著者

竹部 晴美 Harumi Takebe

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, no.2, pp.253(415)-280(442), 2015-08-30

著者

ツィマーマン ラインハルト 山田 到史子 Reinhard Zimmermann Toshiko Yamada

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.62, no.4, pp.213(1832)-276(1769), 2012-01-20

著者

宮内 紀子

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.62, no.2, pp.1102-1062, 2011-07

著者

岡 俊孝

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, no.2, pp.171-213, 1965-05-30

---

The results of the Russo-Japanese War closed the honeymoon period between the United States and Japan that had lasted for fifty years since Perry opened the latter's door, and the two Pacific Powers were brought into rivalry which culminated in the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forty years after the Portsmouth Conference. The roots of the U.S.-Japanese War may stretch back directly or indirectly to Japan's conquest of Manchuria in 1931. But to make clear the nature of the Manchurian Incident and to throw light on the real causes of the U.S.-Japanese struggle, we must go back further. In a sense the conflict began when the Japanese interests and privileges established in South Manchuria cast a gloom over the future advance of American commercial activities thereto. Japan's "twenty-one demands" in 1915 and her desiderata resulting from the Chengchiatun Incident in 1916 crystallized the aggressive attitude toward China of the Japanese Empire in the course of World War I. Japan launched an offensive against China taking advantage of the war which made it hard for the major European powers to pay much attention to China. Under these circumstances the United States was the only great neutral power that could emulate Japan. What, then, were the reactions or decisions of the United States against these demands? With what intention and through what process were her decisions made? And what were their consequences? This paper proposes to answer these questions. The writer's paper consists of following sections : I. Introduction. II. The U.S. Note of March 13,1915 to Japan. III. The U.S. Notes of May 11,1915 to Japan and China. IV. The Chengchiatun Incident and the U.S. reaction. V. Conclusion. Great impetus was given to the writer when he read a few books on Lansing's foreign policy (e.g., Smith's Robert Lansing and American Neutrality, 1958 and Beers' Vain Endeavor, 1962). The latter in particular emphasizes Lansing's realistic approach to the Far East. Lansing as a statesman and a diplomat, however, should neither be judged by his observation of power politics, whether realistic or not; what he designed; nor what he wanted to do. But the judgment should rely upon how the U.S.-Japanese relations were affected by the performance of his decision and by the differences of policy and idea among Lansing and other decision-makers. Thus, in order to have a correct understanding of the American policy toward Japan in this period, the writer believes that it is necessary to reexamine the roles of Wilson, Bryan, Lansing, and other policy-makers and the interrelation among them. After closely examining the process of preparation for the two notes of 1915 and U.S. reaction against Japan's movement in 1916,the following is the writer's conclusion. First, the note of March 13,1915 is a mixture of different ideas and policies of Wilson, Bryan, and Lansing. This is an awkward compromise among these top decision-makers. Here is the reason why some interpret this note as America's recognition of Japan's special interests in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia, and others as protest. It goes without saying that Japan took advantage of this questionable character in her negotiations with China. Second, the author of the note of May 11 was Lansing, and by this note he intended to make good the loss the earlier note caused. But we cannot overlook Japan's doubt and perplexity made by this note. And in 1916,although he was less dependent of Wilson and other policy-makers, Lansing was almost silent about Japan's renewed demands on China mainly because of the European war situation and to meet the needs of the domestic politics. Nobody would deny that to maintain the status quo in the Far East was one of the basic principles of the United States foreign policy in this period. However, the sequence of these reactions at variance (conciliatory attitude ⟶ stiffening ⟶ negative policy) toward Japan's movements in China seems to have made the

著者

野田 崇 Takashi Noda

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.65, no.3, pp.47(679)-91(723), 2014-11-30

著者

秋元 洋祐

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.61, no.4, pp.924-893, 2011-01

著者

新津 和典

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, no.2, pp.307-327, 2009-07

著者

Song Jaehyun 善教 将大 宋 財泫 Masahiro Zenkyo

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, no.2, pp.67(611)-108(652), 2016-08-30

著者

高橋 裕

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.62, no.1, pp.784-746, 2011-04

著者

橋本 信之 Nobuyuki Hashimoto

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, no.1, pp.13-58, 2015-05-30

著者

田中 茂樹

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.3, pp.493-520, 1982-11-15

---

1. Preface 2. Being legally obliged and Legal Obligation 3. The Recognition of Legal Obligation 4. Obligation and Sanction or Coercion 5. The Binding Character of Obligatory Rule and Ought In this essay I shall examine a new theory on legal obligation, which is presented by Professor H. L. A. Hart and the Ordinary Language School. Japanese legal philosophy has received and criticized H. Kelsen's notion of Ought (Sollen). So Hart's attempt to reconstruct Kelsen's notion of Ought and Basic Norm (Grundnorm) is fresh and interesting. But Hart's notion of legal obligation is not so clear to elucidate the relation between coercive force and legal obligation in a legal system.

著者

岡本 仁宏

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.40, no.1, pp.81-157, 1989-03-20

---

This essay is a commentary on the situation of theoretical debates about the American "Progressive" era. Of course this era, about 1900-1920,is represented by the name of the two presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. This essay has mainly two subjects. One is to review the recent interpretations of historical meaning of this era and the other is to search for clues to analyse the political thought of this era, particularly focusing on what is called the republican tradition. In the beginning of the first chapter, many historical interpretations by the end of the 1960s on the progressive era are sketched in one table, which includes some key terms of the "progressive", the "concensus", the "new left" and the "organizational" schools. And then among various interpretations after 1970,views of two historians, D. T. Rodgers and R. L. McCormick, are summarised and briefly reviewed on thier trait. In thier views, the contemporary political process and structure with pressure groups and enormous bureaucracys originate in this era. Thier views are remarkable in that thier frames of recognition are deeply influenced by theories of mordern political sciense. Their views leads to understanding the political thinking of this era as various expressions of distress and agony in the emerging process of the contemporary society. In the second chapter, among diverse arguable themes we pick up a theme of the political tradition of republicanism. The problem of republicanism in American political tradition is an important and hotly controversial issue. The dominant position of the liberal tradition in America (L. Harts) has been attacked by proponents of the republican tradition and vice versa. Referring to works of J. G. A. Pocock, J. P. Diggins, R. N. Bellah, D. Ross and so on, this essay describes what influence of republicanism can be discovered in the progressive political thought. Then some other related issues are commented, including historical conciousness in comparative point of view.

著者

冨田 宏治

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.57, no.2, pp.111-148, 2006-06

---

2. Modern Japan as Visualized Empire Modern Japan and Modernity of M. Foucault Tennou's Pageantry and Visual Domination Visualized Empire and Visual Domination Historical Precedent of Visual Domination

著者

冨田 宏治

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.1, pp.1-44, 2004-04

著者

森脇 俊雅

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, no.2, pp.201-240, 1985-06-20

---

Introduction I. What Is Collective Action Problem? II. Discussions of Collective Action Problem (1) Political Entrepreneur (2) Game Theoretic Analysis (3) Some Criticisms III. Political Implications of Collective Action Problem

著者

荻野 晃 Akira Ogino

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, no.4, pp.879-903, 2017-02

著者

家本 真実

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.3, pp.568-554, 2004-09-30

著者

丸田 隆

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.1, pp.163-213, 2000-04

---

The content of this article is as follows : 1. Introduction 2. Japanese Culture and Japanese Nationality (1) Interrelation between Japanese Culture and Nationality Argument (2) Japanese Language 3. Analysis of the Japanese Nationality Argument (1) Anti-jury Argument based upon Japanese Nationality (2) Classic and Revised Japanese Characteristics Argument (3) Japanese Legal Consciousness and Nationality Argument 4. Mixed Court System and Nationality (1) Structure of Mixed Court System (2) Pro-Mixed Court Argument in Japan (3) Examination of Japanese Nationality in the Procedure of Mixed Court Trial 5. Conclusion 1. This paper examines three basic aspects on the civil participation into the judiciary in Japan : first, to analyze the Japanese nationality discourse in the context of the so-called "Japanese Culture, " second, to explore both the function and the reality of the mixed court system and, finally, to scrutinize whether or not the Japanese culture obstructs the normal function of the mixed court system in Japan. 2. Although Japan once had a criminal jury system before World War II (1928-1943), since then Japan has had no civil participation system in trials (with the minor exception of using lay assessors in the civil mediation stage.) In the modern world, it might be atypical enough to see a country that employs professional judges, solely recruited from among young legal trainees and trained as career judges, who exclusively preside over trials without any involvement of lay citizens. In the construction era immediately after World War II, there was a proposal to introduce the jury system into Japan by the SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). Japanese high officials declined to accept the idea, explaining that the Japanese were too immature, the jury system was incompatible with Japanese character, and the Japanese' respect and deference to the higher authority. 3. The exploitation of Japanese uniqueness, such as Japanese culture, nationality, weather, national ritual in order to reject introduction of foreign goods was well exemplified by the Japanese high officials who confronted foreign pressure about the restricted trade policy. Their cliche is since Japan has its own tradition and culture, the foreign goods are not suitable to Japan and will bring adverse effects to the nation. They often utilized the claim of Japanese uniqueness claim to contest international pressure to open the Japanese market, for products like oranges and rice (they said that Japanese liked more oranges with soft skin and sticky rice.) 4. Apart from the high official's claiming the Japanese uniqueness, the Japanese nationality argument is often cited as a reason to resist implementing a new legal system in Japan. Above all legal scholars and lawyers use the Japanese nationality argument against the introduction of jury systems in Japan. Because the Japanese are inclined to rely upon the authority, resist expressing shy to express their own opinion, and shy away from arguments, have no concern with others, the jury system where a group of lay citizens find facts and concludes with a final verdict would bring a disastrous result, and thus they believe in the trials presided by professional judges. The basic tenet of this way of thinking is that without the best and brightest people's (high officials' or professionals') control, the Japanese will lose their way and cannot manage things by themselves. This contention has two presumptions : Japanese people are incapable of with handling fact-finding because of their national characteristics and, secondly, those who manage judiciaries (mainly professional judges) are exempted from those kind of general characteristics. Are these presumptions appropriate? 5. Basically from where did the stereotypical generalization of the Japanese character come? Some "anthropologists" and "sociologists" seriously have examined the source of the Japanese uniqueness. Some explained with a geological reason

著者

足立 忠夫

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.1, pp.1-47, 1990-03-20

---

This paper discusses the legality and constitutionality of the hearing presided by the single "designated member" which has been conducted as a customary practice in every case of the Osaka Expropriation Committee, and concludes that the practice is unconstitutional, illegal, or at least irrational.

著者

荻野 晃 Akira Ogino

出版者

関西学院大学法政学会

雑誌

法と政治 (ISSN:02880709)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, no.2, pp.585-609, 2016-08