16 0 0 0 OA アメリカは「例外国家」であり続けるか? : 米大統領選後の展望
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- 専修大学法学研究所
- 雑誌
- 専修大学法学研究所所報 = The Newsletter of the CLPS, Senshu University (ISSN:09137165)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.63, pp.7-25, 2021-07-20
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- アメリカ学会
- 雑誌
- アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.53, pp.99-118, 2019-04-25 (Released:2021-09-17)
This paper explores the experience of the two prominent émigré International Relations (IR) scholars, Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–1980) and Stanley Hoffmann (1928–2015), both of whom fled from war-torn Europe to the United States, especially focusing on their views on the roles and ethics of the intellectuals in the society. Being “outsiders” in American academia and society, they both critically analyzed the status of American IR scholarship in a detached way.Morgenthau criticized a “new scholasticism” widely found in American IR scholarship, which he defined as “an intellectual exercise executed with a high degree of acumen and sophistication, that tells us nothing we need to know about the real world.” Seeing scholars’ primary mission in “speaking truth to power,” even if power may try to discredit, silence, and corrupt them, Morgenthau insisted that a scholar should not be silent when great issues were before the public and the government. Though Morgenthau several times served the government as an adviser to the State Department and the Defense Department, he gradually became disillusioned with the government’s dogmatic cold war policy, and turned himself from a Washington Policy adviser into one of the harshest critics of American military involvement in Vietnam. During the 1960s, Morgenthau attended numerous anti-war teach-ins and protest events, where he severely criticized the so-called “best & brightest” who served the Kennedy and Johnson administration for spreading self-serving myths and deluding themselves and the nation.In his seminal article “An American Social Science: International Relations” published in 1977, Hoffmann bitterly criticized the proximity of IR scholarship to the corridors of power, arguing that intellectuals should be independent from political and any other undue external influence, and seek knowledge for their own sake. Unlike his colleagues at Harvard, such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hoffmann never felt tempted to serve the government as a policy adviser or become involved in policy-making in Washington D.C. He continuously warned of a risk that scholars’ activities would be shaped not by pursuit of truth but by their desire to be “relevant” to policy concerns. Hoffmann also criticized American scholars’ preference for abstract theorizing and their indifference to concrete lives of the people in the other countries. Hoffmann always put his emphasis on history and human agency. Being a French intellectual in the United States, Hoffmann continuously criticized American exceptionalism and emphasized how this hubristic concept made American people blind to new realities in world politics. Hoffmann was one of the most vocal opponents of George W. Bush’s Iraq War, which cast a dark shadow on the transatlantic relations.Morgenthau and Hoffmann were never afraid of being an outsider in American society in their pursuit of fulfilling their duty as an intellectual. At the same time, from the experience that they could find a refuge in the United States after long suffering in Europe, they believed in America’s moral authority and its long tradition of democracy, which gave them courage to stand up for the truth. In their belief and behavior, they were more “American” than American intellectuals who yielded to power and betrayed American ideals.
2 0 0 0 OA 『危機の二十年』(1939)の国際政治観
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
- 雑誌
- 年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.59, no.1, pp.1_306-1_323, 2008 (Released:2012-12-28)
This thesis revisits “Twenty Years’ Crisis” and considers what E. H. Carr means by “realism.” Since the 1990s, many works have challenged the stereotyped picture of a “realist Carr.” Now we know much about a “non-realist” Carr, but there still remain a lot of questions about Carr's “realism.” Contrary to the prevailing image of anti-idealism, Carr's “realism” is a “weapon” to demolish the inequalities between nations, and to rebuild a more equal order. During the 1930s, the “idealists” such as Norman Angell and Leonard Woolf abandoned their optimistic beliefs in public opinion, and advocated the League sanctions against the fascist countries. Together with the pacifists, Carr criticized the League sanctions as a superficial solution, and insisted that the fundamental problem was the inequalities between the “have” and “have-not” countries. His criticisms toward the League were not a denial of the League itself. He criticized the “Coercive League,” which was hostile to the “have-not” countries, but supported the “Consultative League,” which functioned as a forum between the “have” and “have-not.” Now we are in the long fight against terrorism. Global terrorism is, in part, a reaction to global inequalities. Carr's “realism” tells us that military actions alone never beat global terrorism.
2019年5月に『世界万国の平和を期して―安達峰一郎著作選』(研究代表者が編者)を出版した。公表された学術論文や随筆のみならず、外交官として書き記した口上書や調書や報告書、日露戦争の捕獲審検所評定官としての調査書や判決、国際連盟や万国国際法学会での報告書、常設国際司法裁判所所長としての報告書や命令・勧告的意見に対する反対意見などを一冊にまとめた、安達峰一郎の最初の著作集である。フランス語を主とする欧文著作(書簡を含む)も巻末に一括して掲載した(100頁あまり)。この著作集の出版によって、安達の業績が内外に一層広く知られることとなることが期待される。また、6月15日には東京で、安達峰一郎記念財団の主催で「よみがえる安達峰一郎―世界が称賛した国際人に学ぶ」という記念シンポジウムが開催された。200名近くの参加者を得て、安達の思想と行動が現在の混迷する国際社会にとって持つ意義について、熱心な討論が行われた。研究代表者が基調報告を務め、複数の研究分担者も個別報告を担当するとともに、パネルディスカッションにも参加した。また、国際法協会日本支部が主催して、2019年4月27日に「日本における国際法学の誕生」という共通テーマでの研究大会が行われた。研究分担者の三牧が「大戦間期の戦争違法化と安達峰一郎」というテーマで報告を行った。海外の史料館の一次史料の収集作業も引き続き行った。ベルギーの外交史料館で再度の一次史料の収集作業を行った。これまでほとんど知られていない、黒澤二郎関連の史料をかなりの数収集できた(“Correspondance politique Japon”や13.584など)。
2 0 0 0 OA 戦争違法化思想とアメリカ外交
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- 東京大学大学院総合文化研究科附属グローバル地域研究機構アメリカ太平洋地域研究センター
- 雑誌
- アメリカ太平洋研究 (ISSN:13462989)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.13, pp.22-31, 2013-03
特集 : 太平洋関係のなかのアメリカと日本 : 歴史からの問い
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- 一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会
- 雑誌
- 国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.2021, no.202, pp.202_1-202_14, 2021-03-29 (Released:2022-03-31)
- 参考文献数
- 35
Since the start of his presidency in 2017, Donald Trump has abandoned multiple treaties and agreements such as the Paris climate-change accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement, asserting that U.S. foreign policy should put the interests and security of American people first. Trump’s “America first” foreign policy doctrine has cast profound doubt on U.S. commitment to the multilateral international system that the United States helped create and nurture after World War II. Pundits have wondered if the world has been sliding back to the chaos of the 1930s - when another war in Europe approached, the United States was reluctant to engage in world peace and tolerated the rise of fascist countries. Despite serious divide over Trump’s statesmanship, Trump’s instinct for non-intervention and his focus on domestic politics are widely shared among Americans. According to opinion polls, a growing number of Americans agree that the United States should reduce its overseas commitments.Nevertheless, it is too early to conclude that America is returning to isolationism like in the 1930s. This paper explores America’s ongoing search for a new way to engage with the world, particularly focusing on the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an action-oriented think tank built as a unique hybrid of left and right-wing anti-militarists in 2019 with the purpose of laying the foundation for a more restraint foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement. Backed by the growing bipartisan support for ending the “endless wars,” The Quincy Institute fundamentally questions American bipartisan commitment to “primacy,” the notion that world peace ultimately depends on the United States asserting preponderant military power. Military restraint, The Quincy Institute argues, would give America the best chance of building deeper international cooperation against climate change and other global challenges that have afflicted humanity as a whole, as well as of reconstructing U.S. crumbling health care system.The spread of COVID-19 has had profound impacts on American peoples’ perception of national security, and made Quincy’s challenges increasingly relevant. Suffering from the epidemic, many Americans are wondering if their country has been ever more threatened, in return for lavishing taxpayer dollars on the world’s largest national security apparatus. According to recent opinion polls, especially young Americans, who have grown up in the age of unsuccessful military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and 2008 global financial crisis stemming from the collapse of the U.S. housing market and a rash of bankruptcies of financial institutions, no longer believe that the United States is an “indispensable nation.” Rather, they realize their country’s weakness exposed by COVID-19, and embrace more restraint foreign approaches and multilateral cooperation. Supported by these youth’s preferences, Quincy’s search for a systematically different world role for the United States would be continued and intensified in the future.
- 著者
- 三牧 聖子
- 出版者
- 日本政治学会
- 雑誌
- 日本政治學會年報政治學 (ISSN:05494192)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.59, no.1, pp.1_306-1_323, 2008
This thesis revisits “Twenty Years’ Crisis” and considers what E. H. Carr means by “realism.” Since the 1990s, many works have challenged the stereotyped picture of a “realist Carr.” Now we know much about a “non-realist” Carr, but there still remain a lot of questions about Carr's “realism.” Contrary to the prevailing image of anti-idealism, Carr's “realism” is a “weapon” to demolish the inequalities between nations, and to rebuild a more equal order. <br> During the 1930s, the “idealists” such as Norman Angell and Leonard Woolf abandoned their optimistic beliefs in public opinion, and advocated the League sanctions against the fascist countries. Together with the pacifists, Carr criticized the League sanctions as a superficial solution, and insisted that the fundamental problem was the inequalities between the “have” and “have-not” countries. His criticisms toward the League were not a denial of the League itself. He criticized the “Coercive League,” which was hostile to the “have-not” countries, but supported the “Consultative League,” which functioned as a forum between the “have” and “have-not.” <br> Now we are in the long fight against terrorism. Global terrorism is, in part, a reaction to global inequalities. Carr's “realism” tells us that military actions alone never beat global terrorism.