詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する:
全文: "アルメニア人虐殺"
12件中 1-12の結果を表示しています
  • 向山 直佑
    国際政治
    2017年 2017 巻 187 号 187_30-187_45
    発行日: 2017/03/25
    公開日: 2017/05/23
    ジャーナル 認証あり

    Since the end of the Cold War, two significant political phenomena have attracted a considerable amount of attention of researchers in political science and related fields: the politicization of history and third-party intervention in domestic jurisdiction matters or bilateral issues. Particularly interesting is the fact that these two not only coexist but are also intertwined in the form of third-party intervention in historical issues.

    Previous studies on historical issues have presupposed that historical issues are bilateral conflicts, leaving studies on the third-party practically nonexistent, and the literature on third-party intervention has largely ignored the motives for it and its effects on the relationship between the intervener and the intervened. This study fills these gaps.

    The case explored in this paper is the issue of genocide recognition of the Armenian Massacre. The predecessor of the Republic of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, allegedly deported and killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians residing in its territory during World War I. The Armenian government and the Armenian diaspora demand that Turkey admit it was genocide and apologize. However, the Turkish government has not offered an apology to date. Consequently, the Armenian side requests foreign governments to officially recognize the atrocities as genocide, while Turkey threatens them with potential deterioration of bilateral ties. This case is the most notable example of historical issues involving third-party intervention and, therefore, the best case for this research.

    The results of this study can be summarized as follows. As for the causes, cross-national and time-series qualitative analyses reveal that the genocide is mainly recognized by countries with a Christian majority and large Armenian communities. International norms of human rights also play an important role.

    Regarding the effects, two aspects of bilateral relationships are examined. First, simple observations of official diplomatic relations show that the Turkish government usually recalls its ambassadors from recognizing countries immediately after recognition, but it sends him/her back after several months, preventing further damage to the relationship. Second, panel data analyses on the amount of bilateral trade and the number of foreign visitors illustrate that there are statistically significant negative effects of genocide recognition, but these effects only last for a few years at most. To summarize, genocide recognition imposes a negative impact on bilateral relations between Turkey and the recognizer in the short run, but the deterioration is only temporary.

  • 吉村 貴之
    ロシア史研究
    2014年 94 巻 74-
    発行日: 2014/05/15
    公開日: 2017/07/25
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 松村 高夫
    史学雑誌
    2007年 116 巻 3 号 362-364
    発行日: 2007/03/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 瀬川 博義
    法政論叢
    1999年 36 巻 1 号 187-196
    発行日: 1999/11/15
    公開日: 2017/11/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    In the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, San Stefano Treaty was signed in March 1878 and granted in dependence to Serbia, Montenegro, and Rumania, and autonomy to a large Bulgarian state. No such provision was either sought or executed for the Armenians. Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909) believed Muslim superiority in the Ottoman Empire. He determined to annihilate the Armenian nation perfectly, and to sweep away that hated Christianity which provoked Europe to interfere. He feared nineteenth-century Armenian Renaissance, and to abort it he preferred to use force, including massacre. Lepsius mentions that the Armenian massacres were caused by the threats for reforms made by the Great Powers. On the night of 23/24 April 1915, numbers of Armenian political, religious, educational, and intellectual leaders in Constantinople were arrested, deported into Anatolia, and put to death. Minister of Internal Affairs Talaat Pasha ordered Armenian deportation from the war zones to relocation centers-actually the deserts of Syria and Mesopotamia. Armenian soldiers of the Ottoman armies were taken out in groups and murdered. The adult and teenage males were swiftly separated from the deportation caravans and killed immediately under the direction of Young Turk officials and agents, the gendarmerie. Women and children who were drive for weeks over mountains and deserts, often dehumanized by being stripped naked and repeatedly preyed upon and abused. About 1,500,000 of the Armenians have been slaughtered by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, The Young Turks and Nationalists in 1894-1923. The survivors of the Ottoman-Armenian were condemned to a life of exile and dispersion and could not help being resigned to inevitable acculturation and assimilation all over the world. The writer's aim in this paper is to raise the following three questions: What happened? Why did it happen? And what might be leaned from the Armenian case?
  • 等松 春夫
    国際政治
    2017年 2017 巻 187 号 187_1-187_15
    発行日: 2017/03/25
    公開日: 2017/05/23
    ジャーナル 認証あり

    The present issue examines relations between memories of history and international politics. In recent years interpretation of history with political implication (rekishi ninshiki) became a serious subject in matters regarding the past of war and colonial rule between Japan and China/Korea. However, the questions of history and politics is not peculiar to East Asian countries. Similar problems are occurring in many parts of the world as shown by articles in the present issue.

    History plays important and in some cases crucial role in domestic politics and international relations. In creating a nation-state a shared understanding of the past is a powerful vehicle to unite people for a common cause. Political actors therefore struggle over the monopoly of national history which is indispensable in gaining legitimacy of the government. However, such a narrative of nation-building is a double-edged sword. It is effective on one hand in maintaining the unity within the domestic community. On the other hand it fosters jingoism and causes frictions between other states. Typical of these are border disputes in which different stories of nation-building provide the confronting states with the basis for territorial claim. In recent years some states contest over registering historical sites and records in UNESCO World Heritage and Memory of the World schemes, thus opening a new battlefront of ‘war of histories’. Official recognition of a specific edition of history by an international organization such as UNESCO has political impact on relations of states concerned.

    A shared understanding of history often serves as a framework for post-war and post-colonial settlements. For example Germany and Japan’s re-entry to the western democracies became possible only when the two states accepted critical edition of their past during the Second World War. History may serve politics in such a way, however, with the side effect of bringing about the clash between ‘political correctness’ and academic objectivity and impartiality. Serious academic attempts to reexamine fixed official interpretation of history are therefore often criticized as revisionism.

    In an attempt to solve such a ‘war of histories’, bilateral/multilateral joint research projects were promoted by some states. European cases such as German-Polish and Franco-German projects on history studies were successful in forming certain degree of shared views of the past, and resulted in the publication of common school history textbooks. However, similar projects between Japan and China/Korea ended in confusion, widening the gap between different approaches to history by the three countries.

    It is expected that articles in the present issue will shed new lights on the question of history and politics.

  • 稲毛 康司
    臨床リウマチ
    2008年 20 巻 4 号 267-268
    発行日: 2008/12/30
    公開日: 2016/11/30
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 吉村 貴之
    現代史研究
    2008年 54 巻 35-51
    発行日: 2008/12/26
    公開日: 2018/06/28
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 寺山 恭輔
    史学雑誌
    2008年 117 巻 5 号 1019-1024
    発行日: 2008/05/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 廣瀬 陽子
    日本比較政治学会年報
    2001年 3 巻 123-157
    発行日: 2001/06/20
    公開日: 2010/12/10
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 松原 康介
    都市計画論文集
    2013年 48 巻 3 号 213-218
    発行日: 2013/10/25
    公開日: 2013/10/25
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
    2011年3月に勃発したシリア内戦は今日まで終わりの気配がみられない。これまでの都市計画分野における協力の実績を考えると、内戦終了の折には戦災復興都市計画において日本が協力していくことが考えられる。この観点から、本稿はベイルートの都市計画通史の分析を行う。オスマン帝国時代の計画、フランス委任統治領時代の計画、あるいはエコシャールや番匠谷といった都市計画家の存在など、シリア主要都市との共通項が多いためである。エコシャールによる1943年の計画は、今日に至るまで後継計画に影響を与えており、ガルゴールとサイフィ二地区の再開発は、ハリーリー及びその後継者達による強いリーダーシップの下で現在進行中である。
  • 小松 香織
    オリエント
    1993年 36 巻 2 号 180-206
    発行日: 1993年
    公開日: 2010/03/12
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 村井 華代
    演劇学論集 日本演劇学会紀要
    2017年 64 巻 58-66
    発行日: 2017/05/30
    公開日: 2017/06/30
    ジャーナル フリー
feedback
Top