従来より, 国立病院等においては医薬品購入の適正化を推進してきたが, 国会等において大学病院を含め国公立病院を中心とした後発医薬品使用の推進が求められている. 今回国立病院等を対象に行った調査により平成12年度の後発医薬品の購入金額実績は全国的な平均値の約10分の1とその使用が進んでいないことが明らかとなった. 医薬品の使用は医師が患者に対する最適の医療を行うために医学的観点からその処方に必要な医薬品を選定することは最優先とすべきだが, 一方で, 後発医薬品の使用は, 医療保険財政の効率化および患者負担の軽減を通じた患者サービスに資すると考えられる. 国立病院等に求められている状況を勘案し, 国立病院等における後発医薬品の採用について積極的な検討が求められる.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this study was to clarify the process of the birth of riverbed sports grounds and to elucidate the issues surrounding the utilization of riverbank areas.

In 1964, the existing River Law was amended, and the new River Law began to address new issues. In the same year, the Tokyo Olympics were held, and in January 1965, the House of Representatives established "Special Committee on Sports Promotion" to discuss post-Olympic sports promotion and national physical fitness. At that committee meeting, a project to use riverbed sports grounds was discussed for the first time. In urban areas, where constructing sports facilities was difficult, attention turned to riverbed lands, which offered relatively easy access to large tracts of land. Against the background of the revision of the River Law during the same period, discussions on specific regulations for river use accelerated. In December 1965, “Guidelines for Permission to Occupy Riverbed Lands”, which serve as guidelines for river management, were established, ensuring the use of rivers for various purposes. This paved the way for the current state of riverbed sports grounds. However, the utilization of rivers presented two challenging issues.

Rivers had been managed primarily for flood control, but subsequently, various issues such as water utilization, environmental development, and conservation arose. These issues were closely linked to urban planning and regional development, promoting the multipurpose use of river environments. On the other hand, in specialized advisory councils related to rivers, there were debates suggesting that the focus on utilizing riverbed lands was neglecting the primary purpose of river management, which is flood control. In reality, flood-related damage caused by river inundation during typhoons and torrential rain disasters occurred repeatedly.

The utilization of riverbed lands, which encompassed the conflicting challenges of promoting sports and managing rivers, still lacks a fundamental solution. A place that stores overflowing water in the event of a flood is called a "high water bed," and it must be noted that a riverbed sports ground is a place that has been established in this very area. One key revelation from the birth process of riverbed sports grounds is the need to pay attention to the conflicting dual challenges inherent in the utilization of riverbed lands.

抄録全体を表示

“International contribution”, diffused in the wake of Gulf War, is a peculiar idea in Japan. Western International Relations Theory (IRT) talks about “international coordination” and/or “international cooperation”, but never deals with “international contribution”. I’m going to focus on the idea of “international contribution”, which enables me to discuss Japanese perception of international relations and encourages me to reconsider so-called IRT.
How does the idea of “international contribution” rise up to the surface? The historical overview of this question is presented in the first section. Through the rapid economic growth, the prime ministers of Japan such as Eisaku Sato, Yasuhiro Nakasone and Noboru Takeshita came to feel the enhanced international status as one of big powers, which was unaccompanied by Japan’s actual performance. This gap between the expectation from “international society” and the reality in “international society” provided the setting for the idea of “international contribution”. The emergence of this idea was nothing more than contingent use initially. Notwithstanding this genesis, “international contribution” precisely captured something like the flavor of the time and got into circulation.
Then, how was “international contribution” mentioned? The structural outline, which is visible in the use of “international contribution”, is inductively extracted in the second section. The perception that Japan had taken “free ride” on “public goods” arousing international criticism keenly made Japanese realize the necessity of “international contribution”. Furthermore, “international society” is hypostatized in the background of “international contribution”, dredged through the comparison with “international coordination” and “international cooperation”. These understanding denote that at least for most of the Japanese the realm of international relations is not “anarchy”.
Besides, how was “international contribution” as practice put into? Alongside of this question, transition of subject positions, especially pertaining to the Self Defense Force (SDF) and the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), is reviewed in the third section. Although dispatching SDF which evokes the shade of military forces had long been regarded as taboo in the postwar period, the SDF brought about recognition as an actor of “international contribution” together with growing necessity of “international contribution”. NGO, on the other hand, came to accumulate fund and human material due to escalating interest in “international contribution”. Then the governmental awareness of NGO has gradually changed and the government has got to utilize NGOs.
Various aspects of “international contribution” are sketched through the analysis of these chapters. Based on these aspects, I wonder if “international contribution” is a certain type of IRT. It functioned historically as a “lens” which gave us some “answers” at that time. If that’s the case, we ought to consider what the “academic” theory is and what it should be.

抄録全体を表示