M.ウォルツァーの配分的正義論は、他の財とは独立した財の独自な意味に応じて、さらには財の意味が解釈され共有される社会・文化・共同体の文脈に応じて、社会的財が複合的に配分されるべきだと論じるものである。ウォルツァーは、教育の領域においても、複合的な平等が考察されると考える。学校、教師-生徒関係、知識といった教育の財は、経済や政治の秩序に規定されない独自の自律した配分の過程を構成する。教育は、単なる私的な財ではない。私たちが集合的に願望する社会的財である。それは、私たちの社会・文化・共同体のなかに埋め込まれたものである。だが、この配分的正義の自律した領域というウォルツァーの構想は、不徹底であるばかりか、疑問である。というのも、もし私たちが社会的財としての教育の正義や配分の平等をまじめに考慮するならば、かれの考察は<善さ>や<承認>の主張を取り巻くパラドクスに必ず突きあたることになるからである。

抄録全体を表示

This study considers political philosophy as a normative inquiry and examines how the topic of peace can be approached. Political philosophy, particularly theories of justice, is a normative study that deals with the “ought” in the world, in contrast to empirical studies that consider the empirical aspects of the world. Approaches to this question can be divided into two subfields: ideal and non-ideal theories. In the international community, non-ideal theories have been considered as the primary issue in confronting a non-ideal state of affairs, such as the use of force. One such theory is the just war tradition. A controversy between utopianism and realism over the idealization level to be employed in normative studies exists even within this theoretical framework. Political philosophy includes aspects that dare to uphold unrealistic utopias. The possible agendas of peace studies that can be interpreted as extensions of these aspects include opportunity-cost pacifism, justice in the abolition of war, and the theory of world integration.

抄録全体を表示

In dieser Abhandlung lasst sich sogennante neue Zivilgesellschaft und Engagement und zwar besonders in Deutschlnad behandeln. Im 2. Abschnitt wird der Unterschied zwischen Burgerliche Gesellschaft und Zivilgesellschaft beschrieben. Die Burgerliche Gesellschaft wird als eine Wirtschaftsgesellschaft begreifen. Was wichtig hier ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Staat und Burgerliche Gesellschaft oder Zivilgesellschaft.Nahmlich muss man auf jeder Zeit bemerken, ob sie abhangig von ihm ist oder nicht. Im 3. Abschnitt lasst sich betrachten, was die neue Zivilgesellschaft ist, und im 4. Abschnitt behandle ich die Vieldeutigkeit der Zivilgesellschft. Denn spricht man von Zivilgesellschaft und Engagement normalerweise in Deutschland mit Beziehung auf die neue soziale Bewegung, die sich mit vielen verschiedenen Werten verknupfen konnte. Daraus kommt eine Idee, dass Zivilgesellschaft als ein Ziel der Demokratie sei. Im 5. Abschnitt sehe ich jene Gefahr durch, kritisierte ich letztlich die Moglichkeit der Zivilgesellschaft, die zurzeit als ob entpolitisierender Begriff diskutiert wird.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines the justice-related questions that the international actors face when they implement the concept of “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” particularly its Pillar 3 activities (outside international actors’ activities to protect populations under atrocious humanitarian crises within a sovereign state). The R2P is an important tool to protect the freedoms (= survival, livelihood and dignity) of those people who aspire to liberate/self-determine themselves from violent and autocratic situations (= the pursuit of “de-autocratization”). Justice in the implementation of the R2P concept can be found in two contexts. First, justice is an embedded elements of a social order (= “embedded justice”) on which the members share the general consensus on what constitutes justice in the society they belong. Second, justice involves not only the identification of those “injustices” to be corrected but also the actions to actually “correct” the unjust situation by which the people are deprived of their freedoms. The R2P tests the will of those international actors to see whether they are willing to take the “responsible” roles to “respond” to the calls of the people on the ground for help. In the traditional “society of sovereign states” perspective, the norm of non-intervention of domestic affairs plays the key role. But in order for the international actors to implement the R2P concept to protect the populations living inside sovereign states, it is essential to broaden the scope of the “society,” beyond the “inter-state society” model and to imagine the meta-level “global society” in which all the stakeholders live side-by-side and share the overall consensus on what constitutes “the embedded justice” in the society. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the R2P concept is implemented by the international actors only where the scope of “inter-state society” and that of the broader “global society” overlap. To achieve a society with a global perspective is not totally idealistic. The Roma Statute of the International Criminal Court has already envisioned the society in which “all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage” and resolved to establish the Court to “guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice.” This agreement represents a step forward in our idea of justice in this globalized world. Having said so, however,the appropriate “middle ground ethics” has not been fully shared among the international actors, thus the international R2P interventions have been selective and arbitrary. Moreover, the change of political regimes often ensued in the guise of intervention for humanitarian purposes. Thus, the discourse and practice of the R2P challenge us how best we can harmonize the multiple “embedded justices” to achieve the common goal of the protection of human lives in a dynamic way.

抄録全体を表示

Social crises like employment crisis, huge budget deficits, distrust of old-age pension and health service system, serious stagnation of countryside economies, and weakening of family are strongly correlated with economic and social policies based on neo-liberal ideology which gained power in countries like the U K and the U S in 1980' but is now outdated and unsuitable to present problems in many countries like Japan. We must deal with such problems by economic and social policies which are based on reflexive pro-welfare state idea. We previously criticized influential theories that welfare state systems have been dismantled with transformation of capitalist economies in advanced countries. On the other hand, the views are gaining ground that welfare state system has not been dismantled but has no good prospect as effective and justified social system. The following evidences are often offered to support such a view. Globalization is undermining the capacity of the interventionist and revenue-raising welfare state. Since Keynesianism is held no longer to work, welfare state lacks its own viable political economy for managing economic life. There are some truths in such views, but they are just looking at one side of the matter because they lack exact understanding what welfare state systems have developed until now. Recently, many people discuss civil society. The revival of concept of civil society is connected with rises of democratic struggles against totalitarian socialist regimes in East European countries and new social movements in the West (civil movements of black people, student and youth movements, feminist movements, peace and ecology movements). We consider how the concept of civil society makes discussions of the welfare state system productive and expands potentiality of present welfare state systems by analyzing civil society notions of leading scholars (John Keane, Jean L. Cohen and Michael Walzer). We argue that the claim that welfare state has impoverished the relations of civil society is not confirmed by an investigation into various welfare state systems. We perceive the fundamental distinction between universal and means-tested social policy measures. Universal welfare programs in Sweden cannot be seen as subversive of civil society as compared with selective social programs in the United States. We must reform welfare state systems based on the economic, political and moral logic of the welfare state. Institutions matter for great possibilities in welfare state. If citizens believe that welfare policy goals are legitimate, welfare policy is carried out in a fair manner, all citizens bear their share of the costs of a given policy, they are likely to support welfare state. We must take account of this perspective on local decentralization reforms and tax reforms. We must reform welfare state systems based on fundamental changes of economic and social systems. These changes include globalization of economy, the changing role of women, new changed relations between citizens and state. We must transform the welfare state from a safety net in times of trouble to a springboard for economic opportunity. The principal duties of a new welfare state are to promote lifelong learning, to support full employment in a modern economy and to underpin present social security.

抄録全体を表示

The issue of citizenship in the theory of justice has focused almost exclusively on the relationship of individuals with the domestic government-of citizens with their state. However, the condition of citizenship is dynamically changing both inside and outside of the domestic government in the era of globalization.

This paper will theorize the reflection on the notion of citizenship in hospitality, building on Derrida’s engagement with “unconditional hospitality” through the bridging of political theory, moral philosophy, and international relations theory, especially by focusing on the implication of recent ideas on the concept of “the principle of affected interests” and stakeholder democracy. In doing so, I define the suitable postulates and conditions of citizenship, which is compatible with global ethics, by referring critically to some of the dichotomic debates between communitarianism’s “thick moral” and cosmopolitanism’s “thin moral”; I attempt to go beyond this dichotomy, a term that is sometimes used overenthusiastically, neglecting the negative implications it may carry.

A similar uncritical stance may be observed in the reception of Kant’s notion of “the right of a stranger,” which is limited to the conditions of universal hospitality, developed in his famous piece on Perpetual Peace, a text that has been at the core of recent debates on cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan citizenship. I revisit Kant’s text to discuss the implications of his project and Derrida’s critique of Kant’s idea on the conditional hospitality of “the right of a stranger.”

After distinguishing between the “conditional hospitality” and “unconditional hospitality” of the stranger, I attempt to develop a politics and ethics of hospitality due to the stranger. I conclude with a few implications of “the politics of hospitality.”

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper lies in clarifying why the increasingly dire humanitarian situation did not necessarily improve, despite the initiatives taken by the international community, after the end of the Cold War. Much of the existing research argues that the international community did not have a sufficient desire, nor did it take sufficient actions to improve the humanitarian situation during the two decades after the end of the Cold War. This paper first demonstrates that this explanation alone is not complete, and then raises the issue of the “paradox of humanitarianism.” There was a succession of new policies relating to preventing and reacting to humanitarian issues, as well as rebuilding following the rise of these issues, that were created based on previous lessons learned when a humanitarian crisis took place, escalated, or was unable to be prevented from reoccurring. One of the results of these policies was the expansion of the content of the actions taken through rebuilding policies, known as post-conflict peace building, and a lengthening of these policies’ timetables. It has become difficult to implement these rebuilding policies without constraining the sovereignty of the nation where the humanitarian crisis is taking place, and without arousing anxieties in the leadership of that nation. Due to this anxiety about the future, even if the international community requests improvements to the humanitarian situation during the reaction phase in the form of a peacekeeping force or humanitarian assistance force, it is not easy to have the country in question give their consent to such interventions. This could potentially lead to even creating obstructions to the improvement of certain humanitarian situations. This paper identifies a total of four situations in which these types of paradoxes can occur.

抄録全体を表示