Studies of International Relations have been undergoing debates for some time. Contrasting views of international relations have resulted in debates, such as those between idealists and realists over norms and objectivity, and between traditionalists and behavioralists over history via-a-vis science. Recently, the influence of “critical theory, ” which examines relations between a theory and its norms, challenges the mainstream of International Relations, which has pretended to separate itself from values. For instance, recent studies by Robert Cox, R. B. J. Walker, Richard K. Ashley, and Mark Hoffman assert that any theory in the field of International Relations is bound to values and history. These studies try to examine the assumptions and the nature of theories in International Relations.
Under the influence of the recent development of studying the relations between norms and theory in International Relations, this paper analyzes state-centric models in the tradition of realism (i. e. H. J. Morgenthau) and neorealism (i. e. Robert O. Keohane, Kenneth N. Waltz, and Robert Gilpin). This analysis encompasses questions such as: what are the theorists' views of international relations? What are the normative values underlining their views? How are these explanations and values related to each other in each theory?
The state has been seen as the most significant actor in the mainstream of International Relations, including realism which sees international relations as a competition among states, and neorealism which recognizes the increasing importance of international economic issues and international regimes during the era of declining U. S. hegemony. The state continues to be described as a rational actor, and at the same time as an indispensable actor in international relations. Both realism and neorealism are based on their assumptions of the separation between theory and norm and are engaged in their pursuits of science. As natural scientists pursue the control of nature, realists and neorealists consider that their science of international relations will provide practical tools to create order and stability out of international relations, which are seen as originally anarchic.
This examination argues that despite their pretension to value-neutrality, objectivity, scientific outlook, and rationality, the mainstream studies in International Relations are heavily grounded in values. The separation of values and methods create a norm of analytical supremacy and scientific rationality which give the illusion of control over international relations. Realism and neorealism also eliminate challenges to themselves by asserting their “scientific” legitimacy. Accordingly, the dominance of state-centric models in realism and neorealism resulted in their peculiar structure of logic and justification, leaving the field undeveloped in terms of critical challenges to these approaches.
Therefore, this analysis concludes that it is essential to examine the nature of relations between theory and norms within theories. This attempt encourages the examination of these models by challenging their premises. This approach would not immediately invent an “alternative” theory; yet, it is a significant beginning to the reassessment of the state of the field and the consideration of theoretical alternatives. Accordingly, it is essential to create an analytical dialogue with these theories and to examine the textures of theories which weave together norms, values, and ideas within a historical context.

抄録全体を表示

The recent increase in studies of international political economy has resulted in a variety of approaches but caused some confusion regarding the definitions of international political economy. This paper epistemologically examines the studies of International Political Economy, which are categorized into three groups: dependency, neorealism, and political economy. The examination also discusses the implications of these studies to the field of International Relations in general, and specifically to those in Japan.
The dependency school (i. e. A. G. Frank, P. Evans, I. Wallerstein), tried to explain how and why countries in Latin America and Africa failed to develop their economies and fell into dependency. These studies emphasized economic and historical factors in international relations, and attributed the dependency to economic development of the developed economies and to the dynamics of the world economy. There are economic explanations for international relations, yet to simply overemphasize external economic factors by dismissing social structure variables, at best results in economic determinism.
The second group are the studies of the neorealists (i. e. Robert O. Keohane, Kenneth Waltz, R. Gilpin). In contrast to the studies of dependency, those of the neorealists are based on the supremacy of politics over the economy, and the focus on the politics of the international economy. They have borrowed almost all of the important notions of international relations from the realists (i. e. power as the key concept, conflictive nature of inter-state relations, the state as a rational actor). Among them, Waltz is the exception stressing that the international system overrides the state. Their approach is rather static because they argue that the international system is dominant and that the international regime is and should be maintained.
The third, the political economy approach (i. e. Richard K. Ashley, Roger Tooze, Susan Strange, Alain Lipietz, Robert Cox), states the limitations of both the dependency and the neorealists approaches, and pursues a construction of an analytical model by discussing the complicated interaction of politics and economies. They aim to locate the theoretical underpinnings of other approaches through a critical analysis. Yet, the direction of their future development is rather unclear.
This review of International Political Economy studies suggest a few alternatives to improve the field. First, it is necessary to develop a critical analysis of the work in order to be aware of the state of the field. This point is extremely important for studies in Japan since historically they have imported their theories of International Relations. Second, it is important to carefully examine ways in which politics and the economy interact with each other and in conjunction with other factors in international relations. Third, a discussion of the nature of the Japanese political economy is desired in order to reduce the vacuum in this area and to generate discussions of international comparisons.

抄録全体を表示

This paper explores the impact and the possible future impact of recent major changes in the international order on the stability of selected states and regions. As a specific case study, the focus is on language policies as developed by the European Community.
The paper begins with an overview of language policies and practices of the Community from its origins in the 1950s down to the 1990s, tracing the effects of expansion from six of fifteen member states and from four to eleven official languages. This period saw a gradual informal separation of working languages and official languages in EC, and language questions became politically sensitive from several different standpoints. Reunification of Germany in 1989-90 reinforced the claims of German to obtain equality with French and English as a working language, and this claim was formally recognized in September 1993 by a Commission announcement that English, French, and German are the languages of documents intended for internal use. This historical overview also traces efforts to improve the situation of Europe's “lesser used” minority or regional languages during this period, especially through the elaboration of a European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages under the Council of Europe.
A second part of the paper looks ahead towards the prospective expansion of the European Community northward and eastward, discussing the possible consequences for EC language policy if the countries of Central Europe become members in the near or middle future. The most probable result of such an expansion would be an enlarged and rather different Community organized on a three-tier language system, with more exlicit differentiation between working languages, official languages, and “lesser used” minority or regional languages.

抄録全体を表示