The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Commonwealth has experienced enlargement and changes after the Second World War. In this attempt, particular attention is paid to South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth in 1961. The Government of the Union of South Africa under H. F. Verwoerd made an application to remain within the Commonwealth as a Republic, but eventually decided, or was virtually forced, to withdraw the application as a result of strong criticism against apartheid mainly from Afro-Asian member countries. Therefore, the Republic of South Africa was established on 31 May 1961 outside the Commonwealth. As increasing number of newly-independent states joined after 1947 (when both India and Pakistan became independent and then joined as new members), the Commonwealth which had been originally formulated by Britain and six ‘white’ Dominions was transformed into a multi-racial institution. The major character of the ‘old Commonwealth’ was that the member states maintained traditional ties among the peoples of British origin and did not regard each other as ‘foreign’, while, at the same time, the mutual recognition of internal and external autonomy was the central raison d'étre. However, as newly-independent non-white countries joined one after another and the norm of racial equality was strengthened, both the old intimacy and the conventional principle of mutual non-interference were increasingly faced with strong pressure.
In those changes which the Commonwealth has experienced, the disputes about apartheid among the Commonwealth countries and the departure of South Africa marked a crucial turning point. Firstly, the departure of white-dominated South Africa clearly demonstrated that the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs of member states was increasingly under pressure from the norm of racial equality. Secondly, the often uncontrollable and open rows over South Africa's racial policy symbolized the fact that the old intimacy had been largely curtailed as newly-independent members added ‘alien’ elements into the Commonwealth. Thirdly, the sequence of events culminated in South Africa's departure made some of the original members such as Britain and Australia feel increasingly discontent with the ‘new Commonwealth’ and therefore facilitated the centrifugal forces working in the Commonwealth relations. Britain's attempts to accede to the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community (EC) in the 1960s and the early 1970s were noticeable examples of the centrifugal tendencies. However, at the same time, the inter-Commonwealth disputes on racial issues such as South Africa's apartheid in 1960-61 and the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by the Smith regime of Rhodesia (today's Zimbabwe) in the mid-1960s can also be considered as inevitable hurdles which the Commonwealth had to tackle in the process of becoming a truly multi-racial association.

抄録全体を表示

The regional order in Southeast Asia has undergone a rapid change in the context of the end of the Cold War and the spread of economic globalization. The mainstream theories such as neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism have offered competing explanations of this transformation. However, recently, a new phenomenon that cannot be grasped by these state-centric theories has arisen—the movement toward constructing a regional order from below by transnational civil society actors.
As ASEAN made a full-fledged start in constructing the ASEAN Community after the late 1990s, the transnational civil society actors began to engage in its decision-making process. Such engagements were specifically observed in the process of drafting the ASEAN Charter starting from 2006. Even after the establishment of the charter, these actors continue to remain involved in the panel and committee related to the framework of the ASEAN Community.
This article attempts to empirically analyze the activities of such transnational civil society actors, and to explore the scope and limits of alternative regionalism advocated by them. Furthermore, it seeks to examine the embryonic change toward the establishment of a new regional order in Southeast Asia from the bottom-up perspective.
Section I focuses on a theoretical analysis. After an overview of the New Regional Approach, which is one of the critical international theories and has a vested interest in civil society, it develops a theoretical perspective on transnational civil society in the context of regionalization. Using such a perspective, it also extracts the characteristics of new regionalism in Southeast Asia. Section II describes the basic features of transnational civil society actors, and explores the configuration of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic actors in transnational public space. By focusing on the process of drafting the ASEAN Charter, Section III analyzes the alternative regionalism advocated by the transnational civil society actors. Section IV highlights the two issues that these actors have given special emphasis to after the establishment of the ASEAN Charter: the terms of reference of the human rights body and the rights of migrant workers.
In conclusion, the article proves that by engaging with transnational civil society actors, ASEAN is gradually moving from an “elite club” to a peoplecentered organization, but given the predominance of neoliberal discourse, alternative regionalism has not enough led to the realization. As regarding the establishment of a new regional order, although the Westphalian system has not yet dissolved, as symbolized by the “ASEAN way” that the nationstates still adhere to, the transnational public sphere has been more rapidly expanded by transnational civil society actors. Furthermore, they have attempted to transform the “ASEAN way” by tackling with issues such as human rights. Such issue-oriented movement would give some impetus to the realization of a post-Westphalian system.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to examine the development of the Soviet human rights movement which started in the early 1970s under the impact of detente between U. S. -Soviet relations. In view of the possible infiltration of “bourgeois ideology” into the Soviet and East European societies, Soviet leaders sought to restructure alliance relations among the Soviet bloc countries by institutionalizing consulting system at every level. Accordingly the 1970s saw a rapid progress of integration of the bloc on interstate and inter-party relations at the highest levels.
It is at this time when the Soviet human rights movement started. Under the tightened and unified ideological control in the bloc, the Soviet dissident movement, which was isolated socially at the time, was forced to make an attempt to win popular support and international aid. The approach adopted by the movement was legal and non-ideological one with special emphasis on the protection of human rights. Based on Soviet constitution and international law, the newly born Soviet human rights movement began to demand the Soviet government to observe its own law, and to appeal to international public opinion to interfere in the internal problems of the Soviet Union.
It is the concluding document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that made great impact on the development of the Soviet human rights movement. Now that the Soviet government has signed the document which reaffirms unbreakable relation between international peace and the protection of human rights in a country, the movement has found legitimacy in calling upon signatory countries of the document and international public opinion for international humanitarian interference. At the same time, while winning wider popular support in the society by focussing its aim specifically on human rights issue, the Soviet human rights movement has spread to East European countries. Because of the common goal and strategy among many ethnic movements in the Soviet bloc, there came to appear a loosely unified human rights movement in the second half of the decade.
The internationalization of the Soviet human rights problems and the international humanitarian interference by the West in Soviet internal affairs, however, has made little contribution to the improvement of the problems. On the contrary the movement has come to suffer from harsher political suppresion particularly with the beginning of Carter's human rights policy, and the U. S. and the Soviet governments came to be confronted as the human rights issue became one of the most important issues between the two governments, The rise and fall of the Soviet human rights movement may suggest that, firstly, under the conditions of the detente human rights problems of the Soviet Union can not be immune from the impact of international concern on human rights problems, and, secondly, only the legal and non-ideological approach can successfully internationalize human rights issue.

抄録全体を表示