[国際関係学部事務室　夏期閉室のお知らせ]

＜下記の窓口時間について＞

授業開講期間でないことから、事務室窓口は、8/2～9/25は13-17時の開室（8/29は全体研修のため終日閉室）となります。

<夏季閉室のお知らせ＞
以下のとおり、国際関係学部事務室は夏期閉室いたします。
ご不便をおかけしますが、よろしくお願い致します。

■事務室閉室期間：
2018年8月11日（土）～8月19日（日）

予めご了承ください。

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.

立命館大学国際関係学部、国際関係学会は6月7日、ケント・カルダー教授（ジョンズ・ホプキンス大学高等国際問題研究大学院（School of Advance International Studies （SAIS））ライシャワー東アジア研究所所長）を招聘し、国際関係学部創設30周年記念特別講義を開催しました。ケント・カルダー教授は、米国を代表する日本・東アジア研究の専門家です。SAIS着任以前は20年間プリンストン大学で教鞭を取り、駐日アメリカ大使特別補佐官、戦略国際問題研究所日本部長、ハーバード大学日米関係プログラム初代事務局長などの役職も歴任しました。2018年7月1月からは、SAIS副学長に就任予定です。著書は、アジア・太平洋大賞を受賞した「アジア危機の構図」（1996年）の他、「ワシントンの中のアジア」（2014年）、「シンガポール - スマートな都市、スマートな国家」（2017年）など多数あり、日本語訳は10冊出版されています。

立命館大学での講演では、カルダー教授は、昨年スタンフォード大学から出版された、Circles of Compensation： Economic Growth and the Globalization of Japanについて話をしました。この本は、カルダー教授が長く研究を続けてきた日本の国内政治と外交に関する研究の集大成であり、『自民党長期政権の研究――危機と補助金』（文藝春秋, 1989年）と、『戦略的資本主義――日本型経済システムの本質』（日本経済新聞社, 1994年）の続編とも言えるものである。冒頭に、君島東彦　国際関係学部長がカルダー教授を紹介し、林恩廷　国際関係学部助教の司会により進行しました。

カルダー教授は、Circles of Compensation（互恵の輪）という概念を通じ、なぜ日本がグローバリゼーションへの対応に遅れをとっているのかを分析しました。カルダー教授によると、日本は明治中期以降、近代化と経済発展のため、企業グループや業界団体、政治会派、官僚組織は、互恵的なネットワークを通じた協力体制を敷くことにより、過剰な競争を抑制し、設備投資や技術革新を効率的に進める仕組みを作ってきました。このネットワークは、明治期・大正期の日本の近代化、そして設備投資主導型の高度経済成長には、政治状況がグローバル化し、素早い変化や生産性の向上が求められる時代になると、内部調和を保つインセンティブが足かせとなり、外部環境への対応の遅れやリスク回避傾向により、日本の経済停滞の一因となり、アベノミクスの第三の矢である成長戦略へのハードルともなってきました。

カルダー教授は、金融、土地と住宅、農業関連、エネルギー関連、運輸交通、コミュニケーションのネットワークを例に上げています。例えば、羽田・関西国際空港の着陸料は、仁川国際空港など諸外国の主要国際空港よりもはるかに高くなっています。一般利用者や航空会社にとっては不都合であり、建設費や近隣住民への補償のための出費、規制による空港施設の高度化やサービスの多様化への遅れ、外資企業の空港サービスへの参入のハードルの高さにより、結果として諸外国の空港に比べると使いにくく、結果としてグローバリゼーションへの対応の足かせともなっています。このように、Circles of Compensationというネットワークは、メンバーを保護し、利益を内部分配し、ネットワークの外側にいる者がそのコストを負担することになります。カルダー博士は、この問題の解決策として、ネットワークを破壊することよりも、ネットワークによる恩恵を受ける層を広げること、また国際プレーヤーを取り込んでいくことを提起しました。

講演に続き、活発な質疑応答が行われました。講演会には英語で学ぶプログラムであるGlobal Studies専攻やJoint Degree Programを始めとした多くの国際関係学部の学生、教員や海外大学からの交換留学生も多く参加し、活発な質疑応答が行なわれました。参加学生は、この講演を通じて、Circles of Compensationを自分のキャリア選択や、日本のグローバリゼーションの現状と未来、海外との関わり方と関連づけて受け止めており、その意味でも、カルダー教授のメッセージは、グローバリゼーションを体現している国際関係学部の30周年にふさわしいものであったといえます。

［Link］アメリカン大学・立命館大学国際連携学科

［Link］グローバルスタディーズ専攻

［Link］国際関係学部創設30周年ウェブサイト

[Link] カルダー教授近著:　Circles of Compensation: Economic Growth and the Globalization of Japan

立命館大学では３月2０日、卒業式・学位授与式を開催し、国際関係学部から281名、国際関係研究科から15名が卒業・修了しました。

国際関係学部事務室一斉閉室のお知らせ(2017年度冬季）

以下の期間、国際関係学部事務室は一斉閉室をいたします。
お問い合わせへのご対応は新年1月5日（金）以降順次させていただきますので、
何卒ご容赦くださいますよう、御願い申し上げます。

事務室休業期間：
12月27日（火）～1月4日（木）冬季休業期間

皆様良いお年をお迎えください。

2017年11月15日、国際関係研究科は、英語による開講科目“Development Strategies”の一環として元駐サウジアラビア及びマレーシア大使の中村滋氏による、「日本のODAの変遷と構造」と題した特別講義を実施した。

長年、外務省において援助政策の立案のみならずイラク復興支援などの援助の実施にも携わり、国内の主要大学で講義も行ってきた中村氏から、第二次世界大戦後の戦後賠償からはじまり、アジア地域の経済発展への寄与、さらに昨今は平和構築、人間の安全保障といった新たな分野への対応を求められてきた日本のODAの変遷について講義が行われた。特に援助と外交政策の関係は、外交の現場に身を置いてきた中村氏ならではの現実感のある内容であった。

質疑応答では、約35名の受講生（すべて留学生）から、財政難の中で今後日本のODAはどのような方向に進むのか、ODAにおける円借款、無償援助、技術協力のそれぞれの特徴などの質問が出され、講義時間を超えて活発な議論が行われた。