著者
石川 一雄
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.1987, no.86, pp.1-17,L5, 1987

Ethnic differences are used to be the single most important source of conflict within states, and they are frequently instrumental in arousing critical situations between countries as well. In present day world, the increase of ethnic diasporas and of antagonistic confrontations between or among politicized ethnic groups in most parts of the world, is changing the social and political milieu of the intra- and international relations more than expected. But, the international and, in particular, the trans-state activities of those ethnic groups, have hardly been addressed by students of comparative politics, or international relations. So that the demand for new scholarly efforts to understand their dynamics to find the peaceful and effective management of conflict become urgent.<br>This paper, responding to the demand, is concerned about the political and social configurations of states as serving units to create or sustain systemic ethnic disadvantages and inequalities. And to convey a sense of the generality of ethnic conflicts and to indicate the necessity of the reorientating basic conceptualizations, simultaneously, such concepts as state, nation, integration, and the formation of institutional arrangements are re-examined.<br>Firstly, using the compact illustration of the configuration of ethnic demands and governmental responses, various policy alternatives are relocated and reviewed on the continuum between complete autonomy and complete assimilation. The illustration tells us that ethnic conflicts cannot be expected to be resolved as long as we coexist with different ethnic groups in a single state, and also international frameworks won't be the final alternative to resolve the conflicts. The complete autonomy of ethnically self-conscious groups and their assimilation into the larger social setting in which they find themselves are both no real resolution of the conflicts. The best way of regulating ethnic conflicts has to be found somewhere in a domestic political arena.<br>Secondly, arguing the impracticability of social and cultural unification model both in segmented societies and in international regional systems, the necessity of pluralistic conceptualization of political integration is discussed.
著者
石川 一雄 大芝 亮
出版者
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.1992, no.100, pp.270-285,L20, 1992-08-30 (Released:2010-09-01)
参考文献数
3

The objectives of this paper are to figure out what substantive issues and theoretical approaches are receiving scholars' attention in Japan and to present proposals to build a viable transnational community of students of international relations.To avoid writers' personal conceptions of these problems, the following methods were used; first, a questionnaire was addressed to the members of the Japan Association of International Relations (JAIR) to bring together JAIR members' perceptions of the problems in 1988. The rate of return was about 27 percent; 329 out of about 1, 200 JAIR members answered the questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire were suggestive.Second, to avoid a gap between perception and behavior, the academic works done by JAIR members were also examined to understand what substantive issues were actively studied and which theoretical approaches were frequently used in research. Third, a research team was organized to examine the result of the questionnaire and the characteristics of international studies made by JAIR members.The result of this research was presented to the Third World Assembly of International Studies held in Williamsburg, Virginia, August 1988. This article is a Japanese version of a summary of the original paper.The first section of this paper explains the objectives and methodology. The second section briefly reviews international studies of Japan before the 1980s. The third section figures out JAIR members' primary fields of research. The fourth section investigates JAIR members' perceptions of the important substantial issues and their works in regard with these issues.The fifth and six sections are devoted to the examination of JAIR members' perceptions on theoreticl approaches, the theoretical characteristics of the works done by JAIR members, and major analytic weakness of research. The seventh section argues the principal users of scholarly research on international questions. The eighth section discusses the way in which Japanese scholars contribute to building a viable transnational community of scholars.
著者
石川 一雄
出版者
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.1981, no.67, pp.102-124,L5, 1981-05-25 (Released:2010-09-01)
参考文献数
77

The American study of international relations since the '60s has been in confusion and disorder. There is no agreement on the future of scientific International Relations, no semblance of a theory nor hope of its development, no agreement about the accumulation of knowledge nor paradigm takeoff, no reliability in the methods nor the data, no credibility in the public domain nor relevance for the foreign policy practitioners.This is another “twenty years crisis” of confidence in the scientific study of International Relations. The crisis is not merely the result of methodological immaturity, but reflects something fundamental about the human world: it concerns the nature of scientific investigation itself.In the first part of this article, the state of the field, in confusion and disorder, is reviewed and described, and A. Lijphart's and J. Rosenau's arguments on the scientific revolution in IR are taken for criticism as a starting point for developing an alternative viewpoint, the focus of which is the intersubjective and common meanings of human behavior.In the latter part, the author looks from an interpretive angle at the study of international relations, refocusing attention on the concrete varieties of cultural meanings in their particularities and complex texture.The main thrust of the whole argument is, somehow, on the American mainstream of thought in International Relations which is pecuriarly scientistic and ethnocentric in its own way.