Masaryk university faculty of social studies

4.5 The Japanese constitutional change debate
The constitution of November 3, 1947 which prohibited Japan from maintaining land, air or sea forces, as well as other war potential has been confusing political scientists for more than sixty years now⁸⁶. Throughout the post-war history, this constitution has been shaping Japan’s position in international system, in accordance with the Yoshida doctrine and Japan’s interest in economic recovery. This “prohibition of war potential” however, has been subject to so many contending interpretations that the actual content of the constitution has been slowly adapting to the needs of international community and the U.S.-Japan alliance in particular.

These interpretations have expanded far beyond of what most would have imagined possible in 1946, as various Cabinets stated officially that the Article 9 allows for not only limited self-defense, but also forward self-defense (defense of sea lanes and communications) and overseas dispatch of peacekeeping troops⁸⁷ (Ikenberry, Mastanduno 2003, 361-362). As for the security treaty, the constitution allowed United States’ basing rights in Japan, but regarded this as Japan’s self defense, not collective defense. As a result, Japanese SDF (Self Defense Forces) have consistently been denied of participation in missions abroad different from disaster relief.

This situation is changing. Especially in last fifteen to twenty years, the institutionalized anti-militarism has been weakened. Japanese minesweepers were dispatched to the Persian Gulf in 1991; in 1992 the Diet passed a “PKO Law”, allowing the SDF to be dispatched abroad in noncombatant U.N. peacekeeping operations. This law quickly became an accepted practice and in 2002, restrictions on the scope of these missions were quietly eased to permit more dangerous functions, including patrol of cease-patrol zones and disposal of weapons. In Japan’s urge for closer ties in its U.S. policy, deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq and Afghanistan was handled legislatively on a case-by-case basis, but there was growing support in the Diet for reinterpretation of Article 9 to give participation in collective self-defense explicit legal justification (Pyle 2007, 366).

All these examples prove that the institutional framework, set by the constitution, has evolved into a situation, when it is no longer sufficient. In 2006, the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that “the present Constitution was established at a time when Japan was occupied and since then nearly 60 years have passed” and confirmed that “active debates are underway for a constitution that would be more suitable to a new generation”. This new generation, as Abe added, will be based not only on tight cooperation with the United States, but also on the promotion of Japanese role on the world stage and gradual breaking up of the “the past diplomacy, which has tended to follow Washington” (New Constitution Needed Soon: Abe, 2006). This debate is going on even now and that a change is coming is almost clearly visible as Japan itself recognizes the challenges this new era has brought.

4.5.1 Neorealist vs. Institutionalist approach
As I have already noted, it is a generally accepted assumption that Japanese foreign policy stands at a crossroads (Compare Hirata 2008; Kawashima 2003; Green 2003; Samuels 2007 etc.) and the possible constitutional change is going to be a major factor shaping Japan’s position in international system.

The neorealist theorists have been talking about this change for almost two decades now, as Japan’s militarization would be a major breakthrough in a theoretical assessment of Japan’s foreign policy. In Kenneth Waltz’s analysis of Japan’s position within the international system (1993), Waltz pointed out many neorealists predictions about the future of this country: as Japan’s economic policy is no longer sufficient for U.S.-Japan bilateral relations, sooner or later, Japan’s international status will step up to its material resources. This of course applies also for the constitutional change. Neorealists such as Waltz predict that the structural threats such as the rise of China or the withdrawal of the United States will inevitably end up in Japan acquiring potential for controlling the region, and even possibly acquiring nuclear weapons.

Institutionalists, on the other hand, see Japan’s current position in international politics as contributing towards the international system; deepening social ties between nations and building international institutions (Berger 2007, 260). Further, neoliberals argue, that it is these institutions and regimes (i.e. U.S.-Japan relations), which ameliorate the emerging security dilemma in this volatile region. The security of the region then is based on the prevailing cooperation ties, both economic and security. This being said, Japan’s constitutional change would damage these ties, especially within U.S.-Japan alliance and it relations with China and thus is discrepant for Japan’s pursue of common values, goals and interests.
4.5.2 Evaluation
It is still very difficult to foresee the future of the debate, that has been going on in some sense for more than sixty years. Since the Armitage report of 2000⁸⁸ and the 9/11 attacks however, the debate has taken clearer shapes, as the Koizumi cabinet has taken radical steps to undermine the validity of Article 9. For instance, under Koizumi, Japan dispatched SDF to Iraq in 2003, with the Prime Minister completely ignoring the Article 9 in his conference reasoning speech⁸⁹. Further, on September 24, 2004, Koizumi addressed the United Nations General Assembly with a speech focused on promoting of Japan’s candidature for the permanent seat in the Security Council, clearly stating that “Japan's pacifist Constitution would be no hindrance to his bid for the permanent seat”. In this sentence though, Koizumi did not mean to push for the seat with unchanged constitution, he was trying to assure the UN of its change. In 2005⁹⁰, Koizumi cabinet instructed the LDP to map out a “blueprint for Japan’s own constitution” in order to make Japan a “normal nation with military forces”. The continuity in LDP’s attitude towards changing the constitution was visible even with following Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In 2006, he called for “step forward” in dealing with constitution and in 2007 “drafted a proposed new Constitution that allows the legal possession of what it calls "military forces for self-defense."

All these efforts are just examples of the debate that is presently going on. For most of the second half of 20^th century, the constitution has been shaped according to the international pressure on Japan, yet has survived thanks to Yoshida’s doctrine and the role of public opinion. These two factors have changed, Japan’s economic foreign policy is no longer sufficient for dealing with the outside world, Japan’s environment has changed and brought new challenges with this change. Even Japan’s public opinion regarding the constitution is showing signs of approval, as 2009 Yomiuri Shimbun poll showed almost 52% Japanese in favor for the change⁹¹, finally paving a way. Even though the Article 9 still remains within the Constitution, all these factors indicate that sooner or later, it will disappear and finally prove the neorealist predictions. Even the existence of the Article 9 though, is not a crucial flaw for the neorealist understanding, as the Constitution has been misinterpreted for a long time now, in order to serve American pressure for collective defense.

Conclusion – Japan at the crossroads?
When analyzing Japan’s present (and future) international relations, we can observe two fairly visible facts: 1, the international system has undeniably changed and 2, Japan has been reacting to this change. As this thesis argues though, the a priori assumptions about these changes differ significantly from one theory to another. For the concluding remarks, let’s sum up these two major assumptions and describe the world (Japan and East Asian region) through the differences in this theoretical outlook.

Institutionalists are basically optimistic about Japan’s position and its future. According to this paradigm, toward the end of twentieth century, the stability and effectiveness of the international order has been considerably enhanced by the deepening of a shared interest among East Asian nations, through the market mechanism; that in turn has prompted robust international economic interaction and widespread support for human rights and democratic forms of government. They see practically all significant countries in the region undergoing a radical transformation, today attaching the highest national priority to “economic development through the market mechanism and dynamic participation in the game of globalism” (Kawashima 2003, 148). In other words, the post-war international system has become more civilized, stable, and effective because of the sharing of interests and values amongst nations; and principally negating the neorealist-emphasized threats and security concerns emerged with the end of the cold war.

In this system, the basic orientation of Japan’s international relations should be fairly obvious. Since no country in the present international system can ensure its own security, neither Japan should push for it. On the other hand, Japan must be an open and significant player in promoting multilateral policies with as many states as possible. This construction of the regional and international system will deepen and widen the sharing of interests and common values necessary for good relations among nations. In closer look, this construction of “common” international system should be based on the role of U.S.-Japan alliance; Japan’s participation and promotion of international organizations such as the United Nations or ARF (like pursuing for the seat in Security Council); work with like-minded countries to seek a peaceful resolution of regional crises and continue to provide substantial amounts of assistance in order to alleviate poverty, and thus prevent the creation of Japan-unfriendly environment in the world.

If institutionalists are optimistic about the change the international system has undergone, neorealists are horrified. They see the post-Cold War era as deeply frustrating for Japan. The Gulf War was a diplomatic disaster and a national humiliation. The bubble economy was a disaster for Japan’s economic model and Japan’s image within the region. By the middle of the decade, collisions with China about the nuclear testing, defense guidelines, Taiwan, territorial disputes and historical aspects shook Japanese confidence about strategic convergence within the region. Furthermore, North Korean nuclear weapons and missile tests further eroded Japanese complacency about regional threats to national security. Strategic dependence on the United States only increased, yet Washington’s attention to Japan waned (Green 2003, 270). Even institutionalists-promoted international organizations (APEC, ARF or UN) proved disappointing and elusive. In short, the end of the Cold War brought a very dangerous environment, forcing Japan to adopt firm and pragmatic approaches; step up in security realm and not rely only on institutional, normative framework.

The structure of this new and dangerous system has formed present Japan’s position and its foreign relations. Japan has grown more acutely sensitive to power balances in the region and particularly vis-à-vis China. Also, where Japan’s approach to international relations had been driven by self-interest in the past (the Yoshida doctrine and economy-first policies), the new structure and Japan’s relative economic decline forced it to become more conscious about the development in the region and discard the passive approach Japan had been advocating through the Cold War. This emerging of a “proactive” foreign policy stance will, according to neorealist predictions, continue even in the future. With Japan’s decline in willingness to distribute ODA (because of its relative economic decline), the base pillars of “checkbook diplomacy” are weakening and forcing Japan to develop more effective diplomatic practices. At the same time, the consensus on becoming a “normal nation” in security field is stably building up, fuelled by regional problems and the change in American approach towards the security alliance.

The fact that both of these theories (and most authors as well as Japanese politicians) have agreed on is that Japan is changing (and thus proving the first hypothesis). Whether the reasons for the change are more institutional or more realistic and even though there has not been a clearly articulated official strategic vision for Japan’s further role in international system⁹²; Japan is standing at the crossroad. To predict, which way shall Japan take, the theoretical understanding of Japan’s international relations is completely necessary.

Analyzing the most important factors in Japan’s modern foreign policy, this thesis has come to a conclusion, that the neorealist approach provides significantly better explanatory power. It is obvious that main assumptions of neorealist paradigm go to the actual truth of the subject matter, rather than towards normative wishes the liberal theories sometimes provide us. The present international system in the region definitely cannot be seen as “civilized, stable and effective”, but rather as an “environment of threats”, because of which Japan is forced to “rethink its priorities” (see the Koizumi memorandum).

The structural point then can be seen as the major motive for the change that has been happening in Japan’s foreign policy. The end of the Cold War has brought many new challenges towards Japan’s international relations and it is very hard to believe that these challenges are presently leading towards a safer international community with interconnected interests, as institutionalists tell us. Rather, the analysis of the main aspects of Japan’s foreign policy indicates that with the possible withering of Japan-U.S. alliance, Japan is constantly pushed into accepting a more significant, proactive role within the region. Japan’s acceptance of the importance of North Korean threat directly to its own, domestic security or emerging insecurity connected to the growing Chinese military budget are products of the uncertainty, which came with the structural change.

The systemic pressure is so strong, that even the post-war pacifism is slowly disappearing. The Yoshida doctrine promoted economic cooperation, “checkbook diplomacy” and low profile policies. In accordance to neorealist predictions though, this strong incentive in Japan’s pre-1990 foreign policy has been slowly replaced with more realistic, open and active policies. Japan no longer rests only on its economic interests, on the other hand, during the last twenty years, Japan has significantly expanded its role within the security realm. This fact is visible in every field of Japan’s foreign policy, not only Japan-U.S. or Japan-China relations. The multilateral aspect of Japan’s post-Cold War policy can be reliably explained through the optics of balance-of-power policy for balancing emerging superpower, China. All of these aspects of Japan’s insecurity within the new international system are reflected in the constitutional debate; the emerging consensus in this matter and the attempts to bend, alter or even change the constitution prove, that the situation is unbearable and the change inevitable.

These factors of Japan’s international relations indicate that the hypotheses then can be seen as fulfilled. Japan’s attitude has clearly started favoring more mature, confident actions, which might lead to Japan emerging as a major player within the world politics. This development has all along been predicted by neorealist paradigm. There might be little problems with the operationalization of the second hypothesis (neorealism explaining the change), as when dealing with theories, there are no “social rules” or “truth” to compare the approach to. There is however, explanatory power for motives of the state’s behavior and the predictor power the theory provides. In these fields, neorealism has shown significantly better understanding of Japan’s post-war development and Japan’s present diplomacy and thus proved that even though its explanatory potential is being challenged by a range of other contending theories; it still functions as a holistic approach with considerable explanatory potential.

Resources⁹³

Primary sources:

• 
  Basic Strategy for Japan’s Foreign Policy in the 21^st Century: New Era, New Vision, New Diplomacy; Task Force for Foreign Relations for the Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro; November 28, 2002. On-line text http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN017527.pdf
  
• 
  Defense of Japan 2005, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2005.html

• 
  Defense of Japan 2006, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2006.html

• 
  Defense of Japan 2007, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2007.html

• 
  Defense of Japan 2008, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2008.html

• 
  Defense of Japan 2009, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2009.html

• 
  Diplomatic Bluebook: Annual Report on Japan’s Foreign Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/index.html
  
• 
  Diplomatic Bluebook 1992, Chapter 2: Japan’s Role in International Community, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1992/1992-2-1.htm
  
• 
  Fackler, Martin (2009): With Bold Stand, Japan Opposition Wins a Landslide, New York Times, August 30, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/world/asia/31japan.html?_r=1
  
• 
  Highlights for the Budget in FY 2010, Budget Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/e20091225a.pdf
  
• 
  Japan-ASEAN Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/asean/
  
• 
  Japan-China Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/China/index.html
  
• 
  Japan-U.S. Joint Declaration on Security – Alliance for the 21^st Century – 17 April, 1996, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/security.html
  
• 
  Japan’s Role in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan pamphlet, 2004, On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/role/pamph0408.pdf
  
• 
  Japanese Constitution, On-line text
  

http://www.constitution.org/cons/japan.txt

• 
  Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html
  
• 
  Joint Statement, U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee, Washington D.C., December 16, 2002. Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/joint0212.html
  
• 
  Kenpo kaisei sansei 51.6%, futatabi tasu shimeru; Seron Chosa, Yomiuri Shimbun, April 3, 2009 (“The agreement with constitutional change is 51.6%, again a great number”). On-line text http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/20080116-907457/news/20090403-OYT1T00006.htm
  
• 
  Koizumi’s Constitution quote stirs criticism of manipulation, Kyodo News International via The Free Library, December 10, 2003, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CORRECTED:+Koizumi%27s+Constitution+quote+stirs+criticism+of...-a0111295607
  
• 
  LDP’s platform to call for a new Constitution, Kyodo News, May 24, 2007. On-line text http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070524a3.html
  
• 
  Leithead, Alastaire (2009): 'Major win' for Japan opposition, BBC, August 30, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8229368.stm
  
• 
  National Defense Program Outline in and after FY 1996, Section III. III. Security of Japan and Roles of Defense Capabilities, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/security/defense96/capability.html
  
• 
  New Constitution Needed Soon: Abe, Agencies, Tokyo in Taipei Times, September 30, 2006, p. 4, On-line text http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/09/30/2003329821
  
• 
  Ozawa, Ichiro (2010): Taikakushiji 37%「Sanin minshu kahansu
  
• 
  hantai 55%, Seron Chosa (“Cabinet support rate 37%, as opposed to disapproval rate of 55%”) Asahi Shimbun poll, February 22, 2010: http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0222/TKY201002210317.html
  
• 
  Period of President Fukuda’s Leadership, Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, History. On-line text http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/english/history/chap8.html
  
• 
  Perry, William J. (1999): Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea: Findings and Recommendations. Unclassified report by William J. Perry, Coordinator and Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State. Washington D.C., October 12, 1999. On-line text http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eap/991012_northkorea_rpt.html
  
• 
  Press Conference by the Press Secretary 1 September, 1998; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1998/9/901.html#3
  
• 
  Talmadge, Eric (2009): Japan Election Results: Opposition Democrats Win Huge Victory, The Huffington Post, August 30, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/japan-election-results-op_n_272149.html
  
• 
  Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/treaty78.html
  
• 
  The Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/guideline2.html
  
• 
  The Japanese Budget in Brief, 1999. Ministry of Finance, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/budget_b.htm
  
• 
  Takahasi, Junko (2003): Koizumi tells LDP to make blueprints for changes to Constitution by 2005; The Japan Times, August 23, 2003. On-line text http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20030826a3.html
  
• 
  The U.S.-Japan Security Arrangements (including legislation related to Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/arrange.html
  
• 
  U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation, Japan Ministry of Defense, Tokyo. On-line text http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_policy/dp04.html
  

• 
  Wagagaikou no kinkyou 1957 (“Present diplomacy”), Diplomatic Bluebook, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo, on-line text http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/bluebook/1957/s32-contents.htm
  
• 
  Yamamoto, Y. (2004): Koizumi: Pacifist Constitution no hindrance to his bid for UNSC permanent seat; Tokyo Free Press, September 25, 2004, On-line text http://www.tokyofreepress.com/article.php?story=20040925175921686
  

Books

• 
  Baldwin, David (et al.) (1993): Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, Columbia University Press, New York
  
• 
  Berger, Thomas U.; Mochizuki, Mike M.; Tsuchiyama, Jitsuo (2007): Japan in International Politics: The Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State. Lynne Reinner publishers, London: Boulder
  
• 
  Booth, Ken, Smith, Steve, Zalewski, Marysia (eds.) (1996), International Relations Theory: Positivism & Beyond, CUP, Cambridge
  
• 
  Brown, Chris (1997): Understanding International Relations, Palgrave, London
  
• 
  Burchill, Scott, Linklater, Andrew (2001): Theories of International Relations, 2. ed., Palgrave, London
  
• 
  Green, Michael J. (2003): Japan’s Reluctant Realism, Palgrave, Macmillan
  
• 
  Griffiths, Martin (et al.) (2007): International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: an Introduction, New York, London: Routledge
  
• 
  Guzzini, Stefano (1998): Realismus v Mezinárodních Vztazích a Mezinárodní Politické Ekonomii, Brno: Barrister and Principal
  
• 
  Hatakeyama, Kyoko (2005): Japan’s Changed Perceptions Towards Security Issues, CJES Research Papers, No. 2005-3, Centre for Japanese Economic Studies, Macquarie University
  
• 
  Hollis, Martin, Smith, Steve (1990): Explaining and Understanding International Relations. London: Oxford University press
  
• 
  Hook, Glenn D.; Gibson, Julie; Hughes, Christopher W.; Dobson, Hugo (2001): Japan’s International Relations. Politics, Economics and Security. London and New York: Routledge
  
• 
  Ikenberry, John G.; Mastanduno, Michael (et al.) (2003): International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University press
  
• 
  Ikenberry, John G.; Inoguchi, Takashi (2006): Uses of Institutions : The U. S. , Japan, and Governance in East Asia, Palgrave, McMillan
  
• 
  Kawashima, Yutaka (2003): Japanese Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Challenges and Options for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press
  
• 
  Keohane, Robert O. (1984): After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University press
  
• 
  Keohane, Robert O. (1989): InternationaI Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview press
  
• 
  Keohane, Robert O.; Nye, Joseph S. (2001): Power and Interdependence, third edition, New York: Longman
  
• 
  Koh, Byung Chul (1989): Japan’s Administrative Elite, Berkeley: University of California Press
  
• 
  Machiavelli, Nicolo (first published 1515): The Prince, 130 pages, on-line version http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.pdf
  
• 
  Makin, John H.; Hellmann, Donald C. (1989): Sharing World Leadership? A New Era for America & Japan. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute
  
• 
  Morgenthau, Hans (1948): Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  
• 
  Maruyama Masuo (1969): Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics, London: Oxford University Press
  
• 
  Nester, William (1990): The Foundation of Japanese Power: Continuities, Changes, Challenges, New York: M.E. Sharpe
  
• 
  Plechanovová, Běla (2003): Úvod do Mezinárodních Vztahů, Praha: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku
  
• 
  Pyle, Kenneth J. (2007): Japan Rising: the Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose. A century foundation books, New York: PublicAffairs
  
• 
  Rosecrance, Richard (1993): The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
  
• 
  Samuels, Richard J. (2007): Securing Japan. Tokyo’s Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University press
  
• 
  Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken (2001): Současné Teorie Mezinárodních Vztahů, Barrister and Principal, Brno
  
• 
  Sorensen, Georg (2005): Stát a Mezinárodní Vztahy, Praha: Portál
  
• 
  Spykman, Nicholas, J. (1942): America’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company
  
• 
  Stockwin, J.A.A. (2003): Dictionary of Modern Politics of Japan, London: RoutledgeCurzon
  
• 
  Thucydides: The history of the Peloponnesian War, written 431 before Christian era; on-line text http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html
  
• 
  Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979): Theory of International Politics, McGraw-Hill, New York
  
• 
  Wan, Ming (2001): Japan between Asia and the West: Economic Power and Strategic Balance. New York: An East Gate Book
  

Articles, Journals

• 
  Akutsu, Hiroyasu (2000): Japan’s Strategic Interest in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development (KEDO): a “Camouflaged Alliance” and its Double-Sided Effects on Regional Security, LNCV – Korean Peninsula: Enhancing Stability and International Dialogue, 1-2 June 2000, Rome. On-line text http://lxmi.mi.infn.it/~landnet/corea/proc/010.pdf
  
• 
  Arase, David (2007): Japan, the Active State? Security Policy after 9/11. Asian Survey, Vol. 47, Issue 4, pp. 560-583
  
• 
  Armitage, Richard L. et al. (2000): The United States and Japan: Advancing Toward a Mature Partnership; the Institute of National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, October 2000; on-line text http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/sr_01/sr_japan.htm
  
• 
  Bartlett, Robert C. (1994): The Realism of Classical Political Science; American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 381-402, Published by Midwest Political Science Association
  
• 
  Bowen, Roger, W. (1992): Japan’s foreign policy, In. PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 1992), pp. 57-73
  
• 
  Bowles, Paul (2002): Asia’s Post-Crisis Regionalism: Bringing the State Back in, Keeping the (United) States Out, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 230-256
  
• 
  Brands Jr., H.W. (1986): The United States and the reemergence of independent Japan In. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Autumn 1986), pp. 387-401
  
• 
  Calder, Kent. E. (1989): Elites in an Equalizing Role: Ex-Bureaucrats as Coordinators and Intermediaries in the Japanese Government-Business Relationship. Comparative Politics, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Jul., 1989), pp. 379-403
  
• 
  Cha, Victor D. (2000): Abandonment, Entrapment and Neoclassical Realism in Asia: The United States, Japan and Korea, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Jun. 2000), pp. 261-291
  
• 
  Choi, Woondo (2003): Persistence and change in Japan-China relationship. In Journal of International and Area Studies; Jun 2003; 10, 1; ABI/INFORM Global. pp. 75-92
  
• 
  Christensen, Raymond V. (1994): Electoral Reform in Japan: How It was Enacted and Changes It May Bring. Asian Survey, Vol. 34, No. 9 (July 1994), pp. 589-605
  
• 
  Clemons, Steven C. (2001): The Armitage Report: Reading Between the Lines; JPRI Occasional Paper No. 20 (February 2001), On-line text http://www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op20.html
  
• 
  Deng, Yong (1997): Chinese Relations with Japan: Implications for Asia-Pacific Regionalism. In. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 373-391
  
• 
  Dieter, Heribert, Higgot, Richard (2003): Exploring Alternative Theories of Economic Regionalism: From Trade to Finance in Asian Co-operation? In. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Aug. 2003), pp. 430-454
  
• 
  Doyon, Paul (2001): A Review of Higher Education Reform in Modern Japan In. Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Jun., 2001), pp. 443-470
  
• 
  Endo, Tetsuya (2007): How Realistic Is a Nuclear-Armed Japan? Policy Forum Online 07-063A: August 23rd, 2007, on-line text http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/07063Endo.html#sect2
  
• 
  Fouse, David (2004): Japan’s Post-Cold War North Korea Policy: Hedging Towards Autonomy? Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, February 2004, pp. 1-14
  
• 
  Garofano, John (2002): Power, Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forum: A Security Community for Asia? Asian Survey, Vol. 42, No. 3 (May.-Jun. 2002), pp. 502-521
  
• 
  Gilpin, Robert. G. (1984): The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism; International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring 1984), pp. 287-304
  
• 
  Govella, Kristi; Vogel, Steven (2008): Japan in 2007. A Divided Government. Asian Survey, Vol. 48, Issue 1, pp. 97–106
  
• 
  Grieco, Joseph M. (1988): Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism; In. International organizations, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507
  
• 
  Hagstrom, Linus (2005): Relational power for foreign policy analysis: Issues in Japan’s China policy; in. European journal for international relations, September 2005, pp. 395-431
  
• 
  Haitani, Kanji (1990): The Paradox of Japan's Groupism: Threat to Future Competitiveness? Asian Survey, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Mar., 1990), pp. 237-250
  
• 
  Heginbotham, Eric; Samuels, Richard J. (1998): Mercantile Realism and Japanese Foreign Policy. International Security, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Spring, 1998), pp. 171-203
  
• 
  Hiraishi, Nao’aki (2003): The Formation of Maruyama Masuo’s Image of Japanese Intellectual History during the War Period, In. Social Science Japan Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 241-254
  
• 
  Hirata, Keiko (2008): Who Shapes the National Security Debate? Divergent Interpretations of Japan’s Security Role, Asian Affairs: Heldref Publications, pp. 123-151
  
• 
  Horiuchi, Yusaku; Saito, Jun (2004): Reapportionment and Redistribution: Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan. In. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 669-682
  
• 
  Hughes, Christopher, W. (2009): “Super-sizing” the DPRK Threat: Japan’s Evolving Military Posture and North Korea. Asian Survey, Vol. 49, Issue 2, pp. 291-311
  
• 
  Jervis, Robert (1999): Realism, neoliberalism and cooperation: Understanding the debate In. International security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer, 1999), pp. 42-63
  
• 
  Johnson, Chalmers (1975): Japan: Who Governs? An Essay on Official Bureaucracy, Journal of Japanese studies, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 1-28
  
• 
  Keohane, Robert, O. (1988): International Institutions: Two Approaches in. International studies quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec. 1988) pp. 377-396
  
• 
  Kiefer, Christie, W. (1970): The Psychological Interdependence of Family, School and Bureaucracy in Japan, American Anthropologist, New series, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Feb., 1970), pp. 66-75
  
• 
  Krauss, Ellis S.; Pekkanen, Robert (2004): Explaining Party Adaptation to Electoral Reform: The Discreet Charm of the LDP? Journal of Japanese studies, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 1-34
  
• 
  Langdon, Frank, C. (1961): Organized Interests in Japan and Their Influence on Political Parties. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Autumn, 1961), pp. 271-278
  
• 
  Langdon, Frank (1985): Security Debate in Japan. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 397-410
  
• 
  Leavitt, Sandra L. (2005): The Lack of Security Cooperation between South East Asia and Japan: Yen Yes, Pax Nippon No. Asian Survey, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Mar. – Apr. 2005), pp. 216-240
  
• 
  Mayer, Jeremy D. (1996): International Relations Theory and Japanese Pacifism: Why Didn’t Tokyo Go Ballistic over Korean Nukes? In. Journal of northeast Asian studies, (Summer 1996), pp. 50-62
  
• 
  Mearsheimer, John J. (1994-1995): The false promise of international institutions; In. International security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994-1995), pp. 5-49
  
• 
  Moravcsik, Andrew (1997): Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of International politics In. International organizations, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), pp 513-553
  
• 
  Mueller, John (1988): The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World. International Security, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 55-79
  
• 
  Park, Cheol Hee (2001): Factional Dynamics in Japan's LDP since Political Reform: Continuity and Change. Asian Survey, Vol. 41, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2001), pp. 428-461s
  
• 
  Patterson, Denis; Maeda, Ko (2007): Prime Ministerial Popularity and the Changing Electoral Fortunes of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party. Asian Survey, Vol. 47, Issue 3, pp. 415–433
  
• 
  Purrington, Courtney (1992): Tokyo’s policy responses during the Gulf War and the impact of the “Iraqi shock” on Japan. In. Pacific affairs, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp.161-181
  
• 
  Rahat, Gideon (2004): The Study of the Politics of Electoral Reform in the 1990s: Theoretical and Methodological Lessons. In. Comparative Politics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Jul., 2004), pp. 461-479
  
• 
  Rapkin, Daniel P. (1990): The Limits of Hegemony, In. Daniel P. Rapkin (et al.) World Leadership and Hegemony, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, pp.191-212
  
• 
  Reed, Steven R.; Scheiner, Ethan (2003): Electoral Incentives and Policy Preferences: Mixed Motives behind Party Defections in Japan. In. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 469-490
  
• 
  Rix, Alan (1989-1990): Japan's Foreign Aid Policy: A Capacity for Leadership? Pacific Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Winter, 1989-1990), pp. 461-475
  
• 
  Sahashi, Ryo (2010): New Thinking about Foreign Policy Strategy in Japan; East Asian Forum, January 27^th, 2010. On-line text http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/01/27/new-thinking-about-foreign-policy-strategy-in-japan/
  
• 
  Seth, S. P. (1994): Japan’s Constitutional Debate, In. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 904
  
• 
  Schwarz, Briah (2005): Japan moves to revise “peace constitution”; American Thinker, October 30, 2005. On-line text http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2005/10/japan_moves_to_revise_peace_co.html
  
• 
  Schweller, Randall, L.; Priess, David (1997): A Tale of Two Realisms: Expanding the Institutional Debate. In. Mershon international studies review, Vol. 41, No. 1 (May, 1997) pp. 1-32
  
• 
  Sudo, Sueo (1988): Japan-ASEAN Relations: New Dimensions in Japanese Foreign Policy, Asian Survey, Vol. 28, No. 5 (May, 1988), pp. 509-525
  
• 
  Sullivan, Michael, P. (2005): ‘That dog won’t hunt’: the cottage industry of realist criticism, or must you play that Waltz again? Journal of International Relations and Development, Volume 8, number 4, 2005
  
• 
  Wakamiya, Yoshibumi (2003): The End of Kamikaze Pacifism? Terror and Japan’s Peace Constitution, Project Syndicate, On-line text http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wakamiya2/English
  
• 
  Waltz, Kenneth (1990): Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. In. Journal of international affairs, Vol. 44, Issue 1 (Spring/Summer 1990), pp. 21-37
  
• 
  Waltz, Kenneth (1993): The Emerging Structure of International Politics, International Security, vol. 18, no. 2 (fall 1993), pp. 44-79
  
• 
  Weaver, Ole, The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate, in Smith, Booth, Zalewski (1996), p.149-185
  
• 
  Wendt, Alexander E. (1987): The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, International Organizations, Volume 41, Issue 3 (Summer 1987), pp. 335-370
  
• 
  Yoda, Tatsuro (2006): Japan's Host Nation Support Program for the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance: Past and Prospects. Asian Survey, Vol. 46, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2006)
  
• 
  Yuzawa, T. (2005): Japan’s Changing Conception of the ASEAN Regional Forum: from an Optimistic Liberal to a Pessimistic Realist Perspective, The Pacific Review, Vol.18, No. 4, pp. 462 – 499.
  

Internet websites:

• 
  Democratic Party of Japan
  

http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/

• 
  Kantei – Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet
  

http://www.kantei.go.jp/

• 
  Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan (National Diet Library)
  

http://www.ndl.go.jp/en/data/diet.html

• 
  Liberal Democratic Party of Japan
  

http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/english/

• 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  

http://www.mofa.go.jp/index.html

• 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Official Development Organization
  

http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/index.html

• 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Japanese Foreign Policy
  

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/index.html

• 
  Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
  

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/

• 
  Ministry of Defense
  

http://www.mod.go.jp/

• 
  Ministry of Finance
  

http://www.mof.go.jp/english/
Newspapers:

• 
  Asahi shimbun
  

http://www.asahi.com/

• 
  BBC News
  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

• 
  The Huffington Post
  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

• 
  Japan times
  

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/

• 
  Mainichi Shimbun
  

http://www.mainichi.jp/

• 
  Nihon Keizai Shimbun
  

http://www.asahi.com/

• 
  The New York Times
  

www.nytimes.com/

• 
  Sankei Shimbun
  

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/

• 
  The Washington Post
  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

• 
  Yomiuri Shimbun
  

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/