Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 71 Sayfa Aralığı: 67 - 87 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 03-06-2022
Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?
Öz: The New Security Legislation (NSL) passed through the Japanese Diet in 2015 has created concerns among
the public and some parts of the academia about whether Japan’s potentially unhindered actions will destabilize
the region. By adopting a civilian power ontology within the neoliberal framework, this study analyzes the 2015
NSL and its implications through three hallmark civilian power credentials: internationalization; the scope of
the use of force; and the autonomy of security policy. The analysis and empirical evidence suggest that even after
allowing for collective self-defense through the 2015 constitutional reinterpretation and the ensuing expanded
scope for international security activity, Japan can still be narrowly considered a civilian power.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
- Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett (1998.) “A Framework for the Study of Security Communities”, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds), Security Communities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Berger, Thomas U. (1998). Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Berger, Thomas U. (2004). “Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions” in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), The international relations of Northeast Asia, New York, Rowman and Littlefield, p.101-34.
- Berger, Thomas U. and Mike M. Mochizuki, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama (eds.), (2007). Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
- Demirtaş, Birgül and Mahmut Mazlum (2018). “Civilian Powers and the Use of Force: The Evolution of Germany as a ‘Realist Civilian Power’”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 23, No 1, p. 27-62.
- Duchêne, François (1973). “The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence”, Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager (eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community, London, Macmillan, p.1-21.
- Envall, H. David. P. (2018). “The ‘Abe Doctrine’: Japan’s new regional realism.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol.20 No.1, p.1-29.
- Funabashi, Yoichi (1991). “Japan and the New World Order”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.70 No.5, p.58-74.
- Funabashi, Yoichi (1998). “Tokyo’s depression diplomacy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.77 No.6, p.26-36.
- Green, Michael (2001). Japan’s Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of Uncertain Power, New York, Palgrave.
- Gustafsson, Karl and Linus Hagström, Ulv Hanssen (2018). “Japan’s Pacifism is Dead”, Survival, Vol. 60, No 6, p. 137-158.
- Handa, Shigeru ( June 2020). “Korona ka to Jieitai Chuto Haken: Towareru Anzen Seiken no Yuji Taiou” (Corona Disaster and SDF’s Middle East Mission: Emergency Response of the Security Administration is Being Questioned), Sekai, No.933, p.228-235.
- Hellmann, Gunther (1997). “The Sirens of Power and German Foreign Policy: Who is Listening?”, German Politics. Vol. 6, No. 2.
- Hosoya, Yuichi (2015). “Japan’s New Security Legislation: What Does This Mean to East Asian Security?”, American Foreign Policy Interests, Vol.37, No.5-6.
- Hosoya, Yuichi (2018). “Japan’s Strategic Position: Global Civilian Power 2.0” in Martin Fackler and Yoichi Funabashi, (eds.), Reinventing Japan: New Directions in Global Leadership, Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO, p.197-216.
- Hughes, Christopher W. (2015). Japan’s Foreign and Security Policy Under the ‘Abe Doctrine’: New Dynamism or New Dead End?, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hughes, Christopher W. (2016). “Japan’s ‘Resentful Realism’ and Balancing China’s Rise”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 9, No 2.
- Hughes, Christopher W. (2017). “Japan’s Strategic Trajectory and Collective Self-Defense: Essential Continuity or Radical Shift?”, The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 43, No 1.
- Ikenberry, G. John and Takashi Inoguchi (2007). The Uses of Institutions: the US, Japan, and Governance in East Asia, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
- Ikenberry, G. John, (2018). “The End of Liberal International Order?”, International Affairs, Vol.94, No.1, p.7-23.
- Johnson, Jesse (4 November 2020). “Malabar Military Exercises with ‘Quad’ Nations Begin in Message to China”, Japan Times, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/04/asia-pacific/malabar-military-exercises-china-quad/.
- Kantei (Cabinet Office of Japan), (14 May 2015). Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Following the Cabinet Decision on the “Legislation for Peace and Security” https://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201505/0514kaiken.html.
- Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996). Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
- Kitaoka, Shinichi (2 April 2014). “The Turnabout of Japan’s Security Policy: Toward ‘Proactive Pacifism’”, http://www. nippon.com/en/currents/d00108/.
- Liff, Adam P. (2017). “Policy by Other Means: Collective Self-defense and the Politics of Japan’s Postwar Constitutional Reinterpretations”, Asia Policy, Vol.24, No.1, p.139-172.
- Liff, Adam P. (2015). “Japan’s defense policy: Abe the Evolutionary”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2. Lind, Jennifer, (20 July 2015). “Japan’s Security Evolution, Not Revolution”, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/ articles/japans-security-evolution-not-revolution-1437410475.
- Maslow, Sebastian (2015). “A Blueprint for a Strong Japan? Abe Shinzō and Japan’s Evolving Security System”, Asian Survey, Vol.55, No.4, p.739-765.
- Maull, Hanns W. (1990). “Germany and Japan: The new civilian powers”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.69, No.5.
- Maull, Hanns W. (2000). “Germany and the use of force: still a ‘civilian power’?”, Survival, Vol.42 No.2, pp.56-80.
- Maull, Hanns W. (2004). “Germany and the use of force: still a civilian power?” in Katada, S. N., Maull, H., & Inoguchi, T.
- (Eds.) Global governance: Germany and Japan in the international system, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Mochizuki, Mike M. (2007). “Japan’s Changing International Role” in Thomas.U. Berger et al. (eds.), Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p.1-22.
- MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2013). National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and Beyond, http://www. mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/20131217_e2.pdf.
- MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2015). The Guidelines for Japan–US Defense Cooperation, https://www.mod.go.jp/ e/d_act/anpo/pdf/shishin_20150427e.pdf.
- MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2018). Defense of Japan, https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2018/ DOJ2018_Digest_1204.pdf, p.351.
- MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (29 October 2005). “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0510.html.
- MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2015). “Cabinet Decision on Development of Seamless Security Legislation to Ensure Japan’s Survival and Protect its People”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/nsp/page23e_000273.html.
- MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2016). Diplomatic Bluebook, Scp.1 Section.2, p.18. Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol.51, No.4.
- Nakanishi, Hiroshi (1998). “Redefining Comprehensive Security in Japan” in Ryosei Kokubun (ed.), Challenges for China- Japan-U.S. Cooperation, Tokyo, Japan Center for International Exchange, p. 44-70.
- Nakanishi, Hiroshi (2015). “Reorienting Japan? Security Transformation under the Second Abe Cabinet”, Asian Perspective, Vol. 39, No 3, p. 405-421.
- National Security Council, National Security Strategy (2013) http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/documents/2013/__ icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/NSS.pdf, p. 4.
- Orbie, Jan (2006). “Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current Debates”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 41, No 1.
- Oros, Andrew L. (2008). Normalizing Japan: Politics, Identity and the Evolution of Security Practice, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.
- Osaki, Tomohiro (30 August 2015). “Thousands Protest Abe, Security Bills at Diet Rally”, The Japan Times, https://www. japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/30/national/thousands-protest-abe-security-bills-diet-rally/. Pehlivantürk, Bahadır and Birgül Demirtaş (2018). “Civilian Powers and Contemporary Global Challenges ,” Perceptions, Vol.23, No.1.
- Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre, Desmond S. King (2005). “The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No 4, p.1275-1300.
- Pierson, Paul and Theda Skocpol (2002). “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York, Norton, p. 445–488.
- Singh, Bhubhindar (2015). “The Development of Japanese Security policy: A Long-term Defensive Strategy”, Asia Policy, No.19, p.49-64.
- Singh, Bhubhindar (2016). “Japan Embraces Internationalism: Explaining Japanese Security Policy Expansion through an Identity-Regime Approach”, apanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No 4.
- Smith, Karen E. (2005). “Beyond the Civilian Power EU Debate”, Politique Européenne, No.17, p.64.
- Soeya, Yoshihide (2017). “The Case for an Alternative Strategy for Japan: Beyond the ‘A9A’ Regime”, Michael J. Green, and Zack Cooper (eds.), Postwar Japan: Growth, Security, and Uncertainty since 1945, CSIS, Rowman & Littlefield, p.19-38.
- Wakefield, Bryce and Craig Martin (2012). “Reexamining ‘Myths’ About Japan’s Collective Self-Defense Change-What Critics (and the Japanese Public) Do Understand about Japan’s Constitutional Reinterpretation”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol.10, Issue.54, No.188.
| APA | Pehlivanturk B (2021). Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. , 67 - 87. |
| Chicago | Pehlivanturk Bahadir Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. (2021): 67 - 87. |
| MLA | Pehlivanturk Bahadir Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. , 2021, ss.67 - 87. |
| AMA | Pehlivanturk B Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. . 2021; 67 - 87. |
| Vancouver | Pehlivanturk B Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. . 2021; 67 - 87. |
| IEEE | Pehlivanturk B "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?." , ss.67 - 87, 2021. |
| ISNAD | Pehlivanturk, Bahadir. "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?". (2021), 67-87. |
| APA | Pehlivanturk B (2021). Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(71), 67 - 87. |
| Chicago | Pehlivanturk Bahadir Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler 18, no.71 (2021): 67 - 87. |
| MLA | Pehlivanturk Bahadir Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler, vol.18, no.71, 2021, ss.67 - 87. |
| AMA | Pehlivanturk B Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler. 2021; 18(71): 67 - 87. |
| Vancouver | Pehlivanturk B Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler. 2021; 18(71): 67 - 87. |
| IEEE | Pehlivanturk B "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?." Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18, ss.67 - 87, 2021. |
| ISNAD | Pehlivanturk, Bahadir. "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?". Uluslararası İlişkiler 18/71 (2021), 67-87. |
