Hedley Bull proves that, although the nature of the international relations is essentially anarchy, sovereign states have the potential to construct an international order (society). Neo-realists like Bull and Kenneth Waltz suppose that the system of sovereign states forms an international order. But in the world today, the importance of state sovereignty is gradually being eroded. If this is the case, international order would also be undermined.
Many academic fields such as those that discuss theories of international organizations, international politics and international law, have sought ‘order’ from their respective theoretical viewpoints. The following three points are common to each of these theories. First, they analyze not only sovereign states but also many other actors. Second, the role of a “norm” is seen as important for creating and developing an “order”. Third, in addition to the creation of public order through international organizations and international law, the respective theories have gradually started to look at the creation of order through “bottom-up publicness, ” which includes civil society, private corporations, trans-national networks and so on.
In this volume of
International Relations, global public order is considered from four different aspects. The first two articles (by Uchida and Hoshino) study the role of the UN from a perspective of global governance theory. Uchida emphasizes the role of the UN Secretariat. Hoshino proposes a sequence for establishing international peace restoration policy. The next two essays (by Yamada and Watanabe) consider the role of the “norm” in international relations. Yamada explores the possibility of complex governance through the transformation of a global public order from a theory of constructivism. Watanabe discusses the democratization of the legislative process of international organizations from the perspective of global governance. The following three essays (by Koizumi, Nishimura and Yokota) examine global problems which are beyond the realm of sovereign states, namely, refugees, minorities and the environment respectively. The last two papers (by Mori and Yamazaki) make their analyses from a perspective of “bottom-up publicness.” Mori goes after the concept of global order through civil society. Yamazaki proposes a model of a public sphere between an ‘Empire’ and the Westphalian order.
In order to construct a theory for global public order, I would like to mention the following three points. First, the “anarchy” within global society should be positively understood. Anarchy allows for flexible, rather than rigid, order in global society. Many different kinds of actors can independently join together to form and develop global public order.
Second, the construction of a theory of international politics from the viewpoint of “bottom-up publicness” is awaited. New theories of international politics examine not only sovereign states but also many different actors and aspects such as civil society, NGOs, private sectors, business corporations, individuals and so on.
Third, there may well be a possibility of transferring the theory of sovereignty to the theory of global actors. In the global society, the sovereign state is the most important actor, but it is not necessarily an absolute entity. The sovereign state should be considered in relative terms with other actors such as international organizations, NGOs, nations, peoples and individuals. Under the theory of global actors, the power and accountability of individuals or bodies that are not independent states must also be studied in addition to that of sovereign states.
抄録全体を表示