On July 12th, College of International Relations hosted the special lecture of visiting professor Amitav Acharya in its 30th anniversary events.

At the beginning, Professor Adachi introduced Professor Amitav Acharya as a distinguished professor of International Relations, the UNECSO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service of American University in Washington, DC and the Chair of the ASEAN Studies Initiative. He served as a President of the International Studies Association (ISA) in 2014-2015 and has been a visiting Professor at Ritsumeikan University for several years. Professor Adachi said that Professor Acharya’s ideas of global International Relations resonated with Ritsumeikan University so much that a joint degree program on global IR was launched with American University. Professor Adachi also mentioned that the title of today’s presentation is also a tentative title of Amitav Acharya’s upcoming book.

Professor Acharya thanked Professor Adachi for his kind introduction and everyone for their warm welcome. He started his presentation by explaining his views on the evolution of International Relations as a discipline. From a global perspective, this evolution can be divided into four main stages. The first may be called “creationism” and starts in the inter-war period. It is characterized by a normative concern about the world war and preventing it from happening again. The second stage is “Americanization” of IR taking place from 1945 to 1989. American dominance in the discipline was so prevailing at that time that Stanley Hoffman even calls IR “American social science” (1977). The period from 1989 (the end of Cold War) to 2008 (global financial crisis) is characterized by pluralization of theoretical approaches. Finally, current period is called “globalization” and is characterized by liberal hegemony and “third founding of the discipline”: while IR is still dominated by American and other Western ideas, there is a growing dissatisfaction and attempts to create a more globalized narrative.

Professor Achariya then proceeded to describe the four stages in detail starting with the so-called “creationism” stage (1919-1939). The term itself is derived from theology and philosophy where it related to the debate between creationists who believe in the creation of the world by God out of nothing and evolutionists who think that the world evolved from multiple factors interacting with each other. Another alternative to creationism: Aristotle’s doctrine of the “Eternity of the World” that was preserved and propagated thanks to Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd who wrote commentaries to the Greek classical philosopher’s work. The doctrine of the “Eternity of the World” is opposed to the “big bang” or one-moment creation. Similarly, IR as a discipline is thought to have derived from multiple sources including Alfred Zimmern’s idealism, E.H. Carr’s realism and resulting “first debate” between the idealists and the realists but also IR thinking and practices from outside Europe such as anti-imperialism from Asia and Africa, Asian regionalism, Pan-Arabism from the Middle East, Pan-Americanism from Latin America etc. Thus, Professor Achariya challenges the traditional “myth of creation” of IR as a discipline at University of Wales-Aberystwyth in 1919 with the creation of Woodrow Wilson Chair in International Politics. One of the reasons why we cannot accept this narrative is that it largely neglects imperialism and racism, issues of major concern to the majority of the world population that was under colonial or semi-colonial rule at that time.

According to Achariya, the second stage of IR development covers the period from 1945 to 1989. After World War II, IR theories have to respond to new important phenomena such as the Cold War, nuclear weapons, European integration, and later energy crisis. Realists point out that the newly founded UN is paralysed by constant disagreement between the US and Soviet Union while liberalists suggest regional integration and interdependency theory as a solution. The second debate between liberalism and realism occurs, this time of more epistemological rather than ideological nature. Arguing over the use of methodology: classical (historical, interpretation) vs. scientific (behaviourist) methods, they eventually reach consensus on anarchy. This central concept for realism is finally accepted by neoliberalism, with the proviso that anarchy can be mitigated by institutions and their monitoring mechanisms. Another consensus between neoliberalism and neorealism is reached upon the concept of rational choice; as a result, IR field starts following the logic of economics rather than philosophy and becomes narrower. This “neo-neo” synthesis is challenged by emerging critical theories (poststructuralism and feminism) and theories from the periphery (dependency theory and postcolonialism).

The third stage of pluralization of IR (1989-2008) occurs in the context of the end of the Cold War and shift of the global power balance as well as ethnic conflicts and emerging powers (China and India). The idea of containment of communism as no longer relevant gives way to the spread of democracy as the latter is assumed to be better for the world peace. This leads to creation of liberal peace theory (Doyle; Russett), offensive realism vs. defensive realism debate, and rise of other theories, among which constructivism concerned with norms and identity becomes the preferred approach for many IR researchers. Other theories include postmodern tradition focusing on language and deconstruction of existing narratives, neo-Marxist and Gramscian approaches discussing issues of hegemony and production, English school concerned with expansion of European rules and institutions, feminism criticising conventional IR for being a largely masculine project, and postcolonialism investigating issues of race, gender and marginality of postcolonial agency.

Finally, the current stage defined by Professor Achariya as ongoing from 2008 is characterized by globalization and major move from the Eurocentric to Global IR. While some scholars develop the theory of liberal hegemony, end of the paradigms and thus the end of theory, others are concerned with the absence of non-Western IR theory. Hypothesis why non-Western IR is absent include: 1) hegemony and continuing dominance of American IR which may marginalize other approaches, 2) lack of visibility, 3) lack of resources for non-Western scholars to develop and publish their work. Possible solutions for bringing non-Western world into IR may involve creative use of non-Western classical ideas, possibly blended with Western knowledge, developing nationalist thinking, Global South scholarship and regional dynamics. According to Achariya, the key trends in the global IR currently include: 1) pluralistic universalism embracing diversity and at the same time seeking common ground, 2) grounding in global history, 3) theoretical and methodological pluralism making global IR distinctly different from post-colonialism that draws only from their local context, 4) combining IR and area studies: insights from the area and knowledge of a particular country, 5) highlighting regional and global dynamics and 6) recognition of multiple forms of non-Western agency. Professor Achariya emphasized that agency is not material nor limited to action; agency can mean creating a context for action locally and exporting it globally. He stressed that many parts of the world that are poor materially are rich ideationally, and ideas can come from everywhere.

The presentation was followed by a Q&A session during which participants asked questions about Buddhist nationalism and its place in the narrative of the global IR, clashes between international and local perspective in the case of ethnic conflicts in Rakhine State in Myanmar, ways to escape binary or categorization explanations in IR, differences between Asian and African IR traditions in their ways to relate and reflect theoretically on their historical slavery.

First, Professor Acharya explained that while Buddhist thinking is a part of the global IR and has an advantage of bringing the common in people very peacefully, we should bear in mind that Buddhist nationalism is a politicization of religion rather than Buddhist thinking per se.

Regarding the contestation between international and local, Professor Achariya stressed that it is a matter of domestic politics that prevents the mutual understanding between the local and the international side. Global IR approach can be helpful here as it seeks understanding social phenomena before attempting to explain them like rational IR theory and attempts to do so in a broader range of reality than a particular geographical or historical context. Seeing a broader reality can also be a solution to avoid a binary approach in IR.

While slavery existed in most societies in different forms and for different purposed and certain forms exist until today, it is also true that African slavery was most brutal, massive and had tremendous impact on the rise of the West, underdevelopment of the African continent and ongoing racial discrimination. Therefore, it is not surprising that Pan-African thinkers – not limited to Africa but also including the US, the Caribbean and other regions – place so much emphasis on slavery and race.

Professor Acharya provided the listeners with further readings on the topic and his social media handles to continue the discussion and reflection on the global IR. The audience thanked the speaker with a warm applause.

On June 7, College of International Relations and the International Studies Association at Ritsumeikan University invited Dr. Kent E. Calder as the first guest speaker for its 30th anniversary special lecture series. Dean Akihiko Kimijima of College of IR introduced Dr. Calder as one of the most important Japan and Asia specialists, and emphasized his unique career as a researcher, as an educator at prominent schools, and as a practitioner. Dr. Calder has served as Special Advisor to the US Ambassador to Japan (1997-2001) and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (1989-1993 and 1996). He is currently Professor and Director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., and will assume the Vice Dean at SAIS on July 1, 2018.

Many students from College and Graduate School of International Relations, include its Global Studies Major and American University Ritsumeikan University Joint Degree Program joined the lecture to learn from the well-known Japan specialist.

Dr. Calder’s talk was mainly about his latest book, Circles of Compensation: Economic Growth and the Globalization of Japan, published by Stanford University Press. This book can be understood as an updated and combined version of his earlier masterpieces, Crisis and Compensation: Public Policy and Political Stability in Japan, 1949-1986 and Strategic Capitalism: Private Business and Public Purpose in Japanese Industrial Finance, published in 1988 and in 1993 respectively by Princeton University Press.

What Dr. Calder tries to explain through the concept of “Circles-of-Compensation (CoC)” is how CoC in the Japanese society have internalized the benefits they can produce and how costs have been externalized to players who remain outside CoC. For instance, Kansai International Airport’s landing fee is much higher than other major international airports in the region such as Incheon International Airport. However, in the context of CoC, high price has not been regarded as a negative thing. Instead, higher price has been transferred to benefits that CoC can share together whereas external players should pay the higher cost. The question he wants to raise is whether CoC can be sustainable and continuously successful in the era of globalization when the rest of the world is competing by lowering price and rapidly changing.

Dr. Sumiyo Nishizaki, who is currently Assistant Professor of College of IR at Ritsumeikan University and served as the commentator of Dr. Calder’s talk, emphasized that CoC mechanism used to function very well as the stabilizer of the society in the era of Cold War when the Japanese economy was dramatically changing and when ideological conflict was serious enough to cause a domestic political crisis.

Dr. Calder does not disagree with Dr. Nishizaki’s view; he also admits historical contribution of CoC. Nonetheless, he continues that CoC are unlikely to work as effectively as before because CoC can keep making it difficult to reform the Japanese society and to adopt innovative changes the rest of the world would make. Abenomics’ third arrow, structural reform, remains as the most challenging task because of CoC, according to Dr. Calder.

His prescription, however, is neither collapse nor dismantling of CoC because it can be counter-productive. Rather, he suggests the following two: first, CoC can broaden the scope and be more inclusive to other domestic players; and second, CoC can also broaden the scope with cross-bordering players, internationally. His concluding remark was inspirational to Ritsumeikan Community who have been pursuing cosmopolitanism and innovation.

（Eunjung Lim）

[Link]Ritsumeikan University American University Joint Degree Program

[Link]Global Studies Major

[Link]Dr.Calder's book:　Circles of Compensation: Economic Growth and the Globalization of Japan

On  March 20nd, the Ritsumeikan University Undergraduate and Graduate School Graduation Ceremony  was held. There,  281 students from the College of International Relations and 15 students from the Graduate School of International Relations were awarded Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.

Many family members and friends of graduates, faculty and staff members were there to celebrate. Graduates will soon start their new careers here in Japan and around the world.

Graduates, congratulations and good luck on your future! 

Details

IR Office will be closed from 2017 Dec 27 to 2018 Jan-4.

Office support will be re-started after Jan 5th 2018.

Thank you so much for your understanding.

Happy Holidays.

Dr. Miller is a Senior Visiting Fellow with the Japan Institute of International Affairs. Dr. Hardy-Chartrand is a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Canada. Both scholars are experts in the field of international affairs in the Asia Pacific. During this international workshop they have, in a spirit of team-work, superbly demonstrated the complex nature of politics and diplomacy in this region.

What was apparent at the very beginning of this lecture was the key role played by Washington. Nonetheless, the audience was cautioned not to neglect or downplay other regional actors and the interaction between their foreign policies – particularly that of Beijing, but also of middle-powers. The latter, so it was underlined, possess high potential with regards to the escalation and mediation of regional tension.

A major segment of the talk was dedicated to the North Korean nuclear and missile crisis. Given Washington’s current DPRK-policy’s focus of strategic pressure coupled with conditional willingness to negotiate, Dr. Miller and Dr. Hardy-Chartrand consider Trump’s North Korea policy not to be fundamentally different from that of the Obama-administration. Considering the North’s recent advances in its development of its ICBM-capability, pressure to accommodate the alliances between the USA, South Korea and Japan, on the one hand, and the role of China, on the other hand, is said to be rising. It remains to be seen to what extent a multilaterally coordinated response can be conjured, given Beijing’s recent support of UNSC Resolutions vis-à-vis North Korea while, overall, refusing to pressure Pyongyang to its fullest. As such, possible future developments in US-ROK and US-Japan relations with regards to the North Korean nuclear and missile crisis have been discussed.

During this workshop, Dr. Miller and Dr. Hardy-Chartrand outlined the overall complexity and multitude of problems in the region. Particular emphasis was put on the frequently neglected interconnectedness between the DPRK crisis, the territorial disputes in the East- and South China Seas, as well as Trump’s economic and military Asia Pacific, or rather, Indo-Pacific policies. Thereby, the fragility of relations and the danger of disputes of one matter transgressing into another were elucidated.

Lastly, attention was given to the role of Canada with regards to international problems in the Asia Pacific. Given its relatively untainted history, Canada was described by the two guest speakers to possess considerable soft power which might enable it to play a key mediating role in the region. Nonetheless, its apparently omnipresent economic interests are in danger of being perceived as a threat by some regional states which might render its potential as an independent mediator increasingly difficult.

Overall, this international workshop was a great educational enrichment for the audience. Dr. Miller and Dr. Hardy-Chartrand managed to introduce, elaborate, and simplify the complex web of regional diplomatic disputes and relations – a particularly difficult endeavor, given the time constraints of one single period.

On November 15, 2017, the Graduate School of International Relations organized a special lecture om “Transition and Structure of Japanese ODA” by H.E. Ambassador Mr.Shigersu Nakamura.

 Koji Enomoto is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the Hitotsubashi University. Previously, he worked as an intern at the Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (CPDNP), Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) as well as a special advisor for Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) issues at the Permanent Mission of Japan to the International Organizations in Vienna and a researcher at the Office of Atomic Energy Policy Secretariat of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC). He has also served as a research fellow of the Japan-U.S. Partnership Program at the Research Institute for Peace and Security (RIPS), Tokyo. He specializes in international relations and is mainly focusing on international security including nuclear arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. His doctoral dissertation focuses on international norms against nuclear testing and the CTBT. He received his B.A. in law from Kansai University and his M.A. in international relations from International Christian University. He is a member of the executive board of the International Student and Young Pugwash (ISYP).  

 At the GSIR Young Scholars Session, Mr. Koji Enomoto shared his doctoral research entitled ‘International Norms against Nuclear Testing’. His presentation did not only cover the discussion on his research analysis but also the design of the doctoral research.

 Mr. Enomoto’s research focused on why/how the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) works. He opted India, Pakistan, and North Korea as his research case studies. In order to find the answer, Mr. Koji Enomoto employed historical analysis approach by analysing the history of the concept of nuclear-test-ban from 1950s and the process of CTBT negotiation in 1990s. He used official documents, publication, and interviews to get the sources for his research. For the theoretical approach, Mr. Enomoto utilized ‘norm cascade / lifecycle’ model.

 Mr. Enomoto also explained the process in choosing his dissertation theme as well as the research methodology. Furthermore, he gave some suggestions on how he does his research, including how to collect materials and find connections for interview. Understanding the previous studies is also crucial as it strengthens the contribution of our research. Collecting resources from official documents became paramount for his research as those materials help him to reinforce the research argument. In addition, he recommended to give presentations at academic societies, if possible, in order to gain feedbacks from various scholars. This session provided great opportunities for the graduate students of Ritsumeikan University to learn how to design their research. 

On 5^th of October, 2017 in research Training Course Dr Sato Marie, JSPS research fellow delivered presentation of her research on The Role of Islamic NGOs in Jordan .

She started her presentation by giving the detailed introduction of her study including the area of concern which focused on Jorden, Islamic politics, Charity, NGOs, in Jorden, issues of Urban sphere (City), mobility, migration and refugee in Jorden as well as relation between human behavior and environment geography. To conduct her research she applies disciplinary approach, field Work, and primary source analyze.

While introducing her research she explain about Jorden its politics, geographic area, population, language and religion , most of the population follow Muslim 97.2 % (predominantly Sunni) and 83.7% of total population lives in urban area .

Similarly she shortly explain about previous studies on this area, lake attention to NGOs and need to deal with the whole sector to analysis the current Islamic condition which led her to study on this research. 

She also highlighted condition of refugees in Islamic world and in Jordan .As 80% of total land is covered by desert in Jordan, so people from neighboring country   can move easily from their country to Jordan, so currently the population has been increasing by the refugee influx and city area has been expanding to south west. In this context she explained the activities of NGOs in the daily life of refugee in Jorden.

She also explained in detailed of relief activities in Badr and relief provider which are International humanitarian agency, Jordan Government and local organization including charitable society in host country at same time increase in Islamic NGOs.  NGOs has running in the manner of its norms and value of Islam they have been working as to support needy people, embedded Islamic values and as per their own priority area . Charity is based on Islam, and asylum as asylum is a right, duty, and a general. comprehensive form of protection .

Overall, Dr Sato Marie delivered comprehensive and detailed presentation about her research. As she covered Introduction of her research area, definition, previous studies, need to study or what is new and importance of her study.