Unilateralism has been widely considered a coordinate concept of multilateralism, mainly because an element of cooperation in multilateralism has been emphasized by John Ruggie who has influenced, to a great extent, the development of the study of multilateralism. However, the former represents an attitude or posture in conducting diplomacy and its coordinate concept is “cooperativism, ” while the latter express a number of players participating in a game of diplomacy and a framework for the game and its coordinate concept is bilateralism.
David M. Malone and Yuen Foong Khong, editors of “Unilateralism & U. S. Foreign Policy, ” insist that unilateralism refers to a tendency to opt out of a multilateral framework or to act alone in addressing a particular global or regional challenge, rather than choosing to participate in collective actions. That states do so because they do not wish to subject themselves to “generalized principles of conduct” (John Ruggie) being negotiated or enforced, or they may find such principles inimical to their national interests.
Therefore, when we attempt to analyze diplomatic approaches of a specific state, we have to take account of two dimensions: the dimension of diplomatic attitude (unilateralism/“cooperativism”) and the dimension of a number of diplomatic players (bilateralism/multilateralism).
If these two dimensions are taken together, we can make up a coordinate axis. Approaches of U. S. departed from isolationism, vigorously engaged in intervention policy (bilateral unilateralism) especially in the area of the Caribbean Sea and Central America. After responding to World War I with multilateral unilateralism, which can be thought equal to Wilsonianism labeled “internationalism of crisis” (Frank Ninkovich), the U. S. conducted foreign policies of multilateral unilateralism “cooperativism” among great powers. The U. S., which hesitated to adopt Wilsonianism as “internationalism of crisis” in response to the Manchurian Incident caused by Japan, carefully came to introduce Wilsonianism after the outbreak of the Sino-Japan War (July of 1937) and World War II.
The U. S. having led World War II by fully applying Wilsonianism made the utmost efforts to create a new world order on the basis of multilateralism cooperativism. he United Nations System and Bretton-Woods System symbolize the U. S. -led multilateralist cooperativism. But C. Hemmer and P. J. Katzenstein criticize the U. S. foreign policy of multilateralism (which naturally contains an element of cooperation according to Ruggie), saying that the U. S. applied these global principles differently in different regions, and projects its norms onto the global scene in a highly selective fashion that itself needs to be explained.

抄録全体を表示

Many books and articles have been published about the foreign policy of the United States since the demise of the Cold War, but few of them examine and analyze the U. S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War based upon the manipulative Cold War concept. I will first examine what the Cold War was like and then how the end of it impacted upon the world affairs and the U. S. foreign policy.
Today it is widely said that we live not in the post-Cold War period but in the post-post-Cold War period. The September 11 terrorist attack in 2001 seems to make us recognize that we live definitely in the world of the post-post-Cold War period quite different from that of post-Cold War. Even though the end of the Cold War gave the serious impact upon the world and the U. S. foreign policy after it and furthermore the U. S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War profoundly affected the world affairs including September 11 attack, the concept of the Cold War has remained ambiguous even in the academia. Unless it has not been clearly defined, we cannot thoroughly discuss how the demise made an impact upon the world affairs and the U. S. foreign policy. This is why I attempted to examine or define the Cold War which might be to a greater extent used to explain the international politics after the World War II In my article I temporarily define the Cold War as “a state of tension short of direct military collision caused by deterioration of the political communication system between the US and the Soviet, juxtaposed against the threat of an all out annihilation upon humanity provoked by conflict of ideology and nuclear arms”.
Considering the impact of the end of the Cold War upon the international politics based on this definition of the Cold War, I edited this special issue of “International Relations” under the title of “The U. S. Foreign Policy in the World after the Cold War”. Prof. Hideki Kan re-examines the foreign policies of Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. Administrations from the various angles. Mr. Tatsuya Nishida analyzes the unipolar system taking shape in the post-Cold War world using the balancing theory. Mr. Osamu Kitamura profoundly considers why the United States has been engaged in “the Democratic War” from the perspective of the history of international political thoughts and attempts to reveal the bedrock of the U. S. foreign policy. Mr. Young-Geun Kim explores the reasons why the U. S. trade policy shifted from its conflict with GATT to its coordination/harmonization with WTO. Prof. Nobumasa Akiyama first traces how and why the United States sought to build an order/system for nuclear weapons non-proliferation and then examines how and why the Bush Jr. Administration has tried to reorganize the order/system. Both Prof. Takako Ueta and Tomonori Yoshizaki closely examine the relationship of the United States with NATO in the post-Cold War period. Prof. Motohide Saito overviews the background and process that the relationship between the U. S. and Russia has swung or “zigzagged” especially after September 11. Prof. Emi Mifune examines the reasons why the United States sometimes cooperates and sometimes conflicts with China apparently becoming a great power in the post-Cold War period. Prof. Yuko Ito surveys the U. S. -Philippine relations in the post-Cold War era while analyzing the reasons of the change of the relations. Mr. Kouhei Imai examines the role of Turkey in the U. S. foreign policy toward the Middle East introducing the concept of “transmission middle-power”.

抄録全体を表示