１．目的

　ギリシャはEUでも特に小規模沿岸漁業が盛んな国であるが，それゆえに，近年はローカルな小規模漁業の実態とナショナルスケール以上の施策との齟齬が問題となっている．本発表では，ギリシャにおける海洋保護区（Marine Protected Area，以下，MPA）を例に取り，漁業者をはじめとする関連主体がどのように内外の関係性を構築しているかについて，MPAおよび漁場利用の空間性に着目しながら予察的に検証する．

２．対象地域と調査手法

　調査対象地は，ギリシャ西部のザキントス県ザキントスとした．ザキントス島の南部にあたるラガナ湾は，アカウミガメCaretta carettaの産卵地として重要な役割を担うことなどが評価され，1999年に湾内がMPAに指定された．湾内のMPAは複数のゾーンに分かれており（図１），湾東部のゾーンAのみ，5～10月の季節限定で禁漁区となる．その管理は，独立行政法人であるNational Marine Park of Zakynthos（以下，NMPZ）が中心となって実践されている．

　ザキントスの漁業に関する正確な統計は得られていないが，ラガナ湾では主に延縄と刺網が営まれており，湾内の操業漁家数は専・兼業あわせて50世帯前後と見込まれる．漁業者組織としては，1970年代に結成されたFisherman’s Unionが唯一のものである．

　現地調査では，2017年3月～4月にかけてラガナ湾沿岸のリムニ・ケリウおよびアギオス・ソスティスに滞在し，正規漁業者，地域住民，Fisherman’s Union代表，NMPZ代表及び所属研究員らに聞取り調査を実施した．

3．結果

　ラガナ湾におけるMPAの設立・維持においては，一貫してNMPZが主導な役割を果たしてきた．また，近年注目を集める参加型MPAの実践として，2012年にはNMPZ，ザキントス漁業局，港湾警察，およびFisherman's Unionの代表からなるFishing Committeeが発足した．一連の取り組みでは，特にNMPZ職員の専門知識と仲介の努力がMPAの維持に貢献していた．
　一方で，伝統的に海域利用の主役であった漁業者は，ラガナ湾の利用と管理をめぐる近年の議論から後退しつつある．2017年現在，Fishing CommitteeではゾーンAの通年禁漁化について議論と交渉が始められており，少なくともFisherman’s Unionの代表は全面禁漁化に同意する見込みである．これは合意形成の成功というよりも，ラガナ湾内における漁業規模の縮小が大きな要因として挙げられる．すなわち，全面禁漁化の実現は，必ずしもNMPZや他主体との協調性やMPAに対する漁業者の理解が高まったことを意味するものではない．近年はゾーンAの境界線近くに操業が集中する傾向（edge fishing）が生じており，全面禁漁化によってこの傾向が強化される可能性も否定できない．

抄録全体を表示

ギリシャにおけるワイン釀造は, ブドウとワインの神“ディオニソス (バッカス)”に守られて, 有史以前から現代にかけて営々と続いている。しかしながら, その現状については今までほとんど日本に紹介されていないだけに, 本稿はきわめて貴重な資料といえよう。

抄録全体を表示

Wallachia and Moldavia, which fell under the Ottoman rule as autonomous vassal states, were under the control of the Porte during the 16^<th> and the 17^<th> centuries, while the Ottoman Empire was superior in power to Western Europe. During the 18^<th> century, however, Russia began to influence these two principalities. In the Treaty of Kyuchuk-Kainardja after its victory in the Russo-Turkish War, Russia obtained a voice in the affairs of these principalities and at the same time succeeded in establishing a puppet voyvoda in Moldavia, but could not spread its influence into both principalities voyvoda's execution at the hands of the Porte. After this incident Russia pursued a consistent policy to keep pro-Russians in the post of voyvoda and in the fermans issued in 1802 obtained more authority over the Principalities, taking advantage of the changes occurring in the international relations surrounding the Ottoman Empire and the disorder in the Balkans involving the powerful ayans at the end of the century. These fermans, making up a de facto the diplomatic agreement between Russia and the Porte, fixed the term of the voyvoda's appointment to 7 years, making the Porte's free removal of voyvodas more difficult. Simultaneously, Russia succeeded in putting a pro-Russian in the post of the Wallachian voyvoda. Afterwards, this queastion was used politically by France, which actively tried to approach the Ottoman Empire and break up the Russo-Ottoman alliance, and in 1806, according to the suggestion of France, the Porte suddenly, without any notice to Russia, dismissed both voyvodas. This event was regarded by Russia as a change in Ottoman diplomacy and resulted in the Russo-Turkish War (1806-1812). The appointment of rulers to the vassal states by their suzerain had been one of the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire until the Treaty of Kyuchuk-Kainardia. Only 30 years after the Treaty, however, it turned into an important international question symbolizing the Ottoman diplomatic policy. We can consider this fact to be an aspect of the process by which both the Ottoman Empire and Russia were rapidly joining the western state system during this period.

抄録全体を表示

Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nda nufus bakimindan Muslumanlardan sonra ikinci sirayi alan Rumlar, ozerklik icinde yasayarak devlete sadakatle hizmet ediyorlardi. Bu durum 1821'de Mora'da ortaya cikan ve 1829'a kadar suren Rum Ihtilaliyle degisti. 1830'da Yunan Devleti(1833'ten sonra Kralligi)'nin bagimsizligi, Buyuk Gucler tarafindan kabul edildi. 1832'de Yunanistan'in sinirlari tespit edildi. O zamanki Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nda yasayan Rumlarin nufusu, bagimsizlik elde eden Yunanistan'daki Rum nufusundan yaklasik uc kat fazlaydi. Osmanli Imparatorlugu ile Yunanistan Kralligi arasindaki halkin hareketleri hakkinda simdiye kadar yapilan arastirmalarin tartismasi, ozetle "goclerin hangi taraftan hangi tarafa goclerin daha fazla oldugu" merkezinde idi. Fakat, bu arastirmalarda gocmenlerin niceligi belirtilmiyordu. Ayrica, "gocmek" ile "gurbete gitmek" kavramlarinin farkliligi belirtilmeyip, bolge ve tarih sinirlamasi da olmadigindan, halkin hareketlerinin durumu acikca anlasilamamaktadir. Zaten, halkin 1821'den sonraki hareketlerinin tam bir istatistiki durumunu cikarmak mumkun gorunmuyor. Buna ragmen hususi bir bolge ve donemin incelenmesi, gelecek arastirmalar icin faydali olacaktir. Bundan dolayi bu makale Yunanistan'in kurulusundan, yani 1830'dan Islahat Fermani'nin ilan edildigi 1856'ya kadarki surede, -ozellikle 1832'den sonra bir sinir bolgesi olan-Tesalya Bolgesi'ndeki halkin hareketlerini incelemektedir. Osmanli-Yunanistan arasindaki sinir bolgesinde, sadece Osmanli Rumlari ve Yunanistan Rumlari degil, Muslumanlar ve diger gruplar(Ulah, Arnavut) da bu hareketlere katilarak hududu gecmekte idiler. Sinir bolgesinde yasayanlar, 1830'dan onceki hareketlerine buyuk oranda devam etmektelerdi. Tesalya Bolgesindeki bu karsilikli gidip gelmeler, ticaret, hizmetkarlik, ciftliklerde calismak ve akrabalar ile gorusmek gibi sebeplerden kaynaklanmaktaydi. Hatta bazi Yunanli askerler ile suclularin Osmanli topragina, bazi Osmanli askerler ve suclularin da Yunanistan'a firar ettikleri bilinmektedir. Osmanli topragina firar eden Yunanlilar, bolgedeki Osmanli memurlari tarafindan sorusturulduktan sonra, sinirdan uzak olan ve Rumeli ordusunun bulundugu Manastir'da iskan edildiler. Yunanistan'a firar ettikten bir sure sonra geri donen Osmanli askerleri ise, Anadolu veya Arabistan'daki ordulara gonderildiler veyahut Ergiri'deki komur madenlerinde calistirildilar. Aslinda Osmanli tebaasindan olan, fakat Rum Ihtilali donemlerinde veya ondan sonraki donemlerde Yunanistan'a firar edip, bir sure sonra Tesalya ve Epir Bolgelerine donen ve tekrar Osmanli tabiiyetini kabul eden en az 1000 kisi oldugu bilinmektedir. Onlarin disinda, donmek isteyenlerin sayisi yaklasik 8500 hane ve 43 kisi idi. Ama belgelerde bu iki durum hakkinda fazla bilgi yoktur. Bundan dolayi, bu kisilerin ne zaman ve neden firar ettikleri ve geri donmelerindeki sebepler tam olarak belli degildir. Donenlere Osmanli Devleti iki veya uc senelik cizye muafiyeti verdi ve diger vergilerini de hafifletti. Ama geri donenlerin kefil bulmasi zorunluydu. Bunlarin geri donusu cogunlukla 1841'den sonra olmustur. Ozellikle 1848'de geri donus artmistir. Donus sebeplerinin, Yunanistan'daki kotu durum(isyan, haydut hareketleri, ve dogal afetler vb), Tesalya ve Epir Bolgelerinin sinir bolgesi olmalarindan dolayi Osmanli hukumetinin buralari daha hassas bir sekilde idare etmesi ve Gulhane Hatt-i Humayununa ve islahatlara baglanan umitler oldugu tahmin edilmektedir. Yunan tabiiyetinde olanlar Osmanli topraginda esnaf olabiliyorlarsa da kethudalik ve Osmanli tebaasindan birinin mirascisi olamazlardi. Bundan dolayi, geri donenler tekrar Osmanli tabiiyetini kabul etmistir.

抄録全体を表示

At the beginning of the 19th century, corsairs of the regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli of the Ottoman Empire, also called the "Barbary corsairs," were terminated by the military and diplomatic pressure of Western countries. The Barbary corsairs were abolished partly because modern Europe had an inclination to consider Barbary corsairs inadmissible and illegal on the grounds of doctrines such as humanitarianism, free trade, and prohibition of private war. Until the 18th century, European countries signed peace treaties with the regencies in exchange for the payment of tribute. In other words, they passively admitted the existence of Barbary corsairs in order to ensure the safety of domestic vessels. Britain and France had also condoned activities of Barbary corsairs for the exclusion of other European states from the Mediterranean trade. However, such coexistence collapsed dramatically at the beginning of the 19th century. The United States and subsequently Britain commenced military actions against the regencies in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 between these two countries ended. They absolutely denied the system of Barbary corsairs on the grounds of humanitarianism, free trade, and prohibition of private war. This entailed the release of European and American slaves and the refusal of the tribute system. European powers discussed a project for a league against the regencies in the Congress of London and decided on the abolition of Barbary corsairs in the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. In 1819, an English-French combined fleet informed the regencies of the resolution of the European powers and demanded the abolition of the corsairs. Algiers and Tunis refused the European demand, asserting that they maintained friendly relations with European powers, the treaties with European powers were strictly observed, and the abandonment of corsairs signified the one-sided renunciation of war against European countries. Although this negotiation did not result in an explicit conclusion, Barbary corsairs were thereafter strongly restricted under the European military and diplomatic pressure. Finally, in 1830, the French invasion of Algiers and the conclusion of a treaty between Tunis and France put an end to Barbary corsairs. The abolition of Barbary corsairs is an example of the beginning of the international system based on the values of modern Europe. Although realized by means of military force, also called gunboat diplomacy, the doctrine of modern Europe such as humanitarianism, free trade, and prohibition of private war, became a universal norm in the area of international relations. The end of Barbary corsairs was a process in which European powers tried to abolish them on the basis of a dualistic view of good and evil. Certainly, the system of modern Europe is "good" and that of Barbary corsairs is "evil." At the beginning of the 19th century, European powers adopted a dualistic view and endeavored to eradicate the evil and to extend the good in the practice of international relations. Consequently, Barbary corsairs were abolished and the international system was westernized. In addition, the European dualistic view became universal as the international system was based on the values of modern Europe, or westernized. In conclusion, the modern European dualistic view of good and evil and the Westernization of the international system were closely related because the former morally urges the latter and the latter establishes the universality of the former.

抄録全体を表示

This essay aims to explore the vision for state regeneration advanced by a Greek political party known as the Team of the Japanese by analyzing the party's arguments against Theotokis' government in the Greek parliament in the wake of the Currant Scandal of 1907. This political party was established by seven depu-ties in 1906 in a period when the Greek parliament suffered from stagnation in terms of both domestic and international politics. The Currant Scandal was disclosed by Dimitrios Gounaris, a member of the Team of the Japanese, in December 1907 in the parliament. He found out that the agreement between the government and the Privileged Company to Foster the Production and Trade of Currants included terms that would illegally benefit the company at the expense of currant growers. The attacks of the Team of the Japanese against the government pushed the government to the verge of collapse. The criticism of the Team of the Japanese against the government reveals that the Team of the Japanese intended to realize political reform by rebuilding parliamentarianism, which had been considered moribund in Greece. The party attempted to achieve parliamentarianism in order to revive the state. We can summarize the parliamentarian ideals of the Team of the Japanese with three dimensions. First, the Team claimed that every issue related to the national interest should be confirmed by the parliament. Second, it argued that the cabinet should take ethical responsibility for the parliament. Third, it emphasized that a prime minister should cultivate "sensitivity" to the parliamentary system and engage in state affairs with a mind toward the collective responsibility of the cabinet. Indeed, the Team of the Japanese distinguished itself as a reform-oriented and viable political force in the first decade of the twentieth century, a period that. previous scholars have characterized simply as chaotic and apathetic. Further research will offer a more complete picture of this party and fill in a missing piece of the process of reform and modernization from the Trikoupis' period to the Venizelos' era.

抄録全体を表示