SDGsは大企業では認知が進み取り組みも行われているが多くの中小企業では認知率が低い。そこで，本研究ではSDGsを採択した国際連合がどのような国際課題と向き合い設立され，どのように国際課題を扱ってきたのかを明確にし，日本の社会的責任への取り組みの歴史との接点を見出した。近年の国際連合と日本の社会的責任の共通する接点としては，個人も含むステークホルダーに注目が集まってきている。よりミクロな視点である人に対して焦点を当てた課題解決は地域の担い手である地方公共団体，中小企業や小規模事業者にとっては大企業よりも得意な分野であり，地球上の誰一人取り残さないと誓うSDGsの指針を達成するために不可欠な存在として期待される。

As the bicentennial of the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine approaches, it is astonishing to see the contrast between the understanding of the Monroe Doctrine almost a hundred years ago and that of the present-day United States. The complacent applause of the Doctrine at its centennial gave way to the detachment of American society from it and its critical reexamination in academia.

Interestingly, this kind of critical, if not thorough, examination of the Monroe Doctrine was preceded not just by scholars in Latin America, a region in which the United States frequently used the Doctrine as a pretext for intervention, but also by Japanese scholars whose government advocated the Asian Monroe Doctrine before and during World War II. During the 1930s and the early 1940s, the Monroe Doctrine was a favorite topic of Japanese intellectuals as their government pursued what it termed a “New Order in East Asia” and the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Area” with the goal of creating an “Asia for Asians.” The vision clashed with U.S. Open Door policy toward China.

Tachi Sakutaro, a specialist in international law, Kamikawa Hikomatsu, one of the founders of the field of international relations in Japan, and other Japanese scholars have been quite critical of the Monroe Doctrine. Their points, at least superficially, are similar to those of today’s American scholars who focus upon the unilateral and imperial traits of the Doctrine. Tachi, Kamikawa, and others, however, did not seem to grasp the tendency of American foreign policy to lean increasingly toward Pan-Americanism and collective security in the interwar years. On the other hand, a few intellectuals such as Yokota Kisaburo, international law professor and a former student of Tachi, Kiyosawa Kiyoshi, a harsh critic of Japan’s foreign policy, and Takagi Yasaka, a founder of the field of American Studies in Japan, belong to a decided minority of scholars who have taken issue with the Asian Monroe Doctrine and inquired into what the Monroe Doctrine really meant to the United States of the time. These scholars, nonetheless, did seem to understand the American vision of international order better than those Japanese ones who criticized the Doctrine.

Japanese scholars who criticized the Monroe Doctrine made some penetrating remarks concerning its traits, which preceded the contemporary reexamination of the Doctrine by American scholars. But it was the vision of those who opposed the Asian Monroe Doctrine and gave a balanced appraisal of the Doctrine that paved the way for the merger of the two visions of the international order in Japan and the United States after the Pacific War.

Although the Cold War in Asia may have been the primary factor in the making of U.S.-Japan alliance, the merger of the two visions of international order was the underlying cause of the postwar cooperation between the United States and Japan.

With the end of the Cold War era, the international community met the decrease in interstate conflicts but the increase in intrastate conflicts originated from religious/ethnic frictions. States have faced newly-emerged threats, so-called non-military or “non-traditional” security issues which include infectious diseases, environment degradation; displaced persons emerged from intra conflicts. States recognize those non-traditional issues as “threats” to their national safety, and politicize them, and then securitize them by formulating national policies. Theorists and social scientists have tried to explain and analyze the changing international security environment by original theories. The United Nations also created new norms such as “Human Security” which put more priority on individual security.

Who secures safety of whom, from what kinds of threats, and how?—Concept of security has changed with the times. The objective of this paper is to analyze changes in security concepts from the historical perspective and to clarify how the changes in states’ perceptions of security have influenced discussions at the United Nations Security Council. In process of analysis, “securitization theory” is introduced.