国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(3) : パワー論争の多元化と収斂(浅野雅巳教授・鈴木登教授御退職記念号)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
This is the third installment of a series of papers with which I aim to clarify the peculiarity of the American acceptance of power concept in the study of international theory. In my previous papers, I attempted an interpretation that the concept of power had been awakened and accepted in the American international theory during the interwar period, especially between the late 1930s and the early 1940s, and then I classified the divergent power theories and identified the pluralistic characteristics and relativity between them. The purpose of this study is to examine these dynamics of power controversies which are described as 'divergence' and 'convergence.' Firstly, the significant issue to be pointed out is a philosophical 'divergence' between American liberalism and European conservatism. According to my classification, the former are Position A (an advocate of collective security), Position B (a devotee of democracy) and Position C (an advocate of policy science), and the latter is Position G (an advocate of balance of power, backed by European idea of power politics). Secondly, from the standpoint of 'convergence, ' Position D (an adherent who treats domestic affairs as a matter of highest priority), Position E (an adherent of sublation [aufheben] who criticizes and corrects various extremisms or reconciles opposing concepts), and Position F (an advocate of national security) played a substantial role in converging power controversies. This paper finds that in the early 1940s when a series of policy controversies for post-war order persisted, Position A and B have shifted to the assertion of confirming the ubiquity, necessity, and inevitability of power politics in terms of the conditions reflecting American values or interests. Then, a certain consensus among participants in the controversies stood out in relief. As a result, I can extract conclusions that the characteristics of the American acceptance of power concept are as follows: 1) Consciousness of the ubiquity, necessity, and inevitability of power politics. 2) Awareness of the leading role of government as an important actor exercising power or ensuring national security. 3) Treating power as an instrument of foreign policy advocating and enhancing American values or interests (e.g. freedom, democracy and so on). 4) Emerging consensus-building to use American power for stabilizing international society in the light of fulfilling responsibility as a great power. 5) Hoping to selectively engage in power politics after deliberation upon American security, setting aside the question of security policies or measures.
著者
関連論文
- 国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(4) : その意義(真柄欽次教授山田政美教授大野浩教授松岡紘一教授ロード・バーナード教授退職記年号)
- スプラウトにおける対外政策研究の再検討の試み(2) : パワー概念の覚醒と受容の観点から
- スプラウトにおける対外政策研究の再検討の試み(1) : その国際政治学の理論体系に注目して(第I部 北東アジアの国際関係)
- 国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(3) : パワー論争の多元化と収斂(浅野雅巳教授・鈴木登教授御退職記念号)
- 総合政策学的アプローチの可能性 : 地域の安全保障をめぐって(総合政策学)
- 国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(2) : パワー論をめぐる7潮流
- 国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(1) : 先行研究との対話