著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

一般財団法人 アジア政経学会

雑誌

アジア研究 (ISSN:00449237)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, no.2, pp.67-84, 1993 (Released:2014-09-15)

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

日本比較政治学会

雑誌

日本比較政治学会年報 (ISSN:21852626)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.3, pp.3-24, 2001-06-20 (Released:2010-09-09)

参考文献数

19

著者

寺島実郎 小杉泰 藤原帰一編

出版者

岩波書店

巻号頁・発行日

2003

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

日本比較政治学会

雑誌

日本比較政治学会年報 (ISSN:21852626)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.8, pp.93-112, 2006-11-20 (Released:2010-09-09)

参考文献数

19

著者

藤原 帰一 久保 文明 加藤 淳子 苅部 直 飯田 敬輔 平野 聡 川人 貞史 川出 良枝 田邊 國昭 金井 利之 城山 英明 谷口 将紀 塩川 伸明 高原 明生 大串 和雄 中山 洋平

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

基盤研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

2012-10-31

---

危機管理の政策決定と、それが政治社会にもたらす効果について、多角的な実地調査とデータ収集を行うとともに、三つの理論的視点、すなわちセキュリタイゼーション研究、危機管理研究、そして平和構築から分析を進めた。本作業の国際的パートナーがオレ・ウィーバー、イークワン・ヘン、そして、ジョンアイケンベリーであり、この三名を含む内外の研究者と共に2015年1月30日に大規模な国際研究集会を東京にて開催し研究成果の報告を行った。本会議においては理論研究とより具体的国際動向の分析を行う研究者との間の連絡に注意し、実務家との意見交換にも留意した。

著者

藤原 帰一 城山 英明 ヘン イークァン ORSI ROBERTO 和田 毅 錦田 愛子 華井 和代 HUSSAIN NAZIA 中溝 和弥 竹中 千春 清水 展 杉山 昌広

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

基盤研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

2019-04-01

---

本研究は、水資源を焦点に、グローバル・サウスの地域・国々の事例を取り上げ、気候変動による自然の衝撃が社会と政治にどのようなストレスをもたらすか、また、いかなる過程を経て社会の不安定化、資源獲得競争、国家の動揺、武力紛争、難民・移民などの現象を引き起こす原因となるのかを問い、気候変動政治のメカニズムを解明する。同時に、自然の脅威を前に国際社会、国家、草の根社会がいかなる緩和と適応を行うかを考察し、気候変動レジリアンスの仮説を提示する。さらに、気候変動安全保障を中核とする新しい安全保障論と、国連持続可能な開発目標(SDGs)とを連携させたグローバル・ガバナンス論を論じ、政策的検討を試みる。

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

Japan Association for Asian Studies

雑誌

アジア研究 (ISSN:00449237)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, no.2, pp.67-84, 1993

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2001, no.128, pp.1-11,L5, 2001-10-22 (Released:2010-09-01)

参考文献数

5

---

It has been quite some time since Peter Gourvitch, among others, had indicated that the interaction between international relations and domestic political change might have a more dynamic and theoretically interesting character than previously believed. A lot of water under the bridge since then, but not much has changed: the linkage between international politics and comparative politics has yet to be established. As a preface to the featured articles, this paper illustrates both the origins of this divide, as well as the important attempts that have been made to fill the gap.There are two sources for the conceptual divide between domestic politics and international politics. The first is the legacy that has been carried over from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which not only ended religious wars in Europe but also established a world composed of secular sovereign states. Such transition to a world divided into secular states, however, was always limited and was placed under various challenges against that division. The Westphalian legacy, in many ways, has been elevated from history into a simplified myth.A more academic source that established the domestic-international divide will be the works of Kenneth Waltz and his distinction of three analytical levels in international studies, one that effectively ruled out the search for domestic determinants of foreign policy as reductionist. But in effect, Waltz may have been working on a reductionism of his own, where domestic political priorities are reduced to that of a monolithic state, state priorities reduced to a mere outcome of anarchy, where patterns of power distribution appears as the only viable arenas for inquiry.For students of international political economy, in their studies of the interactions between the international market and individual governments, Waltz's rigid category appeared too narrow and inadequate. Thus started a stream of academic works that aimed to move away from Waltz's third image, first studying the second image in reverse, and then directly castingdoubts on his dismissal of the second image. In this paper, I trace such theoretical developments, first in the field of international political economy, then on regional integration and international sociology, and finally on more regime-level transitions and the role played by international factors in such transition.

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

日本比較政治学会

雑誌

日本比較政治学会年報 (ISSN:21852626)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.3, pp.i-vi, 2001-06-20 (Released:2010-09-09)

参考文献数

1

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

日本比較政治学会

雑誌

日本比較政治学会年報 (ISSN:21852626)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.i-vi, 2000-06-20 (Released:2010-09-09)

参考文献数

2

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

日本比較政治学会

雑誌

日本比較政治学会年報 (ISSN:21852626)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.3-21, 2000-06-20 (Released:2010-09-09)

参考文献数

16

著者

藤原 帰一

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

no.125, pp.147-161,L18, 2000

---

Much has been made of the claim that democracies do not fight each other. This claim met more skeptical eyes outside the United States, if only because the argument shared an annoying similarity with another argument once shared by supporters of communist parties: communists do not fight each other. So much for wishful thinking and self-deceit.<br>Peace, after all, has been observed among autocracies as well as by democracies; that does not mean, however, that regime-types do not matter. Regime-types, with distinctive characters in their decision making process, may cast influence over political decisions in international relations, even when they fail to dictate black-and-white outcomes such as the absence of war. If both autocracies and democracies may sustain 'peace' at given points, then, how are they different?<br>This leads to the question of this paper: can we distinguish significant patterns of behavior between autocratic peace and democratic peace? In this paper, I make an attempt to answer this question by comparing two most salient examples of autocratic peace, the Congress of Vienna and ASEAN. The former is important because it provided a model of balance of power to the realist school, while actually sustained by the threat of domestic upheaval; the latter is interesting because, among regimes that were undemocratic to say the least, a certain status quo has been somehow maintained.<br>Differences between early 19th century Europe and late 20th century Southeast Asia should be only too apparent. The Congress of Vienna and ASEAN, however, do share some institutional characteristics. Both were formed under the specter of revolution, the revival of the French revolution and the spillover of the Chinese revolution respectively. It was the fear of domestic challenges to political power, rather than the simple fear of overseas aggression, that held both regimes intact.<br>Both were sustained by a group of regional elites who were under little influence from domestic interests or public opinions. In Vienna, it was the Kings and the Nobles of each country who were all part of an extended family due to centuries of inter-marriage: an international society was more real than civil societies in the days of Vienna. ASEAN leaders lacked such kin relationship, but were all bound by secular interests that stemmed from a common agenda, that is, a non-communist and authoritarian path to state-formation.<br>Both regimes aimed at policy coordination of secular interests, disregarding transcendent norms or beliefs. Vienna aimed for the Concert of Europe with little religious beliefs or legal institutions; ASEAN, composed of Islamic, Buddhist, and Catholic societies, worked on a harmony of secular interests devoid of religion or political ideology. And both regimes imposed minimum constraints on the policy pursuit of individual states, non-intervention as the golden rule.<br>In spite of the lack of institutional norms and sanctions, or any clear and present foe to ally against, both regimes successfully preserved peace in the region for over three decades. An impressive achievement, but challenges emanated from within.<br>The Congress of Vienna ended with the revolutions of 1848 and the flight of Metternich. ASEAN nations have gone through a wave of democratic revolutions that shattered authoritarian rule in the Philippines (1986), Thailand (1992), and Indonesia (1998). The paper claims that such domestic changes have put the more secular and elitist policy coordination of ASEAN in limbo at the moment, with ominous signs for the future.

著者

加藤 節 西崎 文子 亀嶋 庸一 富田 武 藤原 帰一

出版者

成蹊大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

1999

---

近年、「内戦」が冷戦終結後の世界における戦争の新たな形態として頻発し、人々の関心をよんでいる。しかし、ふりかえってみると、20世紀全体が「戦争と革命の世紀」であるとともに、あるいはむしろそれゆえに、すぐれて「内戦の世紀」であった。今世紀は、ロシア革命に続く内戦から、ユーゴあるいはアフガニスタンの内戦に至るまで「内戦」を構造的に反復し続けてきたからである。本研究は20世紀がなぜそのように「内戦」を反復し続けてきたかを、多様的領域を専門とする政治学者の共同研究によって解明することを目的として発足した。その場合、本研究では次の三点に留意して分析を進めた。「内戦」を国民国家の擬制的性格に関連づけること、国民国家形成期における「内戦」の諸相に歴史的な光を当てること、国民国家体系としての現代世界における内戦の要因に理論的な考察を加えることがそれである。こうした作業を通して、本研究は歴史と理論との両面から「内戦」に政治学的考察を加えることができたと考えている。