in the NPT and ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’. Second, it considers why legally binding ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ would ease or strengthen the inequality in the NPT. Finally, it pays much attention to the roles of security commitments, and examines which conditions would ease and/or strengthen the inequality in the NPT.

Transitional justice frameworks have been developed through the various attempts of the societies coming out from conflicts. Emerging practices of transitional justice includes informal local justice systems, which could be categorized as “new” mechanisms to foster peace at the grass roots level.

These innovative approaches, however, face greater pressure to conform to standards of international human rights and due process. There have been different lines of argument over the manner and extent to which local justice and reconciliation systems should be made compatible with global norms. This article examines the institution-building and implementation process of transitional justice in East Timor, by focusing on the Community Reconciliation Process (CRP) based on local customs and rituals. It explores, specifically, the roles played both by domestic and transnational agents who have attempted to build congruence between transnational norms and local ideas and practices.

The prime purpose of the CRP was to encourage the former members of militia to return home and to reintegrate themselves into their communities. The idea of utilizing local mechanisms originated from the strong needs of the local people. The idea of the CRP was first conceptualized at the workshop in 2000 where the local political elites, NGOs, UN staff, and the specialists from ICTJ, an advocacy network to promote transitional justice, met and discussed the justice and reconciliation issue in East Timor. The CRP programme was finalized through numerous consultations with the local people.

The analysis here shows how this process manifested a phenomenon called norm localization. The local and transnational agents translated “reconciliation” in their local context and restructured a truth commission with the CRP which modified their local justice system. This localization process enhanced the reception of international human rights standards as well. This article takes account of the fact that the norm localization could be initiated by not only local, but also transnational agents. Finally, this paper argues that their interaction was vital in the case of East Timor.

A little unique performance of the Passion “Kalbaryo” during Holy week is done every year in St. Vincent Ferrer (SVF) Parish which is mostly located in Barangay La Granja, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental. The people realized the communication which conscientized the violence surrounding themselves, and a grass root religious movement (Basic Christian Community=BCC) rose there. But, most of those activists recently point out the “change” of Kalbaryo and regression of its movement under the circumstances that the parish priest changes one after another in a short period after 1999. Why does it happen? Was there a cause that inhered in the movement or the people’s communication activities themselves?

In this paper the author studies about the necessary conditions of communication toward peace through the analysis of people’s struggles and communication activities for their self-reliance.

The present use of “development” as a transitive verb was invented by the President Truman in January 1949. Destruction of environment/culture, dissolution of social relationships/communities, plunder of livelihood and subordination of the global market have been called as development since then. Developmentalism seized the concept of development and made the people believe that development can solve whole problems such as poverty, hunger and epidemic. However, such problems are caused by violence of developmentalism. Therefore we should break away from developmentalism to overcome its violence. In this paper, the author defines “communication beyond developmentalism” as counter-concept against “development communication” and applies it to analysis the people’s communication activities toward peace. Both of them simultaneously exist in the communication.

In Kalbaryo the communication that had the intention to continuously reach peace in long term certainly existed. It built the people’s solidarity against the militarization (developmentalism) that guarded the profits of the development in short term. However, developmentalism is contained even in the people’s communication and BCC movement. The elements of “development communication” were found out even in Kalbaryo. Reducing those elements in the communication is the way to peace.

In order to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapon states as well as nuclear weapon states must reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policies. Japan is no exception to this rule. Appealing to the world for nuclear disarmament not to repeat the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has relied on nuclear deterrent provided by its ally, the United States, for decades.

Recently, however, Japan’s political environment for discussing the nuclear policy has changed inconspicuously. In the past, it had been impossible even to seriously discuss ways to reduce the role of U.S. nuclear deterrent for Japan under the so-called 1955 regime. But the sharp confrontation between the left and the right over the Japan-U.S. alliance came to an end as a result of the end of Cold War and the dissolution of the 1955 regime. Today, there seem to be no insurmountable political obstacles for major political parties, which support the Japan-U.S. alliance, to enter policy discussions over the function of U.S. nuclear deterrent for Japan’s security.

Actually, it is reasonable for them to do so, because the current policy is not without defects. The Japanese government has refused to support the “no-first-use” policy, tacitly accepting the U.S. policy of “calculated ambiguity”, for the former policy would harm U.S. nuclear deterrent. Such an argument, however, contains illogical elements and is not totally consistent with the realities of international politics. Moreover, the policy of “calculated ambiguity” involves the risk of falling into a “commitment trap” in a contingency situation. On the other hand, there are merits in renouncing the policy to lower Japan’s dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrent. Although it would not be easy to revise the current policy for various reasons, it should be reexamined for Japan to contribute more actively to promoting nuclear disarmament.

There are two purposes of the paper. One is to sketch the medical, psychological, and social effects of the atomic bombings learned from previous studies. The other is to examine messages from the Atomic-bomb Survivors.

The most remarkable characteristic of A-bomb damage is the late effects of radiation in humans. An obvious increase in leukemia occurred approximately 5 years after the A-bombings. The following are well known as diseases resulting from exposure to atomic radiation: leukemia, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, gastric cancer, colon cancer, cataracts, chromosomal aberrations, etc. A-bomb Survivors cannot escape the risk of these diseases. For example, the risk of fatality due to leukemia in those who were exposed to 1 gray is approximately 5 times as large as for unexposed persons. A-bomb Survivors also have to live with anxiety over the onset of these diseases. We can clearly state that one of the most serious A-bomb afflictions at present is anxiety about the condition of their health.

Many A-bomb Survivors continue to suffer from psychological consequences caused by their atomic-bomb experiences in addition to medical afflictions. For example, many A-bomb Survivors still dream of or remember their A-bomb experiences. Causes include deaths of family members, acute symptoms, and social discrimination such as “discrimination against marriage”. Previous studies pointed out that the A-bomb afflictions affect every aspect of human life, socioeconomic and psychological, and each aspect is mutually and dynamically related. This paper shows the same result as with previous studies.

The present paper also examined messages from A-bomb Survivors by using the answers toward open-ended question asking the respondents to write about their A-bomb experiences and their message in the Asahi Newspaper Survey in 2005. The paper analyzed the fifty most common words among their answers using statistical methods called multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering. The result shows that the core of their message is “the total abolition of nuclear weapons” and “world peace”. Atomic-bomb Survivors promulgated the ideology, “the total abolition of nuclear weapons” due to their tragic experiences and lead the movement for “only one A-bombed country”. We have a responsibility to live up to their efforts.

The main purpose of this article is to compare four reports on the issue of the elimination of nuclear weapons, namely Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons published in 1996, Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the 21st Century published by the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in 1999, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms published by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission in 2006, and Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers published by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament in 2009.

The author selects nine topics that are regarded as vital issues for the promotion of nuclear disarmament, and carefully reviews how those topics are dealt with in each report. The topics are as follows: definition and treatment of nuclear abolition, actual process of reduction of nuclear weapons, non-first use of nuclear weapons, reduction of the role of nuclear weapons, de-alerting of nuclear weapons, early entry-into-force of the CTBT and banning nuclear tests, treaty banning the production of fissile materials, expansion of nuclearweapon-free zones, and protection of the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

After examining the four reports regarding the above points, the author attempts to measure the influence of those reports on the nuclear policy of the Obama administration by reviewing the Nuclear Posture Review Report (NPR) published by the US Department of Defense in April 2010. Although there is no description of non-first use and nuclear-weapon-free zones, other issues are mentioned in the NPR, and the author recognizes that to some degree there is linkage between the proposals made by the four reports and the contents of the NPR.

Over the years, there have been many calls for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. The recent global trend toward nuclear disarmament, in particular, has provided civil society with an opportunity to intensify calls for a more comprehensive approach, including through the achievement of a legally binding, verifiable Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC).

This paper outlines efforts and initiatives by civil society to pursue an international agreement on the commencement of negotiations toward such a legal framework, including an NWC, with a view to its early conclusion. It begins by providing a brief description and history of such efforts, including the formulation of a model NWC, following the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the threat to use or use of nuclear weapons. This paper argues that a more comprehensive approach would be able to overcome some inherent defects of the traditional “step-bystep” approach preferred by nuclear weapon states, as well as by other states relying on a nuclear umbrella, by providing fair and transparent measures for confidence-building. The paper describes some of the concrete proposals and actions by various sectors of the international community, including mayors of municipalities, parliamentarians and the United Nations Secretary-General.

This paper then focuses on the debates and outcomes of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The agreed recommendations for follow-on actions made reference, for the first time in an NPT Final Document, to the NWC and the international humanitarian law. The paper concludes that such outcomes necessarily highlight the issue of the legitimacy of the Japanese “nuclear umbrella” policy and that a shift in the policy will be required if Japan is to maintain and enhance its moral authority.

Since the U.S. President Obama’s Prague Speech on “A World without Nuclear Weapons” in April 2009, the tide and expectation toward it are mounting all over the world. But his vision itself is a reflection of the U.S. strategic and security interests and it is now facing a grave difficulty emanating from U.S. domestic politics and the logical gap between the U.S. pursuit of superiority and the search for “a world without nuclear weapons”.

This paper tries to situate the agenda for “a world without nuclear weapons” in a broader perspective of transformation of the world into less conflict prone structure where mutual confidence rather than mistrust could play a larger role. We argue that without such structural transformation in perspective those efforts for “a world without nuclear weapons” may turn out to be fatally flawed. The paper first tries to discuss the problems originating from the security dilemma where fear and uncertainty of the future force the states into a spiral of mounting mistrusts in an anarchic structure of international politics. We argue that if the security dilemma remains the basic feature of the international politics it is quite difficult to create a stable structure of “a world without nuclear weapons”. Then the paper talks about the process of the end of the Cold War as a concrete example of solving the security dilemma. We argue that the redefinition of the security issues as a common one by Palme Commission and the capacity and the security dilemma sensibility of the political leaders were the keys to creating a mutually trusting relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and overcoming the Cold War. The paper goes on to discuss the asymmetric conflicts between the powerful nations and the nuclear proliferators, the failing states and terrorists. We call for a unilateral action for tension reduction from the side of the powerful in order to create a more preferable environment for a less conflict prone and trust based world.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the logic of ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ in the context of inequality in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The ‘Negative Security Assurance’ (NSA) and ‘Positive Security Assurance’ (PSA) measures have so far been regarded as significant security assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States. Since the 1960, international society has called upon Nuclear-Weapon States to provide ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ in the form of an internationally legally binding instrument. In particular, the legally binding NSA is expected to (1) ease the inequality in the NPT, (2) rule out the possibility of a nuclear attack by Nuclear-Weapon States, (3) diminish the political and military roles of nuclear weapons, and as a result, (4) bring the world closer to nuclear disarmament.

Scholars have made numerous attempts to propound the logic of inequality in the NPT and ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’. We can divide their view into two categories. The first is that legally binding ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ would ease the inequality in the NPT, and the other is that such legally binding security assurances would not only strengthen the inequality in the NPT, but also cause further nuclear proliferation in the world. However, previous research has never examined which conditions would ease and/or strengthen the inequality in the NPT.

First, this paper confirms the relationship between the inequality in the NPT and ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’. Second, it considers why legally binding ‘Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States’ would ease or strengthen the inequality in the NPT. Finally, it pays much attention to the roles of security commitments, and examines which conditions would ease and/or strengthen the inequality in the NPT.

Transitional justice frameworks have been developed through the various attempts of the societies coming out from conflicts. Emerging practices of transitional justice includes informal local justice systems, which could be categorized as “new” mechanisms to foster peace at the grass roots level.

These innovative approaches, however, face greater pressure to conform to standards of international human rights and due process. There have been different lines of argument over the manner and extent to which local justice and reconciliation systems should be made compatible with global norms. This article examines the institution-building and implementation process of transitional justice in East Timor, by focusing on the Community Reconciliation Process (CRP) based on local customs and rituals. It explores, specifically, the roles played both by domestic and transnational agents who have attempted to build congruence between transnational norms and local ideas and practices.

The prime purpose of the CRP was to encourage the former members of militia to return home and to reintegrate themselves into their communities. The idea of utilizing local mechanisms originated from the strong needs of the local people. The idea of the CRP was first conceptualized at the workshop in 2000 where the local political elites, NGOs, UN staff, and the specialists from ICTJ, an advocacy network to promote transitional justice, met and discussed the justice and reconciliation issue in East Timor. The CRP programme was finalized through numerous consultations with the local people.

The analysis here shows how this process manifested a phenomenon called norm localization. The local and transnational agents translated “reconciliation” in their local context and restructured a truth commission with the CRP which modified their local justice system. This localization process enhanced the reception of international human rights standards as well. This article takes account of the fact that the norm localization could be initiated by not only local, but also transnational agents. Finally, this paper argues that their interaction was vital in the case of East Timor.

A little unique performance of the Passion “Kalbaryo” during Holy week is done every year in St. Vincent Ferrer (SVF) Parish which is mostly located in Barangay La Granja, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental. The people realized the communication which conscientized the violence surrounding themselves, and a grass root religious movement (Basic Christian Community=BCC) rose there. But, most of those activists recently point out the “change” of Kalbaryo and regression of its movement under the circumstances that the parish priest changes one after another in a short period after 1999. Why does it happen? Was there a cause that inhered in the movement or the people’s communication activities themselves?

In this paper the author studies about the necessary conditions of communication toward peace through the analysis of people’s struggles and communication activities for their self-reliance.

The present use of “development” as a transitive verb was invented by the President Truman in January 1949. Destruction of environment/culture, dissolution of social relationships/communities, plunder of livelihood and subordination of the global market have been called as development since then. Developmentalism seized the concept of development and made the people believe that development can solve whole problems such as poverty, hunger and epidemic. However, such problems are caused by violence of developmentalism. Therefore we should break away from developmentalism to overcome its violence. In this paper, the author defines “communication beyond developmentalism” as counter-concept against “development communication” and applies it to analysis the people’s communication activities toward peace. Both of them simultaneously exist in the communication.

In Kalbaryo the communication that had the intention to continuously reach peace in long term certainly existed. It built the people’s solidarity against the militarization (developmentalism) that guarded the profits of the development in short term. However, developmentalism is contained even in the people’s communication and BCC movement. The elements of “development communication” were found out even in Kalbaryo. Reducing those elements in the communication is the way to peace.