著者

湯川 拓 阪本 拓人 若狭 彰室

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

挑戦的研究(萌芽)

巻号頁・発行日

2023-06-30

---

「国際社会」(international community)という概念は国際関係を理解する上で極めて重要な概念でありながらも、既存研究においては同概念についての歴史的・動態的な分析は極めて不十分であった。すなわち、「国際社会」概念が外交当事者からどのように用いられてきたのかという分析は、全くと言ってよいほど為されてこなかった。それに対し、本研究では計算社会科学の先端的な手法を取り込み、条約のテキスト分析という新しい方法を用いることで、「国際社会」概念に対して、①動態的分析、②実証的分析という二点を実現することで根本的に画期的な貢献を試みる。

著者

湯川 拓

出版者

独立行政法人 日本貿易振興機構アジア経済研究所

雑誌

アジア動向年報 (ISSN:09151109)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2014, pp.217-230, 2014 (Released:2023-02-10)

著者

湯川 拓

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2011, no.164, pp.164_58-71, 2011-02-20 (Released:2013-05-22)

参考文献数

38

---

What types of characteristics do the diplomatic relationships of countries with unstable “regime security” exhibit? These are countries where the use of force is used to challenge the authority of the central government, for example, by means of revolution; civil war; or coup d' état. According to the existing literature, the argument that “when domestic governance within a country is unstable, that country's relationship with other countries will also be unstable” seems to dominate most research.In contrast to these works, this paper aims to conceptualize the mechanism where countries choose to cooperate multilaterally and internationally, in order to heighten their own regime security. In particular, two types of international institutions which exist for the purpose of heightening domestic security will be introduced. The first type of institution, which is responsible for defining the concept of what a “domestic political regime” should be, seeks to actively impose sanctions on those countries which defy the concept. On the other hand, the second type of institution seeks to mutually recognize the legitimacy of its member countries' political regimes, regardless of the form that these regimes might take. In this way, the second type of institution can be described as being “negative” in nature. Examples of such institutions include Mercosur and ASEAN. This paper will demonstrate that the role of these institutions goes beyond stabilizing international relationships, but also extends into the realm of reinforcing regime security, which is the prior concern of its member countries.Moreover, since the stance adopted by this paper is that “regime security and the international institutions are closely linked”, it will also add a fresh perspective to the existing literature on the evolution of the international norms. The evolution of the international norms refers to the change in the perspective of countries over time, when they choose to replace policies of mutual non-interference with new policies. Originally, such changes used to be interpreted as a “transition in the international norms”, or as “the waning of sovereignty”. However, this paper argues differently. Instead of seeing changes in the international regime as a “break” in the existing state of affairs, this paper proposes that the change from mutual non-interference to mutual cooperation is in fact a form of continuity in the international norm, borne out of the desire of countries to heighten their own regime security.

著者

湯川 拓

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.2014, no.176, pp.176_126-176_139, 2014

---

The balance of power has always been conceived as being closely connected with realism, in the conventional International Relations literature. In particular, realists believe that the balance of power is the result of alliances being formed within the international system, by nations in their pursuit of self-interest.<br>In contrast to the conventional literature, this paper emphasizes the role of the balance of power as a behavioral norm, within the international society. To be more specific, it sheds light on the fact that the balance of power provides moral and obligatory standards for the members of international society to adhere to. At the same time, it has also contributed to public interest within international society. Although the normative balance of power first made its appearance in the 18th century, the current balance of power (observed in contemporary international society) does not bear the role of a behavioral standard. Two relevant questions which we should consider then, is (1) at what point in time exactly, and (2) in what way exactly, the balance of power norm waned in terms of influence. This paper aims to answer these two questions.<br>Its main finding is as follows. This paper stresses on the legitimacy of the balance of power norm (within international society) as being key to answering the two research questions above. In the 18th century the balance of power referred to the need to maintain an equal distribution of physical military power, as a norm that was necessary for ensuring stability in the international society. Some necessary conditions for the balance of power to exist as a norm in the 18th century were the absence of disputes over legitimacy, and the recognition (or achievement) of a certain degree of homogeneity amongst the members of international society. When the balance of power came to be established as a norm in the earlier half of the 19th century, it was perceived as contributing to homogeneity in international society. It referred to the maintenance of equilibrium in the international society, vis-a-vis the sustenance of a particular regime, rather than the balancing of physical power. It finally lost its appeal as a norm during the latter half of the 19th century and after the First World War, when new principles of legitimacy such as nationalism and democracy appeared.<br>The various different meanings implied by the term 'balance of power' tell us multitudes about the type of world order which was deemed desirable by the international society, under different situations.

著者

湯川 拓

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.2014, no.176, pp.176_126-176_139, 2014-03-31 (Released:2015-10-20)

参考文献数

49

---

The balance of power has always been conceived as being closely connected with realism, in the conventional International Relations literature. In particular, realists believe that the balance of power is the result of alliances being formed within the international system, by nations in their pursuit of self-interest. In contrast to the conventional literature, this paper emphasizes the role of the balance of power as a behavioral norm, within the international society. To be more specific, it sheds light on the fact that the balance of power provides moral and obligatory standards for the members of international society to adhere to. At the same time, it has also contributed to public interest within international society. Although the normative balance of power first made its appearance in the 18th century, the current balance of power (observed in contemporary international society) does not bear the role of a behavioral standard. Two relevant questions which we should consider then, is (1) at what point in time exactly, and (2) in what way exactly, the balance of power norm waned in terms of influence. This paper aims to answer these two questions. Its main finding is as follows. This paper stresses on the legitimacy of the balance of power norm (within international society) as being key to answering the two research questions above. In the 18th century the balance of power referred to the need to maintain an equal distribution of physical military power, as a norm that was necessary for ensuring stability in the international society. Some necessary conditions for the balance of power to exist as a norm in the 18th century were the absence of disputes over legitimacy, and the recognition (or achievement) of a certain degree of homogeneity amongst the members of international society. When the balance of power came to be established as a norm in the earlier half of the 19th century, it was perceived as contributing to homogeneity in international society. It referred to the maintenance of equilibrium in the international society, vis-a-vis the sustenance of a particular regime, rather than the balancing of physical power. It finally lost its appeal as a norm during the latter half of the 19th century and after the First World War, when new principles of legitimacy such as nationalism and democracy appeared. The various different meanings implied by the term ‘balance of power’ tell us multitudes about the type of world order which was deemed desirable by the international society, under different situations.