Journal Name: International relations of the Asia-Pacific:
January 2001, Vol.1, No.1
Print ISSN: 1470-482X, Online ISSN: 1470-4838
Editor-in-Chief: Takashi Inoguchi(Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo)
Assistant Editor: Paul Bacon, (Shumei University, Japan)
Executive Editors: Edward Newman (United Nations University), Yoshihide Soeya (Keio University, Japan), Akihiko Tanaka (University of Tokyo) and Keiichi Tsunekawa (University of Tokyo)
Book Reviews: Motoshi Suzuki (Faculty of Law, Kyoto University)
Regional Editors: Muthiah Alagappa (East West Center, Honolulu), G. John Ikenberry (Georgetown University), Chung-In Moon (Yonsei University), John Ravenhill (University of Edinburgh), Duncan Snidal (University of Chicago), Ngaire Woods (University of Oxford)
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific is an exciting new journal that addresses the major issues and developments taking place in the Asia-Pacific. It provides frontier knowledge of and fresh insights into the Asia-Pacific. The journal is a meeting place where various issues are debated from refreshingly diverging angles, backed up by rigorous scholarship. The journal is open to all methodological approaches and schools of thought, and to ideas that are expressed in plain and clear language. It welcomes contributions on all important developments in the Asia-Pacific, ranging from China's accession to the WTO; America's antiterrorist war and regional power reconfiguration; the poverty of institutions and the challenge of regional governance; Japan's belated entry into regional politics; Asian NGOs Crossing Borders; China's increasing economic importance; deepening globalization; and changing national identities.
The study of international relations in Japan: towards a more international discipline (pp1-20)
Takashi Inoguchi (Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, Japan) and Paul Bacon (Faculty of Political Economy, Shumei University, Japan)
We deploy Waever's sociology of science approach in a critical comparison of the American and Japanese international relations academies. We argue that there are four great debates in the American academy, and four traditions of scholarship in the Japanese academy. We describe these debates and traditions in some detail, and identify and explain points of contact and difference between the two respective academies. We conclude by making a general case for methodological pluralism and offer reasons why the Japanese international relations academy is keen to sponsor a journal which is, in the words of Waever, able to 'draw on national traditions while keeping up with American developments'
Using military forces under international auspices and democratic accountability (pp21-50)
Charlotte Ku (American Society of International Law, Washington, USA) and Harold K. Jacobson(Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, USA)
This article reports on a research project that deals with how to ensure democratic accountability when military forces are used under the auspices of international institutions. The international community has developed a range of ways in which military forces can be used. States have also decided that in some cases military forces can be deployed to pacify intra-state as well as inter-state conflicts. States have developed a mixed system to deal with the issues of democratic accountability. Although military operations are conducted under the auspices of international institutions, states maintain control over decisions to deploy their troops. Democratic control and accountability have been maintained through national institutions and procedures. International authorization, preferably by the UN Security Council, is important to establish international and domestic legitimacy, but it is not the essential mechanism for ensuring democratic accountability.
Dealing with dictators: Westphalian and American strategies
K.J. Holsti (Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Canada)
The 1648 Westphalia settlement contained a recipe for the tolerance of political and religious diversity within states. Until the twentieth century, European governments generally tolerated a plurality of political forms. Breaking with the Westphalian tradition, the Bolsheviks were the first to deny moral and diplomatic legitimacy to 'bourgeois' regimes. Although the United States has recognized, placated and supported a number of dictatorships, it has also used extreme measures to oust regimes that do not meet unspecified tests of democracy. The United States, breaking ranks with the UN Security Council strategy of containing Hussein, has sought to destroy him through bombing. The Rambouillet agreement, I argue, was a case of 'faux' diplomacy, an ultimatum designed to provoke Milosevic to war. American responses to political diversity in the world raise a number of important questions about the continuation of the Westphalian tradition. Are we to have a world of political heterogeneity or homogeneity? If the latter, who will decide on the criteria for inclusion in the club of states, and how will the decisions be made?
Japan and two theories of military doctrine formation: civilian policymakers, policy preference, and the 1976 National Defense Program Outline (pp67-93)
Tsuyoshi Kawasaki (Political Science and Humanities Departments, Simon Fraser University, Canada)
Using hitherto underutilized Japanese material, this paper systematically analyzes two competing theories of military doctrine formation that account for the construction of the 1976 National Defense Program Outline (NDPO), postwar Japan's first military doctrine. It demonstrates that, on balance, available evidence on the policy preference of two key civilian policymakers, Michio Sakata and Takuya Kubo, is more consistent with the interpretation drawn from Posen's balance-of-power theory than with that from Kier's domestic culturalist theory. While by no means ignored by these policymakers, domestic political concerns neither dominantly shaped, nor gave a specific direction to their policy action. Rather, the policymakers were motivated to formulate the best response possible to Japan's new international strategic conditions. This finding relates the hitherto neglected significance of the NDPO case to the larger, ongoing realist–constructivist debate on the formation of military doctrine. It also leads us to a more sophisticated understanding of NDPO formation, which focuses on the process of how a combination of political leadership and ideas triggered the breakthrough in Japanese security policymaking.
The 'Nye Report': six years later (pp95-103)
Joseph S. Nye
Civilizations and the twenty-first century: some theoretical considerations (pp105-130)
Robert W. Cox
Since the end of the Cold War, globalization has become the central phenomenon in world politics. Civilizations, once geographically based, are now loosened from fixed space, as migration of peoples and of ideas has accelerated. A focus on the dimensions of intersubjectivity will give some understanding both of differences among civilizations and on transformations of civilizations. Attention is thus given to different forms of substantive economies, to historical dominance and subordination of civilizations and to the reawakenings of cultures; to what Sorokin called the sensate and ideational types of consciousness and to different forms of spirituality, and to relative orientations toward time and space. Two propositions are implicit in a concern for civilizations: (i) that there are alternatives for the human future, and (ii) that if different civilizations do coexist, the problem of mutual comprehension becomes paramount for the maintenance of world order. The implications for a research program are to study civil societies as the sources of intersubjective meanings, the maintenance of the biosphere as the basic material condition of existence of all civilizations, and world governance as the modus vivendi of a plural world.
Japan's role in global politics (pp131-142)
Samuel P. Huntington
The politics of place and origin: an enquiry into the changing boundaries of representation, citizenship and legitimacy (pp143-165)
Friedrich V. Kratochwil
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (2001)
Copyright ©2001 Oxford University Press and the Japan Association of International Relations
(This journal is available online: http://irap.oupjournals.org/)
Posted with permission from the publisher.