At the 1979 Peace Studies Association of Japan (PSAJ) conference held in Okinawa, Okinawan presenters bitterly criticized opinion leaders from mainland Japan who presented arguments that lacked a perspective on the Okinawan people. PSAJ accepted this criticism and deepened the concept of “Independence” by conducting discussions that respected the Okinawan local perspective. Despite this, the political reality in Okinawa has not changed. This is because“Independence” and“ Peace” have become unconditionally linked. In this paper, we examine what kind of “Independence”is required to realize“Peace” in Okinawa.

First, I clarified that Okinawa is a “decision-maker without decision-making authority” by reviewing the history of the Futenma base relocation issue. Next, using the results of a survey of Okinawan citizens’ recognitions, I argued that some Okinawans have given up on the U.S. military base issues. Furthermore, I pointed out that the majority of Japanese society accepts the Japanese government’s attitude that has made Okinawa “the decision-maker without decision-making authority,” and as a result, the gap between Okinawa and mainland Japan is widening. I also revealed that the spread of neoliberalism’s values and the crisis of democracy are behind these situations.

In order to break out of this situation, we must create a political system that allows the voice of Okinawa to be reflected in politics. To do so, it is necessary to continue to resist the technocrats, including entrepreneurs, bureaucrats, and politicians, who have pushed neoliberalism forward. This is the responsibility of Japanese society and PSAJ.

This paper is written to identify the mutual purposes and significance of peace studies (heiwa kenkyū) and indigenous studies. To this end, it traces the roots of peace studies, introduces some aspects of indigenous studies, and then explores how both disciplines can find constructive common ground. Furthermore, this paper aims to confirm that each reader, either as a peace researcher or as a citizen living in Japan, is inescapably a party to issues concerning indigenous peoples in Japan.

Indigenous peoples in Japan have been multiply invisibilized. This paper confirms that colonial studies (shokumingaku) and colonial policy theory (shokumin seisaku-ron) at Hokkaido Imperial University and Tokyo Imperial University, one of the source disciplines of peace studies, have a side that has remained in the shadows when illuminated from the perspective of indigenous peoples. The structural violence that renders indigenous peoples invisible is the absence of awareness of racism and colonialism in Japan and the dynamics that attempt to grasp the challenges of the Ainu people only through cosmetic promotion of culture. The paper also traces discussion by indigenous scholars on how the decolonization discussion in Japan differs from that in other advanced areas of indigenous policy and research, such as Canada.

The indigenous issues surrounding the Ainu people and the issues of colonialism were “peace issues,” which are also blind spots from the perspective of war, anti-nuclear weapons, and conflict. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the society, I would like to discuss its significance for the future of the Japanese Peace Studies Association from the perspective of indigenous studies.

In this paper, I discuss how the issues of peace and violence have been analyzed in the area of Transnational Sociology, a relatively new discipline that .rst emerged in the 1980s. Transnational Sociology focuses on phenomena that cannot be understood well within disciplines that deal with nations and states as units, as nation-states have become relatively weak in the face of globalization. This article analyzes a prominent work in Transnational Sociology by Mitsuo Ogura and Sayaka Funa-da-Classen that deals with con.ict and violence （『解放と暴力――植民地支配とアフリカの現在』東京大学出版会、 2018年）, together with two books authored by myself （The Nellie Massacre of 1983: Agency of Rioters, 2013年, Sage;『終わりなき暴力とエスニック紛争――インド北東部の国内避難民』慶應義塾大学出版会， 2021年） , in an attempt to grasp the trends in the discipline. The study of diverse actors, including colonial subjects, small farmers, and internally displaced persons, has revealed that the question of what peace and liberation mean to them has become central to the discipline of Transnational Sociology, which emerged with the rise of non-state ac-tors as catalysts. Existing studies on peace and violence in the discipline can serve as attempts to enrich the “subject of peace”（「平和の主体論――サバルタンとジェンダーの視点から」『平和研究』Vol. 42） that has been previously highlighted by Chiha-ru Takenaka, and have the potential to open up a new horizon for Peace Studies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors contributing to the prolonged Libyan civil war with military interventions since 2011 from the perspective of shifts and diversification in the international legal bases asserted by the intervening states for their use of force. While previous research has pointed out various domestic and international issues contributing to the prolongation of the Libyan civil war, there has been a division of perspectives regarding international factors. Some argue that major powers did not commit sufficient military force to address the conflict, while others point to the problem of the provision of weapons and mercenaries by major powers and relevant countries to factions in the Libyan civil war.

The issue at hand is that even if major powers were to decide on a full-scale commitment of military force or a complete cessation of military support, as suggested in the preceding research, it is not easy for them to persuade a wide array of relevant countries to act consistently with such decisions. This paper investigates why it is difficult for major powers to persuasively control the use of force by relevant countries, whose legality is not necessarily clear. It does so by focusing on the “unwilling or unable” criteria [doctrine; formula; standard; test; theory], which is a feature of the justification for the use of force under international laws commonly employed by relevant countries, including major powers.

This paper highlights the issue of relevant countries using the “unwilling or unable” criteria to shift and diversify the international legal bases for the use of force in Libya. It then discusses why this shifts and diversification should be scrutinized as a significant factor contributing to the prolonged use of force in Libya.

The article aims to address the question of whether neutral or biased mediators are more effective in resolving international conflicts and to help overcome the neutral- bias debate over mediators. A large number of previous research have focused on the bargaining problems (the problem of information uncertainty and the commitment problem) and have argued that biased mediators are effective. However, why does the neutral-bias debate still persist?

First, previous research has lumped together a variety of biases in their analyses. Second, previous research using observational data such as quantitative analysis and case studies, has endogeneity problems including confounding factors and selection bias. This article, therefore, focuses on biases in military and economic relationships, which are considered theoretically important. As an analytical method, this research uses a survey experiment, which is relatively new in international mediation research but is considered superior in identifying causal relationships to other methods.

The experimental results show that mediators with economic-relational bias are more effective than neutral mediators. On the other hand, mediators with military relational bias are more effective than neutral mediators under the problem of information uncertainty. The two main contributions of this article are as follows. First, it presents the importance of distinguishing the nuances of bias with respect to the specific roles of the mediator to overcome the neutral-bias debate. Second, this research shows that experimental methods are effective in addressing endogeneity problems.

The Preface of “Peace Research” No. 55, the PSJA journal published March 2021 addresses the issue of climate change, along with several other issues, as “Current Challenges for Our Humanity to Live in Peace.”

It asserts that “the situation in which the theory of anthropogenic CO2 global warming has become the sole focus of attention is equivalent to a loss of ‘academic freedom’ in meteorology”, then argues “scientific verification is necessary” there is “no shortage of objections” and “scientific objectivity has not been established”. Although fair and rational science-based discussions should be considered, many of the “objections” brought up in this editorial are either issues that have been settled within scientific debates, or are unverifiable claims with unclear evidence.

Climate change issues are also closely related to domestic and international disparities, poverty, conflicts, hunger, and other social issues. The concept of “climate justice” has been raised as well. However, the assertions in the preface of the journal seemingly deny the internationally shared sense of crisis towards climate change and the drastic need for greenhouse gas reduction; rather, it abandons responsibility to developing countries, small island nations, and future generations. Those issues should have been shared and pursued more seriously and thoroughly in the PSAJ journals with greater sensitivity and deeper awareness.

Based on this awareness of the issues, this paper refutes the perceptions and assertions about climate change in the preface, providing specific evidence and clarifying the issues.