The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct the existing power shifts theory and to test this theory using the case of the Pacific War between Japan and the United States. In this paper, I try to show that only the power shifts theory can explain the timing of the Pacific War by using a strong test method.
According to the realist theory of power shifts, war is more likely when the distribution of power in the international system fluctuates dramatically. In particular, as many realists have pointed out, a declining state relative to a rival rising state has an incentive to launch a preventive war due to its vulnerability. It is tempted to start an early war in order to avoid a later war in an inferior power position.A state in a process of sharp decline might tend to open hostilities against a strong adversary even if the chance of winning is small, because it perceives that there are no other options for survival.
The opening of the Pacific War between Japan and the United States in 1941 confirms these hypotheses of the power shifts theory. A careful research of the Pacific War shows that the fear of declining Japanese military and economic power led Japanese policymakers to perceive that a war against the United States was the only option for survival. The United States imposed a total oil embargo on Japan in July 1941. This economic sanction made Japan extremely vulnerable because almost all of the oil consumed in Japan was imported from the United States. Without its oil supply, the Japanese navy would soon have been unable to operate and the Japanese economy would have fallen into deep recession.
The Japanese war leaders faced a serious dilemma: they had to choose between a war with no hope of total victory and the collapse of imperial Japan. In the eyes of the Japanese leaders, a war with the United States was a better option than the end of the Japanese empire because Japan’s navy at that time had a slight superiority against the US navy in the Asia-Pacific region.However, the rapid build-up of the US navy was threatening Japan’s military advantage. To avoid military inferiority in the near future, Japan decided to fight the United States sooner rather than later.
This outcome cannot be explained in terms of any other domestic factor than the systemic factor.In other words, the power shifts theory provides a unique explanation of the Pacific War.Therefore, the theory of power shifts is validated through this case study.

抄録全体を表示

日本の政治学教育 (主権者教育) について, 目的, 内容, 手法 (教え方) を整理し, 見解を述べるとともに, とくに内容の面について, 2点を中心に考える。第1に, 教えるべき項目群を民主主義, 市民社会などの政治理念から体系的に導出できないか試みる。第2に, とくに日本で理解が弱いと思われる 「多元的民主主義」 や, その具体的な理解につながる政治権力への批判的視点や政党システムに関する教育について, 内容や教え方を検討する。
    教える内容について, とくに高校までの段階では 「政治的教育の中立性」 による制約があるが, 中立性と, 多元的・批判的な見解の紹介とは両立しうる。多元的民主主義や政府への批判的視点は, 政治史, 政治思想, 政治制度, 比較政治などを通じて理解してもらうべきだ。各政党の論評が難しい場合には, 政党システムや 「左と右」 の座標軸を教えることで, 政治を比較し判断する視点を身に付けてもらうこともできる。
    教え方については, 複数の情報や見解をもとに考え議論する力を付けさせるとともに, 集団作業, 政治参加, 市民活動などの経験を促すこと自体が有効である。

抄録全体を表示

There was a remarkable power shift in international politics from the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. The rising states in different regions—Japan in East Asia, the Unites States in the Americas, and Germany in Europe—began to displace in various ways British hegemony worldwide. Following the basic logic of the power transition theory, the world at the time was in an unstable condition in which Japan, the United States, and Germany, as a dissatisfied and non-status quo rising power, sought to change the existing international and especially regional order.

The purpose of this paper, which focuses on Japan and the United States as emerging powers in this era, is to make it clear how the orders of two regions, East Asia and the Americas, although geographically separated, evolved by interacting with each other through the Monroe Doctrine’s functions.

The Monroe Doctrine was originally pronounced in 1823 by U.S. President James Monroe, who declared the principle of mutual non-intervention between the Americas and Europe, eventually becoming a longstanding tenet of U.S. foreign policy. In particular, around the turn of the century, the doctrine, by functioning as an ideational mechanism that legitimized American leadership in the Americas, contributed to a “peaceful” power or hegemonic transition in the region between Great Britain and the U.S. On the other hand, this American doctrine was applied beyond the Asia-Pacific to East Asia, as an idea that could sanction Japanese domination over the region symbolized by the proposal of a “Japanese” Monroe Doctrine by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. However, the efforts of seeking the Japanese Monroe Doctrine ultimately resulted in the failure of a peaceful power transition in East Asia, despite or because of the use of the Monroe Doctrine.

There are a number of preceding studies, mostly using a historical approach, on the Monroe Doctrine. Nevertheless, few studies explore the synchronic developments of the Monroe Doctrine and the Japanese Monroe Doctrine, which interconnected the regional order already in process in East Asia and the Americas,from the viewpoint conceptualizing the doctrines as ideas of legitimizing regional hegemony. Furthermore, this paper, highlighting the workings of an ideational factor, the (Japanese) Monroe Doctrine, in the rise of Japan and the rise of the United States, provides a perspective different from the traditional power transition theory that focuses on material power. It can also be said that revisiting the past of the Japanese Monroe Doctrine offers an implication for contemporary international politics in East Asia, which face a new power shift and the possibility of a “Chinese” Monroe Doctrine.

This paper examines (1) the rise of the U.S. and the Monroe Doctrine in the Americas from the late 19th century to the early 20th century; (2) the rise of Japan and the Japanese Monroe Doctrine in East Asia from 1900 to the 1910s; and (3) the development of the Monroe Doctrine and the Japanese Monroe Doctrine in the Americas and East Asia from the 1920s to the 1930s.

抄録全体を表示

This paper argues that the German Historical School is the original main stream of thought in classical international political science in the West, and the methodology of this school makes research in international system through historical approach possible. In the 17th century, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and Samuel von Pufendorf discussed international political issues. Subsequently early 19th century, A.H.L Heeren initiated the research of international system through historical approach. The German Historical School has ever afterward been interested in the establishment of “system” in the European international order of the period between the 18th to the early 19th century, namely the maturity of the European “states system,” because it acknowledges that the European “states system” that mainly matured in the 18th century has formed the core of the world order up to the present.

The first research field in the area of international system through historical approach is history of thought on international politics as “intellectual history.” In the 18th century, the theoretical evolutions of international law in the German-speaking countries, including studies by noted philosophers Christian Wolff and Emer de Vattel, and the intellectual evolutions in the French-speaking countries, including studies by the noted political theorist and philosophers Abbé de Saint-Pierre and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, formed the twin main streams of thought in this intellectual history. In addition, the intellectual evolutions in Britain included the studies of the noted philosopher. historian, and economist David Hume, which formed another stream of thought. They recognized and analyzed the formative process of “states system,” thereby influencing it.

The second research field is investigation into the formative process of classical diplomacy called “diplomatic history.” In the middle of the 18th century, every great power reformed its own diplomacy, namely performing a “diplomatic revolution.” Then, in the second half of this century, international system of cooperation emerged as a multipolar system among great powers, preparing the way for the Concert of Europe beginning from Congress of Vienna in the early of the 19th century.

The third research field is inquiry into the structural development of international system as “structural history”. The main subject of this “structural history” in the period between the 18th to the early 19th century is the transformation of the balance of power. The Machiavellian dynamic of balance of power of the early of the 18th century transformed the static and stable equilibrium in the second half of the 18th century. The above-mentioned intellectual and diplomatic evolutions contributed to this transformation for the European international order.

In the maturing process of the European “states system,” thoughts and diplomacies transformed international structure through mutual interaction, resulting in the emergence of “system.” Therefore, the framework of the research of international system through historical approach is regulated by this formative process of “states system.” Every approach and research field relates to each other as the precondition of “states system.” Furthermore, the comprehension and the clarification of “states system” contributes to the understanding of the core function of the international system.

抄録全体を表示