Is Japan Really Back? The “Abe Doctrine” and Global Governance

Dobson, Hugo

doi:10.1080/00472336.2016.1257044

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Yoshida Doctrine was established during the administrations of Hayato Ikeda (1960–1964) and Eisaku Satō (1964–1972), who are known as the ‘honor students at the Yoshida school.’ It is widely accepted that the ‘Yoshida Doctrine’ was thus inherited in Japan's foreign policy during the 1960s, after the administrations of Ichiro Hatoyama (1955–1956), Tanzan Ishibashi (1956–1957), and Nobusuke Kishi (1957–1960), who succeeded Yoshida and considered themselves political enemies, rejected his political philosophy. Additionally, there is also consensus that Japan was guided by the Yoshida Doctrine until revisionists Junichiro Koizumi and Abe Shinzo came to power (Chai, 1997: 389–412; Pyle, 2007; Samuels, 2007; Izumikawa, 2010; Dobson, 2017; Soeya, 2017; Kallender and Hughes, 2019). Although there is disagreement regarding the actual level of Japanese military power (see Lind, 2004), Japan managed to limit defense spending to within 1% of its GDP.…”

Section: What Is the Yoshida Doctrine? Its Origins And Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing the ‘Yoshida Doctrine’

Hoshiro

2022

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a consensus that the post-war Japanese foreign policy is based on the Yoshida Doctrine or Yoshida Line, which refers to the strategies of former Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who relied upon US military security, and maintained limited defense forces while focusing on economic recovery and growth. This paper reconsidered the Yoshida Doctrine, referencing multiple related arguments and evidence, reaching a conclusion that post-war Japanese foreign policy should not be called the Yoshida Doctrine or Yoshida Line. The Yoshida Doctrine is an analytical concept created by researchers in the 1980s to justify Japanese foreign policy. This was done in response to the domestic and foreign criticism of low-level military spending, despite the flourishing economy. The Yoshida Doctrine differs from other foreign policy doctrines and has no merit for being called a doctrine. Furthermore, the ideas supporting this doctrine are not based on definitive proof; rather, they merely represent Yoshida's image, and a spurious correlation, drawn between limited defense spending and high-economic growth. The analysis carried out in this study reveals that the Yoshida Doctrine is fundamentally flawed. As a result, this study insists that it is necessary to abandon the Yoshida Doctrine as a base for future research on Japanese diplomacy.

show abstract

Section: What Is the Yoshida Doctrine? Its Origins And Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing the ‘Yoshida Doctrine’

Hoshiro

2022

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Struggling to check China’s growing influence and assertiveness, the ambitious Abe relentlessly pursues the idea of a new Japan assuming greater responsibility, by itself and together with its partners in the IPR. By doing so, Abe is pushing boundaries in traditionally pacifist Japan to allow for this more proactive role to leverage its strategic interests (Gustafsson et al, 2018; Dobson, 2017) and pursues strategic partnerships with the United States, Australia and India in order to counteract China’s increasing assertiveness (Katagiri, 2019; Koga, 2019).…”

Section: Visions For a Free And Open Indo-pacificmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Quasi-Alliances Will Persist in the Indo-Pacific? The Fall and Rise of the Quad

Kliem

2020

Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of and increasing assertiveness by China presents a significant structural challenge in the Indo-Pacific region (IPR). In an effort to retain the status quo, a number of states have signed-up to the ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP). In support of FOIP, operational mechanisms have emerged—most importantly the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). The United States, Japan, Australia and India have come together in this informal format to exchange views on current security challenges and coordinate their strategic approaches. This article analyses both form and function of Quad and argues that both the diplomatic and military arrangements between Quad members are a direct response to ever-increasing Chinese assertiveness. Alongside a detailed empirical analysis of Quad, this paper addresses the question why Quad 2.0 will thrive although previous attempts at security networks failed. Balance of threat theory will illuminate why informal quasi-alliances vis-à-vis China are going to be the structural new normal for the IPR.

show abstract

“…The final documented reminisced about Japan's pre-war posture. To illustrate Abe's revisionism, Hughes has furthermore stressed that the Prime Minister has been a key member of the LDP Historical Investigation platform as well as other bodies that have revisited Japan's history textbooks (Hughes, 2015: 12–13, see also Glosserman, 2014; Hosoya, 2015; Dobson, 2017; Lande, 2017). Abe is also the member of the Japan Conference ( Nippon kaigi ), a conservative nationalist and state-Shinto religious organization, which calls for the revision of Article 9 and ‘a beautiful traditional sovereignty for Japan's future’ ( dentoteki no kunigara , see nipponkaigi.org).…”

Section: Japan's National Identity From a Hierarchical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing hierarchy as the key international relations concept and its implications for the study of Japanese national identity

Kolmaš

2018

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the last few decades, the discipline of international relations has been littered with anarchy. Since Waltz's Theory of International Politics, it has been assumed that states are formally equal sovereign unitary actors operating in an anarchic world system and that their identities and interests are defined by the very existence of anarchy. This article shatters this conception. It offers a ‘hierarchical worldview’ in order to illustrate that the very concepts of state, sovereignty, and anarchy are discursive creations inherently tied to the practice of hierarchy. I use a case study of Japanese national identity to illustrate this practice. The narratives of Japan as an autonomous and sovereign state were inextricably linked to Japan's hierarchical relationship toward Asia and the West (pre-war) and the USA (post-war). Japan's sovereignty and autonomy were then formulated within the practice of hierarchy.

show abstract

Is Japan Really Back? The “Abe Doctrine” and Global Governance

Cited by 27 publications

References 20 publications

Deconstructing the ‘Yoshida Doctrine’

Deconstructing the ‘Yoshida Doctrine’

Why Quasi-Alliances Will Persist in the Indo-Pacific? The Fall and Rise of the Quad

Reconstructing hierarchy as the key international relations concept and its implications for the study of Japanese national identity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About