詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する:
全文: "国際関係論"
1,049件中 1-20の結果を表示しています
  • 大賀 哲
    社会科学研究
    2007年 57 巻 3-4 号 37-55
    発行日: 2007/03/09
    公開日: 2021/02/09
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
  • 亀山 康子
    環境科学会誌
    2009年 22 巻 2 号 133-136
    発行日: 2009/03/31
    公開日: 2010/06/28
    ジャーナル フリー
     国際関係論(International Relations)において,環境というテーマは比較的新しいが,近年では,環境関連の研究が国際関係論の中でも進展しつつある。本稿では,国際関係論全般の歴史を概観し,その中での環境研究の意義と到達点について考察する。 国際関係論とは,国家と国家の間の関係に関する学問である。しかし,環境問題は,(1)被害の及ぶ範囲が国境を越える,(2)解決に向けた国際的議論において,国内アクターの参加が求められる,という2点において,従来型の国際関係論で前提となっていた国際問題と異なる・そのため,新たな理論が必要となってきた。現在,国際関係論の主な環境研究として,(1)国際環境条約の交渉過程の分析,(2)国際環境条約の効果に関する分析,(3)複数の国際環境条約のリンケージに関する分析,(4)ある特定の国の外交政策の一部としての環境外交,(5)国内アクターの国際的活動等がある。 地球環境問題をテーマに掲げる国際関係専門家の数が増えるにつれ,学会においてもその勢力は急速に増している。欧米では,早くから(2)の中でも環境研究者が1990年代以降勢力を拡大した。これと比べると,日本ではまだ発展途上にある。 環境科学会において,今後,国際関係論との関係はますます密になっていく可能性がある。国際関係論のように学問分野内での環境研究者のフォーラムが未発達の場合,環境科学会のように,すべての学問分野に門戸を開き続ける学会の存在は今日でも貴重といえる。また,環境科学会では,政府関係者,自治体関係者,産業界,市民団体,学生,が集う場を提供しているため,多様な立場の個人の意見交換の場としての機能が今後も期待される。
  • 羽後 静子
    国際政治
    1998年 1998 巻 117 号 234-236
    発行日: 1998/03/25
    公開日: 2010/09/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • ―一九三〇年代後半から一九五〇年代のアメリカ学界―
    篠原 初枝
    国際政治
    2014年 2014 巻 175 号 175_27-175_40
    発行日: 2014/03/30
    公開日: 2015/09/05
    ジャーナル フリー
    Utopian-liberalism in International Relations (IR) represented by reform-minded international lawyers was dominant in the interwar years. For instance, lawyers such as Quincy Wright and Charles Fenwick endeavored to establish a more progressive international order through their academic discussions and activities. James T. Shotwell, an internationalist scholar of Columbia University, also joined in the movement, defining the study of IR as a vehicle of enhancing international cooperation among nations. The two volumes on the general academic state of IR in the US that were edited by Edith Ware under the supervision of Shotwell and published in 1934 and 1937 naturally epitomized liberal orientation, defining the field as inter and multi-disciplinary, but still explicitly highlighting international law’s significance in the field. However, toward the late 1930s, critical voices against progressive international law started to grow. Most notably, Hans Morgenthau argued that the reformers’ understanding of international law was oriented too much toward formalism.
    After the war, Wright sought to reaffirm the importance of international law in IR, but his claim encountered severe challenges. While IR as an independent discipline was gaining more recognition and popularity in response to changing international circumstances, some argued that more emphasis should be laid on international politics. In 1946 the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) sponsored a series of conferences in six US cities that discussed how IR should be taught and what kind of disciplines should form IR. Even though the CFR conference report noted the growing importance of IR, it was defined as a multi-disciplinary field mainly composed of international law, international organization, and international politics.
    What made the situation more complex was growing popularity of the behavioral sciences in American academia at that time. Scholars such as Morgenthau were not supportive of such an approach and instead stressed the importance of the political theory approach to IR.
    In 1954 the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored a conference on international politics. Its participants included not only renowned scholars—Morgenthau, Kenneth Thompson, and Arnold Wolfers— but also former officials, such as Dean Acheson and Paul Nitze. The conference theme was the relevance and possibility of theory building in IR, but no clear viewpoint came out of it. Some pointed out the difficulty of generalization from historical cases, while others addressed the need for a specific theory applicable to actual policy making. In the meantime, Wright still advocated the desirability of a comprehensive, eclectic, and multi-disciplinary approach in IR.
    Thus, American scholarly discussions of IR at the end of the 1950s were in the state of confusion. Scholars had to wait another decade or so for the emergence and dominance of a ‘scientific’ approach which gave explicit priority to political science over international law.
  • ――西田幾多郎を手掛かりに――
    堀内 めぐみ
    国際政治
    2020年 2020 巻 200 号 200_37-200_51
    発行日: 2020/03/31
    公開日: 2020/04/16
    ジャーナル 認証あり

    This paper attempts to address the universal nature of the international relations theory. Specifically, I examine Nishida Kitarō’s cultural theory. This is necessary because recent years have witnessed extensive discussions on Western and non-Western international relations in association with the international relations theory. Accordingly, I examine whether Japan has its own international relations theory. Nishida Kitarō, who is a prominent Japanese philosopher and a proponent of constructivism in the international relations theory, examined changes in the Japanese identity under the conditions set by wartime international relations.

    First, I address two questions by examining a cultural theory proposed by Nishida Kitarō that is associated with wartime conditions. One pertains to whether Japan is considered a Western or a non-Western country. The second is whether Japan wants to become a Western or a non-Western country. Further, I clarify how these questions are reflected in the cultural theory by Nishida. The starting point of my interest in Nishida’s cultural theory is the origins of Oriental philosophy, which encourages one “to see a thing without a form, to hear a silent voice.” Nishida aimed to provide philosophical grounds for the roots of this Oriental culture. He compared European and Oriental cultures and considered the later development of the Japanese culture.

    Second, I clarify the universality of Nishida’s culture theory. The “culture idea” put forward by Nishida is not necessarily related to any specific wartime policy, and it garnered criticism after the war. Most of these critiques occurred within Japan. However, these critiques do not diminish the value of Nishida’s cultural theory. From the 1990s onward, Nishida’s philosophy came to be evaluated by European philosophers.

    Finally, I inspect the problem posed by Nishida’s culture theory. The culture idea of Nishida, for example, Keijijyōgakuteki tachiba kara mita tōzai kodai no bunka keitai, Nihonbunka no mondai and Sekai shinchitsujo no genri, was elucidated before the war, and some parts of the idea are not applicable to the present-day global community. Hence, I elucidate the part that will become problematic in the future when Nishida’s culture theory becomes universal. In addition, I reinterpret Nishida’s cultural theory in the context of current international relations. In Japan, many books and papers regarding international relations are written in Japanese, which is telling. Japan’s international relations theories suggest the possibility of ideas originating and spreading from a Japanese perspective. At the same time, I clarify that Japan’s international theory can promote other countries’ international relations, as well.

  • ――LGBTをめぐるグローバルな秩序の再編成――
    和田 賢治
    国際政治
    2019年 2019 巻 196 号 196_133-196_143
    発行日: 2019/03/30
    公開日: 2020/04/16
    ジャーナル 認証あり
  • 社会科学研究
    2017年 68 巻 1 号 c1
    発行日: 2017/03/17
    公開日: 2021/02/09
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
  • 気候変動問題に焦点を当てて
    太田 宏
    国際政治
    2011年 2011 巻 166 号 166_12-25
    発行日: 2011/08/30
    公開日: 2013/09/19
    ジャーナル フリー
    The objective of this article is to examine how international relations (IR) theory has been understood and used to analyze environmental problems and in turn how environmental studies have contributed to the development of IR theory.
    In order to trace the interrelationship between the two, this article analyzes international politics about global climate change.
    The main IR theories, which are introduced in this article, include the dyads realism/neorealism, liberalism/neoliberalism (or institutionalism), and constructivism/cognitivism.
    Among them the institutionalist perspective is the most useful one for the analysis of international environmental politics.
    However, the realist perspective, which emphasizes relative gains between states, has certain explanatory power especially to explain why international negotiations on climate change regime often result in gridlock.
    Furthermore, scientific knowledge plays a significant role in identifying complex problems such as climate change and biological diversity so that ideas and knowledge are crucial factors to explain international environmental politics.
    Two UN conferences on the environment held in 1972 and 1992 helped promote studies on international environmental politics and the main academic debates in international relations have revolved around international cooperation.
    Against this backdrop, international regime studies became an academic fad in the 1980s and 90s.
    Above all, international environmental studies led this field of research by generating numerous studies on regime formation and development, some of which attach great importance to the role of idea and knowledge, or more precisely to the role of an “epistemic community,” a transnational community of scientists and experts.
    In the course of the advance of studies in international environmental politics, along with the development of various international regimes consisting of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), new research foci have emerged such as study of the effectiveness of regimes, regime interplay (or regime complex), and global environmental governance and the role and influence of non-state actors.
    The debates about climate change address all of the major issues discussed within academic communities, diplomatic communities, business and industry as well as NGO communities.
    Specifically regarding the international politics of climate change, this article takes a closer look at the issues that constitute the edifice of IR studies: that is, the relationship between science and politics, regime effectiveness and power politics, the role of sub-state and non-state actors, as well as regime interlinkage and multi-stakeholders.
  • 矢内原 勝
    国際経済
    1963年 1963 巻 14 号 243-247
    発行日: 1963/05/30
    公開日: 2012/02/09
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 日本の安全保障政策をめぐって
    御巫 由美子
    年報政治学
    2003年 54 巻 73-88
    発行日: 2003/12/25
    公開日: 2009/12/21
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 国際政治理論の再構築
    大庭 三枝
    国際政治
    2000年 2000 巻 124 号 137-162,L15
    発行日: 2000/05/12
    公開日: 2010/09/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    Since Erikson theorized the concept of identity in psychology, it has been applied to other academic fields such as sociology and political science. Especially in the 1990s, identity theory has been introduced to IR theory and much academic writings has argued on the importance of the concept of identity in international relations from several viewpoints. The purpose of this article is to develop a frame of reference to the concept of identity in IR theory.
    This article, firstly, tries to clarify what “identity” means. “Identity” means the contents of self-identification—one's thinking about “what I am” or “what we are”. About the concept of identity, there are two important points. The first point is that other members in the society should recognize one's insistence about his/her own self-identification. Without the recognition by other members in the society, one's self-identification is only equal to his/her self-image. The second point is that the definition of “I” or “we” simultaneously defines “the other” and the difference between “I”/“we” and “the other” tends to be emphasized.
    Secondly, this article surveys literature focusing on identity in international relations in the 1990s, for example, arguments by Wendt, Katzenstein, Campbell, Neuman and others. Then it points out that most of them overlook the existence of “double contingency”. For meaningful arguments over “identity”, “double contingency” should be considered and possible gaps between one's perception about the content of self-identification and the other members' should be explicitly dealt with. When such gaps exist over one's self-identification, he/she often falls into “identity crisis”. The above arguments hold true with respect to collective identity.
    Finally, this article takes Japan and Australia as examples of identity crisis in international society and describes how national leaders and intellectuals have tried to overcome such crises.
  • ――IR・英国学派・ドイツ歴史学派の建設的対話に向けて――
    大原 俊一郎
    国際政治
    2019年 2019 巻 196 号 196_144-196_154
    発行日: 2019/03/30
    公開日: 2020/04/16
    ジャーナル 認証あり
  • 中村 覚
    国際政治
    2018年 2018 巻 193 号 193_176-193_179
    発行日: 2018/09/10
    公開日: 2018/12/19
    ジャーナル フリー
  • ロブソン W・A
    年報政治学
    1954年 5 巻 A18-A40
    発行日: 1954/03/15
    公開日: 2009/12/21
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 中原 喜一郎
    国際政治
    1979年 1979 巻 61-62 号 348-361
    発行日: 1979/05/25
    公開日: 2010/09/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 現代国際政治の基本問題
    二宮 三郎
    国際政治
    1964年 1964 巻 25 号 115-124
    発行日: 1964/05/20
    公開日: 2010/09/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 中野 潤三, 十津 守宏, 田中 雅章
    情報プロフェッショナルシンポジウム予稿集
    2014年 2014 巻
    発行日: 2014年
    公開日: 2014/11/17
    会議録・要旨集 フリー
     国際社会における戦争違法化の歴史を概観しながら、その内容を学生に理解させるのは容易なことではない。筆者らは日本国憲法の平和主義の理念を理解させる方途を検討した。本研究では、通常の講義だけでは十分に理解させることができにくい内容でも時間や場所を問わず手軽に復習を行うことで、その内容を理解させる Web サイトを実装した。この Web サイトはスマートフォンやタブレット端末の利用に特化している。これまでムダにしていたスキマ時間を有効活用することで、復習を行うことが可能となった。
  • 米川 清, 会田 邦夫
    オフィス・オートメーション
    1993年 13 巻 5 号 70-76
    発行日: 1993/03/10
    公開日: 2019/01/15
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 公共政策研究
    2008年 8 巻 143
    発行日: 2008/11/20
    公開日: 2019/06/08
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 片岡 貞治
    国際政治
    2013年 2013 巻 172 号 172_165-172_168
    発行日: 2013/02/25
    公開日: 2015/03/05
    ジャーナル フリー
feedback
Top