K e i o U n i v e r s i t y G l o b a l C O E P r o g r a m慶應義塾大学グローバル C O Eプログラム

ＣＧＣＳニューズレター

No.4

D e s i g n i n g G o v e r n a n c e f o r C i v i l S o c i e t y市民社会におけるガバナンスの教育研究拠点

N ew s2010.January

慶應義塾大学グローバルCOEプログラム市民社会におけるガバナンスの教育研究拠点News Letter　2010. No.4

発行日　平成22年1月25日慶應義塾大学 市民社会ガバナンス教育研究センター代表者　萩原能久〒108-0073　東京都港区三田3-1-7　三田東宝ビル6FTEL；03-5427-1045　FAX；03-5427-1046http://www.cgcs.keio.ac.jp/

International Joint Symposium Keio University GCOE-CGCS International Joint Symposium

“Designing Governance for Civil Society”Opening Ceremony̶清家篤　国分良成　萩原能久

Co-session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: Proposals for Japan in the 21st Century PoliticsSociety

Japan’s International Contribution

Sessions 1st Session for Young Researchers2nd Session for Young Researchers

1st Session for Governance Theory Unit2nd Session for Governance Theory Unit3rd Session for Governance Theory Unit4th Session for Governance Theory Unit

Governance and Reform in the PhilippinesElectoral and Party Politics in the Philippines

Reform and Civil Society in the PhilippinesTowards Democratic Consolidation in the Philippines?

Civil Society and Governance in the Middle EastGender and Violence: Problematizing Discourse on Assaults <Japanese session>

Reviews 「Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR に参加して」 小川原正道

参加者の感想

2009年度GCOE-CGCS国際シンポジウム開催のご案内カンファレンスリスト

編集後記

2

3　

478

101112121314151617181920

2122

192323

Contents

K e i o U n i v e r s i t y G l o b a l C O E P r o g r a m慶應義塾大学グローバル C O Eプログラム

ＣＧＣＳニューズレター

No.4

D e s i g n i n g G o v e r n a n c e f o r C i v i l S o c i e t y市民社会におけるガバナンスの教育研究拠点

N ew s2010.January

慶應義塾大学グローバルCOEプログラム市民社会におけるガバナンスの教育研究拠点News Letter　2010. No.4

発行日　平成22年1月25日慶應義塾大学 市民社会ガバナンス教育研究センター代表者　萩原能久〒108-0073　東京都港区三田3-1-7　三田東宝ビル6FTEL；03-5427-1045　FAX；03-5427-1046http://www.cgcs.keio.ac.jp/

International Joint Symposium Keio University GCOE-CGCS International Joint Symposium

“Designing Governance for Civil Society”Opening Ceremony̶清家篤　国分良成　萩原能久

Co-session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: Proposals for Japan in the 21st Century PoliticsSociety

Japan’s International Contribution

Sessions 1st Session for Young Researchers2nd Session for Young Researchers

1st Session for Governance Theory Unit2nd Session for Governance Theory Unit3rd Session for Governance Theory Unit4th Session for Governance Theory Unit

Governance and Reform in the PhilippinesElectoral and Party Politics in the Philippines

Reform and Civil Society in the PhilippinesTowards Democratic Consolidation in the Philippines?

Civil Society and Governance in the Middle EastGender and Violence: Problematizing Discourse on Assaults <Japanese session>

Reviews 「Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR に参加して」 小川原正道

参加者の感想

2009年度GCOE-CGCS国際シンポジウム開催のご案内カンファレンスリスト

編集後記

2

3　

478

101112121314151617181920

2122

192323

Contents

2

Keio University GCOE-CGCS International Joint Symposium

GCOE-CGCS 国際共同シンポジウム

Program

Day 1 November 22 10:00-12:30Opening Ceremony and 1st Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Politics’ Welcome Address: Atsushi Seike (Professor, President of Keio University) Ryosei Kokubun (Professor, Dean of Graduate School of Law, Keio University) Yoshihisa Hagiwara (Professor, Project Leader of GCOE-CGCS)1st Session for Young Researchers13:30-15:302nd Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Society’Governance and Reform in the Philippines1st Session for Governance Theory Unit16:00-18:003rd Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Japan’s International Contribution’Electoral and Party Politics in the Philippines2nd Session for Governance Theory Unit Day 2 November 23 10:00-12:003rd Session for Governance Theory Unit2nd Session for Young Researchers 13:30-15:30Reform and Civil Society in the Philippines4th Session for Governance Theory Unit16:00-18:00Civil Society and Governance in the Middle EastTowards Democratic Consolidation in the Philippines?Gender and Violence: Problematizing Discourse on Assaults

　慶應義塾大学グローバルCOEプログラム「市民社会におけるガバナンスの教育研究拠点」は、2009年11月22日・23日の二日間にわたり、朝日新聞アジアネットワーク（AAN）、韓国・東亜日報化汀平和財団

（PEACE21）および中国・現代国際関係研究院（CICIR）との共同開催による国際シンポジウムを慶應義塾大学日吉キャンパスにて開催しました。　AAN、PEACE21、CICIRとの共催セッションでは「提言　21世紀の日本」と題し、若手研究者の報告に日中韓の討論者が応答する形で、日本の政治・社会・国際貢献に関する意欲的な議論が行われました。そのほか、当拠点の若手研究者による成果報告などの12セッションが、主に英語によって実施されました。本号ではその模様をお伝えします。

On November 22nd and 23rd, 2009, Keio University Global COE program, the Center of Governance for Civil Society, jointly hosted the International Joint Symposium with Asahi Shimbun Asia Network (AAN), Dong-A Ilbo Hwajeong Peace Foundation (PEACE 21), and China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). Three co-sessions featured proposals by young researchers on Japanese politics, society and international contribution, and comments by panelists from Japan, China, and Korea. Other sessions featured papers by CGCS young researchers and other eminent scholars from Japan and overseas.

International Joint SymposiumDesigning Governance for Civil Society　—「市民社会におけるガバナンス」—

3

Distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen:

On behalf of Keio University, I am very pleased to welcome you all to this International Joint Symposium hosted by the Center of Governance for Civil Society. I would like to offer an especially warm welcome to our international guests who have traveled great distances to be here. The Center of Governance for Civil Society at Keio University has integrated the various graduate schools concerned with social sciences into a new research program called ‘Governance for Civil Society’. I believe that Keio’s unique history renders it an appropriate hub for undertaking such research particularly because the Japanese words for ‘citizen’ and ‘society’ have an important connection to Yukichi Fukuzawa, the founder of Keio University. Fukuzawa translated the English word for citizen as ‘shimin’ with the hope that the citizens of Japan would develop into independent-minded individuals who would be the ‘bearers of society’. It was the citizens of England who initially were the bearers of the modern English Civil War. These central figures won the right to private property and established a civil society in which the principle of free contract was respected. I believe that Fukuzawa also translated the word ‘citizen’ as ‘ichi no tami’, which literally means ‘plebian of the marketplace’, imagining commoners actively working in the marketplaces with their losses and gains determined by their own capabilities. One of Fukuzawa’s well-known mottos, ‘national independence through personal independence’ neatly summarizes his idea that it was necessary for Japan to foster individuals with the spirit of freedom and equality in order for Japan to develop into a modern nation. However, the new Meiji government dismissed Fukuzawa’s idea by introducing the more feudal and authoritarian concept of ‘subject’ or ‘shinmin’. From this point on, the dominant mindset in Japan was that

the authorities were superior and thus the commoners had to show them respect. In response to this, Fukuzawa established what we now know as Keio University, under the banner of ‘independence and self-respect’, with the aim of nurturing free and independent citizens. Fukuzawa also introduced the concept of ‘society’ to 19th century Japan. Although his translation ‘ningen kosai’ (lit. ‘human interaction’) did not take root in Japanese, it suggests that Fukuzawa envisioned a civil society, in which free citizens would build an autonomous community through their activities and public discourse. Being a citizen meant understanding the public-spirit and acting for the benefit of the whole community. The joint symposium today will feature several sessions on ‘Proposals for Japan in the 21st Century’. I believe it is important for Japan to join together with its Asian neighbors and further mutual understanding in order to tackle the many challenges facing the world today. In this sense, it is significant that junior and senior academics representing the Center of Governance for Civil Society, the Asahi Shimbun from Japan, PEACE21 from Korea, and CICIR from China, will have an opportunity to exchange their opinions about the future of Japan over the next two days. In closing, I would like to thank Professor Yoshihisa Hagiwara, the Project leader of the Center of Governance for Civil Society, and all the research fellows and staff members who have worked very hard to make this symposium possible. Last but not least, I would like to thank all of this symposium’s participants for their support and I hope that we will have your continued support in the future. I hope that today’s and tomorrow’s sessions will be full of lively discussions, frank exchanges of ideas, and a deepening of understanding. Thank you.

Welcome Address

Atsushi Seike(Professor, President of Keio University)

開会式挨拶

慶應義塾長

清家 篤

Symposiumご挨拶

4

Good morning. My name is Ryosei Kokubun, Dean and Professor of the Graduate School of Law at Keio University. First of all, let me welcome you to the International Joint Symposium, and to Hiyoshi campus. I see people from various countries; I also see many colleagues and friends. I am glad to welcome you all today. I would like to say three things about this symposium. First, the location. Hiyoshi campus is a beautiful place. Perhaps you saw the yellow autumn leaves on your way here. Mita campus is the main campus and this is where the CGCS symposiums are usually held. But because it is situated in the center of a metropolis, it is rather small. Hiyoshi campus, on the other hand, is outside the city, and thus, closer to nature. I am sure you will appreciate the fresh air. Yokohama city, which is located near Hiyoshi campus, is also a very nice place. It has many beautiful parks, and is home to all kinds of cuisines. You can find many good places to hang out. Second, this symposium represents a new type of collaboration, a collaboration between senior and junior researchers from, amongst other places, Japan, Korea, and China. This Global COE program, ‘Designing Governance for Civil Society’, headed by Professor Yoshihisa Hagiwara, aims at a new type of educational program,

focusing particularly on PhD students. It was launched last year, and is now in the second year. So far, it has been a great success. Thus, in line with the program’s goal, this symposium features a unique collaboration between the young researchers and senior academics from CGCS, AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR. Third, I would like to say something about the timing, particularly from the point of view of Japanese politics. The slogan ‘change’ is very much popular today even in Japan. Japan’s newly elected Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, had been stressing that Japan was in need of change; many people waited for this. In the recent election, Japan finally got a new government. Nevertheless, Japan is still faced with many difficulties. It is thus searching for new goals and values which can contribute to its future development. For many people, this is a new time for Japan. In this sense, the discussions here will be important in that they will contribute to a new Japan. To further enliven the discussions, we have invited several key panelists, including Professor Katayama and Mr. Wakamiya. So, I will stop here, and let you enjoy the discussions. Thank you very much.

Welcome Address

Ryosei Kokubun(Professor, Dean of Graduate School of Law and Politics, Keio University)

開会式挨拶

法学研究科委員長

国分 良成

1st Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Politics’ Proposals: Michitaka Watanabe (Ph.D. Candidate, Keio University) “Future Party System in Japan”

Hyunjung Jung (Ph.D. Candidate, Seoul National University) “Administrative Reform under the Hatoyama Government: From Bureaucrats to Politicians?”

Ziyi Qian (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “How Will ‘Break the Power of the Bureaucrats’ View by New DPJ Government Affect Japan’s Policy?”

Panelists: Yoshihiro Katayama (Professor, Keio University) Yoshibumi Wakamiya (Columnist, The Asahi Shimbun) Junwei Ma (Research Professor & Deputy Director, CICIR) Cheol-Hee Park (Associate Professor, Seoul National University)

The theme of this session was ‘politics’. The three speakers focused on ‘the change of government’ following the birth of the DPJ government. Michitaka Watanabe pointed out that there are signs of a two party system developing in Japan as a result of adopting the single-member constituency system. He indicated three advantages of a two party system: first, it enables the people to choose their leaders and policies; second, it contributes to the dissolution of the “iron

　政治をテーマにしたこの共催セッションでは、３人の若手研究者による報告が行われたが、共通の論点として民主党政権の誕生による政権交代が取り上げられた。　渡辺美智隆氏は、小選挙区制の導入以後、日本にも二大政党制形成の兆しがあることを指摘し、二大政党制の利点として、国民によるリーダーと政策の選択、鉄の三角形の解消、責任感と緊張感を持った政党の政治運営の 3

AAN,PEACE21,CICIRとの共催セッション「提言　21世紀の日本」

Symposiumご挨拶

5

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is my great pleasure and honor to deliver these opening remarks for this special occasion of the International Joint Symposium held by CGCS, the Center of Governance for Civil Society at Keio University. We have had annual international symposiums since the previous 21st Century COE, but this year’s International Joint Symposium is among them perhaps the most unique, featuring joint sessions with Asahi-Shimbun, Dong-A Ilbo Hwajeong Peace Foundation (PEACE21), and China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. When we were first approached by Asahi Shimbun about the possibility of a joint symposium, we asked just for one thing. That is, because the CGCS is not only a research center but also a program for postgraduate education, we would like the symposium to contribute in some way to the education and international exchange of our postgraduate students. After numerous meetings with Mr. Kawasaki, the representative from Asahi Shimbun, we came up with an interesting idea, namely, to look not only at the perception gap among Japan, Korea, and China concerning Japan, Asia and the rest of the world, but also at the generation gap between junior and senior academics. This is the story behind the co-sessions today.

In the co-sessions, we have asked graduate students from Japan, Korea, and China to talk for ten minutes about the role, hopes, and problems of 21st century Japan in relation to three themes, ‘politics’, ‘society’, and ‘international contribution’. Following this, senior panelists will each give comments about the presentations for about fifteen minutes. Finally, we will open the floor for a general discussion. In addition to the co-sessions, we have organized four sessions on ‘The Politics of Change in the Philippines’, and four sessions on ‘Theory of Governance, Civil Society and Democracy’, both of which feature presentations from many overseas academics. The papers given in these sessions will be published in a series of books in the near future. Furthermore, there will be a session on ‘Civil Society and Governance in the Middle East’ and a session on ‘Gender and Violence’. The latter addresses the problem of domestic violence, which has recently drawn attention in countries all over the world. Finally, we will be holding a couple of sessions featuring presentations by young researchers. In short, there is something for everyone. 　I hope there will be fruitful discussions over the next two days. Thank you.

Welcome Address

Yoshihisa Hagiwara(Professor, Project Leader of GCOE-CGCS)

式辞

拠点リーダー

萩原 能久

triangle”, that is, the strong bond between and among the LDP, the bureaucrats and the economic quarters; and third, it leads to responsible political governance by political parties. Bearing this in mind, Watanabe suggested an important role of the House of Councilors and the necessity of strengthening the policymaking ability of political parties and representatives. Hyunjung Jung examined from the perspective of public administration the background and meaning of the politician-led administrative reform by the newly inaugurated Hatoyama government. She made the following four suggestions. The government should consider: 1) the object of the reform (i.e. to avoid conflict with the bureaucrats),　2) the timing of the reform (i.e. to exploit this approved time), 3) the speed of the reform (i.e. an excessive emphasis on mutual agreement may change the essence of the reform), and 4) the subject of the reform　(i.e. to recognize that both politicians and the people are responsible for excessive dependence on bureaucrats). Ziyi Qian considered the effects of the DPJ’s vowed battle on the bureaucracy’s power. Noting the budget screening by the Government Revitalization Unit as the DPJ’s attempt to reduce the

点を示した。その上で渡辺氏は、参議院の役割が重要性を増し、また、議員および政党には政策立案能力が必要となると提言した。　Hyunjung Jung 氏は行政学の視点から政治行政改革の背景と意義を検討し、鳩山政権における政治主導の行政について 4 つの提言を行った。改革の対象（官僚との摩擦を抑えること）、タイミング（支持率の高い好機を利用すること）、改革の速度 ( 行き過ぎた合議主義によって改革の本質を変質させないこと )、そして改革の主体（官僚依存について国民や

Symposium

6

power of bureaucrats, she emphasized the importance of cutting off the interests’ chain between the government and bureaucrats for reform. Finally, she identified four issues and challenges for the future: the practicability of governmental policy, the weakening of the legislative function as a result of the unification of the ruling party and government, the realization of the DPJ’s manifesto, and the reflection of the views of the electorate in policies and politics. Following the three presentations, the four panelists discussed the proposals. Yoshihiro Katayama spelled out the meaning of change of government. According to Katayama, the recent change in Japan was a result of the people’s increased dissatisfaction towards the LDP rule. He highlighted the budget screening as one of the DPJ’s efforts to tackle political problems and pointed out that this will be an opportunity to establish the transparency of the bureaucracy and also to change our views of it. Finally, he suggested two points for the success of the DPJ’s reform: increasing the power of politicians over the personnel affairs of the bureaucracy and increasing the number of political appointees. Junwei Ma pointed out that the recent change of government demonstrated political change and social progress in Japan. Stressing the uniqueness of the LDP’s 50 year rule compared to governments in other countries, he pointed out the difficulty of realizing a change of government in Japan in a real sense. Finally, he argued that it is essential for the DPJ government to get along with the bureaucracies. Cheol-Hee Park explained the recent change of government in Japan from the point of political party’s role and social change. First of all, he pointed out that while the LDP played an important role in developing the economy and maintaining democracy, a lack of a new political vision for the last 20 years led to its defeat. As for the DPJ government, while on the one hand, he was anxious about the realization of the politician-led initiative, on the other hand, he had high hopes for generational change, life politics and budget cuts. On the theme of the move away from bureaucratic control, Yoshibumi Wakamiya addressed this issue not from the perspective of politician-led initiative but of political intervention, arguing that the politician’s ability to control the bureaucracies is a huge challenge. Furthermore, he identified Mr. Kan and Mr. Sengoku as symbols of the Hatoyama government, both of whom had been involved in student movements. Finally, he suggested that under the single-seat electoral district system, the DPJ will eventually lose power through a drain of talented candidates.

政治家側の責任も認識すること）の四点が重要であると Jung 氏は指摘した。　Ziyi Qian 氏は、民主党が強調する「官僚主義の打破」が日本政治に与える影響を検討した。Qian 氏は行政刷新会議による事業仕分けを、民主党による官僚の勢力抑制の試みの事例として取り上げ、改革には政府と官僚の間の利害関係を絶ち切ることが重要であると指摘した。Qian 氏は今後の課題として、政府の政策実行力、与党と政府の一体化による国家立法機能の弱まり、民主党マニフェストの実現、有権者意識の反映の四つを挙げた。　以上のような提言に対して、4 人の討論者が討論を行った。片山善博氏は、今回の政権交代の理由を自民党の政治や行政に対する国民の不満の高まりであると分析した。また、事業仕分けが国民の官僚に対する評価を変え、官僚機構の透明性を実現する機会になりうると指摘した。最後に片山氏は、民主党による改革の成功の要は政治家が行う官僚人事と政治任用にあると強調した。　Junwei Ma 氏は、政権交代は日本の政治的変化と社会の進歩を表すものであると指摘した。Ma 氏は 50 年という自民党の長期政権の諸外国にみられない特異性を強調し、日本の政治文化は政権交代が起きにくい土壌であろうと述べた。そして民主党政権には官僚機構と良好な関係を築くことが重要であると指摘した。　Cheol-Hee Park 氏は、政党の役割と社会変化という視点から発言し、自民党は経済成長や民主主義の維持に一定の役割を果たしてきたが、この 20 年間に新たな新機軸を欠いていたことが選挙での大敗の原因となったと指摘した。また、民主党政権は政治主導の実現には不安があるものの、世代交代・生活政治・予算カットには期待が持てると述べた。　若宮啓文氏は政治主導ではなく政治介入という論点を提示し、官僚支配能力が大きな課題となると分析した。さらに若宮氏は、鳩山政権の象徴として、かつて学生運動家であった 2 人の人物 ( 菅直人氏と仙谷由人氏 ) を挙げた。最後に今後の政権交代の可能性に関して若宮氏は、小選挙区制ではいずれ優秀な人材の流出が起こり民主党は政権を失うであろうと指摘した。

Symposium提言　21世紀の日本

7

The theme of the 2nd session was ‘society’. At first, Jihey Bae talked about gender roles in the family, focusing particularly on the changing attitudes and roles of men. She noted that men in both Japan and Korea are faced with the dilemma of balancing work and family life. Against this backdrop, Bae offered several suggestions to tackle the “work-family conflict”: 1) to promote awareness of the necessity of reconciling men’s work and family life, 2) to improve working conditions by reducing long hours and overtime work, and 3) to review policies promoting men’s participation in child care. Xue Yang pointed out that elderly care by the family (especially by their children) is decreasing and not only is this becoming a social issue in Japan in itself, but it is also connecting to gender problems, as the burden of elderly care rests heavily on women. To relieve this burden, Yang proposed a scheme to share the burden by promoting the participation of men, children and other relatives. In addition, she emphasized the importance of support of the community and the establishment of more a balanced care-giving network. Against the backdrop that communication between professionals (physicians) and non-professionals (patients) does not necessarily go well, Yusuke Hama introduced the role of mediators such as “science and technology communicator” and “peer counselor” to facilitate communication. He suggested that the mediator system would be enriched by analyzing the problems inherent to it and by supporting its systemization. Following the three speakers, the three panelists gave their comments. Junhong Liu gave his comments from the perspective of the connection between society and market. He pointed out that a new market was emerging in accordance with the diversification and the changes in demand as a result of the development of needs. To respond to this change, he argued that the institutions must try to adapt to the needs to gain confidence. Liu also gave some examples of attempts in China at diffusing science and technology information. Sook-Jong Lee firstly gave some advice to restore the vitality of Japanese society. She then commented on the speakers’ proposals. On the gender roles in the family, she noted that ill treatment of part-time job workers is another factor that should be taken into

　「社会」をテーマとした第二共催セッションでは、三人の若手パネリストが報告を行った。　Jihey Bae 氏は、日韓両国の男性が仕事環境と家庭の両立に苦慮している現状を紹介し、ワーク・ライフ・バランスをいかに図るべきかについて提言を行った。Bae 氏は、男性にも仕事と家庭生活の調和が必要であるという意識が必要であること、長時間労働や残業を生んでいる労働条件の改善、そして男性の育児参加支援に関する既存政策の検討の３点を提示した。　Xue Yang 氏は、日本の社会的問題として、家族（特に子供）による高齢者介護が減少していることと、女性による介護の限界が深刻になっている（介護の問題が女性問題と密接に関連している）ことを指摘し、問題解決のためには、介護従事者への負担を分散して男性や子供、親族の参加を促すと共に、コミュニティの相互支援を拡張して介護のネットワークを確立させることが必要であると主張した。　濱雄亮氏は医療と社会の関わりの一例として、専門家と非専門家である患者のコミュニケーションが必ずしもうまくいかないという問題を取り上げ、それを改善するためのメディエイターである科学技術コミュニケーターとピアカウンセラーの意義を紹介した。そして、メディエイターの問題点を分析し、システム化を支援することでメディエイター制度はより充実しうると論じた。　これらの報告に対して、三人の討論者がコメントした。Junhong Liu 氏は、社会と市場の結びつきという観点から考察し、需要の変化と多様化が新たな市場を生んでいる現在、制度の側も需要に対応して信頼性を確保できるよう変化しなければならないと論じた。Liu

2nd Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Society’Proposals: Jihey Bae (GCOE-CGCS Research Fellow) “Balancing Work and Family: The Case of Japanese and Korean Men”

Xue Yang (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Thinking about the Elderly Care”

Yusuke Hama (Ph.D. Candidate, Keio University) “The Mediator between Professionals and Non-Professionals”

Panelists: Mieko Takenobu (Senior Staff Writer, The Asahi Shimbun) Junhong Liu (Professor & Senior Economist, CICIR) Sook-Jong Lee (Professor, Sungkyunkwan University)

8

account. With regards to elderly care, she pointed out the problem is intensifying because the wages for elderly care workers are in many cases low. Finally, she expressed her expectation for how the mediator system would develop in the future. Mieko Takenobu suggested that one reason why Japan is moving at a snail’s pace in resolving gender issues has roots in the success of the social model structured in the high-growth era. She expressed a concern that women and young people have fewer opportunities to participate and express their opinions because the social structure centering on men remains unchanged, although Japanese society is rapidly aging and facing low birth rates. To promote changes in the attitudes of people, she referred to the importance of mediators. There were questions from the audience about the differences in Japanese, Korean and Chinese society, or the differences in attitudes of young and elderly men.

氏はまた、中国における科学技術情報普及のための取組を紹介した。　Sook-Jong Lee 氏は 3 つの提言に対して、家庭における男女の役割の問題については、労働条件の問題としてはパートタイマーの待遇にも眼を向ける必要があると指摘した。また高齢者問題については、介護労働者が女性に偏っている上に低賃金であることが問題をより深刻化させていると述べた。メディエイターの問題については、どのようにこの制度を担保していくかについての議論が今後も深まることに期待を示した。　竹信三恵子氏は、ジェンダー問題を解決するための政策が日本で満足に進まない理由として、高度成長時代の社会モデルの成功が影響していると指摘した。近年は少子高齢化が進んでいるにもかかわらず、男性中心の社会や意識が変わらないために、女性や若年層が社会進出の機会を閉ざされ、それぞれの主張を行うことが困難となっている点が問題であると述べた。竹信氏は、意識変革のためにはメディエイターのような仲介が必要であり、多面的に取り組んでいく必要があると論じた。聴衆からは、日本と韓国、中国それぞれの社会の違いや、若年男性と高年男性での意識の違いについて質問が出るなどし、活発な議論が行われた。

3rd Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR: ‘Japan’s International Contribution’Proposals: Yusuke Takagi (JSPS Research Fellow) “The Domestic Foundations of the International Contribution Debate: Revisiting the Japan’s Soft Power in East Asia”

Joo-Hwan Kim (Ph.D. Candidate, Inha University) “A Different Opinion on the Japan’s Military International Contribution”

Zhihai Xie (Ph.D. Candidate, Peking University) “Soft Power and Political Leadership: New Forms of Japan’s International Contribution”

Panelists: Ryosei Kokubun (Professor, Keio University) Junhong Liu (Professor & Senior Economist, CICIR) Young-Kwan Yoon (Professor, Seoul National University, Former Foreign Minister)

In the last session, t h e t h r e e s p e a k e r s a n d t h r e e p a n e l i s t s exchanged views about ‘Japan’s international contributions.’ Y u s u k e T a k a g i pointed out that there exists a gap between Japan’s self-image and Southeast Asian countries’ image concerning Japan’s international contribution. Analyzing newspaper articles on Japan in the Southeast Asian media, Takagi showed that while discussions of soft power is widespread in Japan, Southeast Asians pay more

　第 3 共催セッションは「日本の国際貢献」をテーマに 3 人の若手研究者が提言を行い、3人のパネリストによる意見交換が行われた。　高木佑輔氏は、国際貢献をめぐって日本国内と東南アジアとではイメージに落差が存在することを指摘した。高木氏は東南アジアのメディアに取り上げられた日本の記事の分析を通じて、日本国内の議論ではソフトパワー論が盛んであるのに対し、東南アジア地域が最も注目しているのは日本の経済発展であることを明らかにした。そして、日本国内においてもこの観点からの国際貢献論を再認識する必要があると論じた。

Symposium提言　21世紀の日本

9

attention to Japan’s economic development. Because of this gap, he suggested that it is necessary to revisit the debate over Japan’s international contribution. Joo-Hwan Kim noted the increase of Japan’s military international contribution after the Gulf War. In the latter half of the 1990’s, Japan embraced a peace diplomacy, providing ODA to developing countries. At the same time, Japan’s military international contribution became increasingly salient in the UN PKO. Kim examined the necessity of sending the SDF overseas and the role of Japan’s military international contributions, considering how these activities affect Japan’s surrounding regions. Zhihai Xie examined a new form of international contribution based on Japan’s soft power and leadership. Xie gave a positive assessment of Japan’s ODA to developing countries and noted the value of US-Japanese alliance for regional stability. Noting the shift from hard power, which puts emphasis on military and economical strength, to soft power, which, by contrast, puts emphasis on culture, Xie suggested that Japan’s soft power – its culture, political values and institutions – should be strengthened as a part of its international contribution. While acknowledging Japan’s mili tary international contribution, Young-Kwan Yoon suggested that Japan should explore its soft power. Yoon expressed his expectations for the future of Japan’s international contribution, particularly the impact of Japan’s soft power on East Asian security. Junhong Liu gave his views of Japan’s international contribution from an economical perspective. Japan’s ODA and PKO can be seen as an international public good. As a provider, Japan should rethink the way in which it provides these goods. Ryosei Kokubun argued that international exchange between Japan and its surrounding countries, particularly China and South Korea, is very important. He noted that Japanese studies is growing worldwide, and thus, suggested that people in Japan should also put more emphasis on exploring Japan’s soft power. There were a lot of questions from the floor, including questions about Japan’s economic international contribution, and about the relation between the change of one’s international status and international contribution.

　Joo-Hwan Kim 氏は、日本の軍事的国際貢献は湾岸戦争以降、拡大傾向にあると指摘した。90 年代後半の日本は、発展途上国に対する高額の ODA 提供など平和外交を全面的に展開する一方で、国連 PKO における軍事的国際貢献も活発化した。Kim 氏は自衛隊の海外派遣の必要性や日本の軍事的国際貢献の役割を検討し、こうした活動が周辺地域にどのように影響するかを論じた。　Zhihai Xie 氏は、ソフトパワーとリーダーシップを中心とする日本の新たな国際貢献の形式について検討した。Xie 氏は従来の日本の対発展途上国 ODA に意義を認め、日米同盟が地域的安定をもたらす貢献の程度を評価した。そして、軍事力や経済といったハードパワーが分散化し、文化などのソフトパワーの力が強まる現在の傾向を踏まえ、日本は自国の文化や政治的価値観、政治制度などのソフトパワーを強化し、更なる国際貢献を展開するべきであると提言した。　3 人のパネリストからもそれぞれ問題提起と提言が行われた。Young-Kwan Yoon 氏は日本の軍事的国際貢献を肯定しつつ、ソフトパワー面での国際貢献をも提唱した。Yoon 氏は将来的な国際貢献のあり方を論じ、特に日本のソフトパワーが東アジア地域の安全保障にもたらす貢献に期待をかけた。Junhong Liu氏は経済的な角度から日本の国際貢献を論じた。Liu 氏は、日本が提供する ODA や PKOは一種の国際的公共財であるとの見方を示し、提供者である日本は、提供の方法について深慮するべきであると提言した。国分良成氏は日本と近隣諸国との交流の重要性を指摘し、なかでも日中韓の国際交流が重要であると述べた。国分氏は日本研究が世界的に増加傾向にあることを紹介し、日本国内でも日本のソフトパワーの研究に力を注ぐべきであると提言した。　会場からも日本の経済的国際貢献の内容について、国際的地位の変化と国際貢献との関連についてといった多くの質問が寄せられ、活発な意見交換が行われた。

10

1st Session for Young ResearchersChair: Toshiro Tanaka (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Eijiro Fukui (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “The Perceptions of the EU in Asia: From the Perspective of a Public Opinion Survey”

Kazuhiko Fuchikawa (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Regulation of Buyer Power in Distribution under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act”

Takemasa Sekine (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Necessity and Proportionality in GATT Article XX: A Consideration of the Theoretical and Institutional Foundations of Interpreting ‘Necessary to’ ”

Discussants: Toshiro Tanaka (Professor, Keio University) Katsuhiro Shoji (Professor, Keio University)

The objective of presentation by Eijiro Fukui was to clarify the EU Perceptions in 6 Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand) through analyzing public opinion surveys. The results showed that the 6 Asian countries had the same perception structure of the EU. For further research, Fukui proposed to analyze the formation of this structure in order to explain why it was the same among the 6 countries. Kazuhiko Fuchikawa gave a presentation on the regulation of buyer power under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act (AMA). Using specific cases, Fuchikawa showed that the Japanese AMA takes an ex-post approach by General Designation and Large-scale Retailers Designation and also that it stresses the importance of the decision-making process of firms compared to other countries, reflecting Japan’s unique economic structure dominated mostly by SMEs. He then argued that the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) should clarify the “pro” and “anti” competitive effect under Article 19 of the AMA and reconsider the presumption test under Article 3 of the AMA. There were questions on the feature of the Japanese economic structure, and adequacy of the standard for judging monopolization. Takemasa Sekine presented a paper on the necessity and proportionality in GATT Article XX. According to Sekine, the WTO has continuously adopted the “less trade restrictive alternative test”in interpreting “necessary to” of Article XX since the US-Section 337 case in 1989. He made clear through an examination of several cases that although the basic interpretation seems unchanged, there are variants in the details. Moreover, Sekine showed that as a result of the varying interpretations of “necessity to”, the meaning of proportionality in WTO has also become rather vague. Finally, he suggested that to assess the non-trade values, the institutional background of the WTO needs to be examined. From the floor, there were many questions, including questions on the relation between WTO and EU law system, and on the framework for analysis.

　福井英次郎氏は日本、韓国、中国、香港、シンガポール、タイのアジア 6 カ国における EU認識を、世論調査の分析を通じて明らかにした。アジア 6 カ国は同じ EU 認識の構造を有していることを福井氏は析出し、認識が同質化する理由を分析するため、構造の導出過程を明らかにする必要性を挙げた。　渕川和彦氏は日本の独占禁止法における買手市場支配力の規制に関する報告を行った。渕川氏は、日本の独占禁止法が一般指定と大規模小売業者指定という事後的な方法を取っており、また、中小企業が経済において大きな比重を占めているため他国と比べて企業の意思決定過程に重点を置くなどの特徴があることを、事例を示しながら論じた。その上で、公正取引委員会は独占禁止法第 19 条における競争の促進効果と抑制効果を明らかにするとともに、第3 条における推定を見直す必要があると主張した。会場からは日本の経済構造の特徴や独占の判断基準の妥当性について質問がなされた。　関根豪政氏は、GATT 第 20 条における必要性要件と比例性原則に関する報告を行った。この分野では 1989 年の米国関税法 337 条事件以後、必要性要件の解釈には「最小通商制限性テスト」が定着しており、関根氏は、同事件以降の事例を詳細に検討し、解釈の大枠には変化がないものの具体的な内容には変化がみられることを明らかにした。関根氏はまた、必要性要件解釈の多様性によって WTO における比例性原則が曖昧化しているとも指摘し、非貿易的価値の評価を行うための WTO の組織的背景の吟味が必要であることも示唆した。会場からは、EU 域内法との関係や分析のための枠組について質問がなされ、活発な議論が交わされた。

Symposiumセッション概要

11

2nd Session for Young ResearchersChair: Takeshi Kohno (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Xue Yang (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Gender and Intergenerational Support in Later Life in Urban China and Japan: Case Studies in Shenyang and Tokyo/Yokohama”

Maya Suzuki (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Examining Government Strategy against Caste Inequality in India”

Yoshinori Kasai (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Positive Identification and Solidarity: Cases of People’s Movements in Quezon City in the Philippines ”

Discussants: Masami Sekine (Professor, Keio University) Hideki Watanabe (Professor, Keio University)

Xue Yang focused on a gender view to study the intergenerational support in later life in urban China and Japan. She argued that in urban China, adult children are likely to divide their role equally in supporting elderly parents, while women are inclined to be the main performers of elderly care in urban Japan. Moreover, while Chinese senior citizens are likely to provide more support to their children, and they tend to give priority to their sons especially in inheritance, in urban Japan, no relations between gender and support from the elderly parents, and diversified inheritance patterns are observed. Maya Suzuki examined the condition of the untouchables in Indian society, highlighting the problems of social exclusion and inequality they face within the caste system. Suzuki concluded that sweepers have been isolated occupationally, educationally, and structurally from industrialized society and also from efficient welfare and sanitary policies implemented by the government. She also emphasized the necessity to clarify the welfare schemes from the perspectives of low performance and strategy in order to mobilize the target group to uplift their condition and opportunity. Yoshinori Kasai explored how the urban poor as a political minority can make a solidarity through his case study of Quezon City in the Philippines. According to Kasai, a solidarity that is made simply to defeat a common enemy or to ease discontent is fragile and does not have any channel to collaborate with others. By contrast, he pointed out that a loose network without such a strong purpose by a positive identification beyond the existing framework of poverty can make solidarity sustainable and strong, allowing it to face up to their poverty-situation and to improve their daily lives. Finally,　based on the discussants’ comments, the speakers and participants discussed the dynamism of citizens’ attitude toward empowerment of their identity and solidarity and the relationship among family and parents and children.

　楊雪氏はジェンダーに焦点を当て、高齢期の世代間援助に関する日中比較を行った。中国・瀋陽市と東京都、横浜市における聞き取り調査を元にした分析から、中国では子供が全員で平等に親への援助を分担する傾向があるのに対し、日本では女性が老いた親の世話を担う傾向がみられた。また、老親から子どもへの援助は中国では多くみられ、とりわけ遺産相続では息子を優先する傾向があるのに対し、日本ではジェンダーによる差はなく、遺産相続にも多様な形態がみられたと述べた。　鈴木真弥氏は、インド社会のカースト・マイノリティ（不可触層）を取りあげ、彼らの置かれている状況と直面する問題を主に同国のカースト制との関連から検討した。鈴木氏は、社会経済的な発展を続ける傍らでカースト制の最下層の生活状況はいまだ改善されておらず、中でもゴミ拾いやトイレの清掃などの職に「伝統的に」従事してきたとされる清掃カーストコミュニティの場合、福祉や衛生面で政府の取り組みはあるものの、別の職を得たり高等教育を受けたりする機会に恵まれていないと指摘し、状況改善に向けた取り組みの必要性を強調した。　笠井賢紀氏は、フィリピン・ケソン市における貧困層の大衆運動に焦点を当て、政治的マイノリティである貧困層の社会運動と連帯を論じた。笠井氏は、貧困という共通の敵や不満に対して貧困層が団結するタイプの社会運動においては、他者との協働のチャネルがみられず、またもろい連帯であることを指摘した。一方で、貧困層が、貧困という既存の枠組を超えて肯定的に自己定義付けを行った場合にはその連帯感は安定し、また日常生活向上の取り組みでも時として強力な連帯性をみせると結論づけた。　家族や親と子の関係についてさらに議論を深めるとともに、貧困層など社会的なマイノリティにみられるアイデンティティや連帯感がどのような条件によって強化されるのかについても活発な意見交換がなされた。

12

1st Session for Governance Theory UnitChair: Ken Tsutsumibayashi (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Hiroyuki Tosa (Professor, Kobe University) “Neoliberal Governmentality and the Politics of the Governed”

Masakazu Matsumoto (GCOE-CGCS Assistant Professor) “Governing Violence by War? Michael Walzer on Humanitarian Intervention”

Discussants: Masanaru Tanoue (Associate Professor, Keio University) Chikako Endo (GCOE-CGCS Research Fellow)

Hiroyuki Tosa ref lected critically upon “neoliberal governmentality”, which promotes the homogenization of self-improving subjectivities and the politics of exclusion at the global level. Drawing on Foucault’s notions of political rationality, bio-politics, and the power/knowledge nexus, he examined the global benchmarking system, a technique of governing from a distance, and considered it to be illustrative of targeted governance furthering a state of exception. He

then took up the case of the global slum including the Gaza Strip as failed governance, and argued for an alternative politics against the homogenization and securitization of humans and society by neoliberal global governance. Masakazu Matsumoto discussed Michael Walzer’s views on humanitarian intervention, a subject which has attracted growing interest in international politics since the 1990s. He examined why and how Walzer justifies certain humanitarian interventions as an exception in his general framework of just war theory, paying attention to his communitarian defense of the rights of political communities such as the right to self-determination and self-help. After clarifying Walzer’s shift from a reluctant to resolute position on humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War period, he examined Walzer’s recent argument on the “war on terrorism”, contrasting it with the liberal hawkish case of Michael Ignatieff. Commenting upon these presentations, discussants Masanaru Tanoue and Chikako Endo each asked several questions on some of the key concepts, the implications of the argument for current developments, and comparisons and differences with other positions.

　土佐弘之氏は政治的合理性や生政治の問題意識に基づき、ネオリベラルな「統治性」のグローバルな展開を批判的に考察した。土佐氏は統治対象を監視し規律する新たな知と権力の連結形態として、世界銀行などのグローバルなベンチマーキング・システムを例に挙げ、社会を遠隔統治するターゲット化されたガバナンスの問題性を指摘した。また、こうした排除の政治の表出例として、「剥き出しの生」を例外状態として創出させる、パレスチナのガサ地区をはじめとするグローバルなスラムを挙げた。土佐氏はこうしたグローバルなネオリベラル統治に対抗するためのトランスナショナルな運動について展望を示した。　松元雅和氏はアメリカの政治理論家マイケル・ウォルツァーの人道的介入に関する見解を正戦論の枠組において検討した。人道的理由による武力介入が正戦論における例外事例として認められる根拠として、松元氏は、政治共同体の自己決定などの諸権利に高い地位を与えるウォルツァーのコミュニタリアン的見解に着目した。そして、冷戦終結を契機とする介入消極論から介入積極論へのウォルツァーの変化を指摘した後、対テロ戦争に関する近年の見解を、イグナティエフらリベラル・ホークとの対比で明らかにした。

2nd Session for Governance Theory UnitChair: Masakazu Matsumoto (GCOE-CGCS Assistant Professor) Speakers: Jörgen Ödalen (Lecturer, Uppsala University) “Climate Refugees: Normative Problems and Institutional Solutions”

Chikako Endo (GCOE-CGCS Research Fellow) “Does Global Democracy Rule Out National Self-Determination?”

Chiara Cordelli (Ph.D. Candidate, University College London) “Privatizing the Public: Should We Fund Associations for the Common Good?”

Discussants: Ken Tsutsumibayashi (Professor, Keio University) Hiroyuki Tosa (Professor, Kobe University)

Jörgen Ödalen considered the phenomenon of migration resulting from climate change and explored the normative issue of the political obligations of the developed world towards environmental refugees. Noting the transnational

　Jörgen Ödalen 氏は、気候変動による移住の問題を取り上げ、環境難民に対する先進諸国の政治的義務を検討した。Ödalen 氏は、環境難民の問題を

Symposiumセッション概要

13

characteristic of the problem, he pointed out that the definition of a demos in traditional democratic theory, which has assumed territorial states, is inadequate. After arguing

for refugees’ right to migration, he proposed a new global governing system which can overcome the limitations of the current UN refugee framework. Chikako Endo stressed that the transnational interdependencies of people and policies in the world today calls for global democracy from a normative perspective. She argued that inter-national democracy is more desirable than cosmopolitan democracy in such a global democracy because democratic decision-making requires a public framework for collective self-determination. Chiara Cordelli examined whether associations in civil societies should be employed to serve for public ends, namely, social equality. Firstly, she showed that encouraging associations does not necessarily lead to those goals. Secondly, she pointed out that the distinct characteristic of associations lie in their “privateness”, as individuals’ contract, and therefore political authority should not use them for public ends.

検討するにあたり、領域国家を想定してきた従来の伝統的な民主主義理論では「民衆」の定義が不十分であると指摘した。そして、環境難民には移住の権利があり、現在の国連の難民管理には限界があるとして、国境を越えた新たな管理体制による環境難民問題の制度的解決を提案した。　遠藤知子氏は、国境を越える人々 の相互影響関係は民主的に統制されるべきであるという規範的要求を強調した。そして、民主的な政治的自己決定には多様な公的枠組みが必要となるため、グローバル・デモクラシーの実現には、コスモポリタンデモクラシーよりも民主的な国家間のデモクラシーが望ましいと論じた。　Chiara Cordelli 氏は、社会的平等という公的目標達成のためにアソシエーションをその手段とすることへの疑問を示した。Cordelli 氏は、アソシエーションは社会的平等達成に向いておらず、その特質は個人の契約という私的性質にあると論じ、政治的権威はアソシエーションを公的目的のために利用すべきではないと論じた。

3rd Session for Governance Theory UnitChair: Yoshihisa Hagiwara (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Yohei Kawakami (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Democracy in the Age of Nihilism: Consideration on Jacques Ranciere’s ‘Poetics of Knowledge’”

Kenjiro Harata (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Religion and Civil Society in Modern Britain: Anglican Theories of Church and State”

Discussants: Ryuichi Yamaoka (Associate Professor, the Open University of Japan) Masakazu Matsumoto (GCOE-CGCS Assistant Professor)

In his paper Yohei Kawakami examined the ways in which theories of democracy in contemporary France have much concern with nihilism. In the first section, he focused on the relation between metapolitics and nihilism and how this led political “subjectification”. Next, he tried to clarify the relation between “words” and “things” in “Poetics of Knowledge”. Kawakami insisted that history and politics can exist only between words (narrative) and things (science). Finally, he concluded that Rancière’s theory of democracy should be interpreted as a combat with nihilism, but at the same time, a battle which must not be won. Kenjiro Harata explored the historical prospects and limits of how the Church of England representative of English Christianity has addressed religious diversity in modern society and has in turn influenced the state’s practice and the formulation of political discourses. The first section focused on the liberal Anglican settlement of church and state. The second section considered the Anglican via media and British modernity. The third section dealt with the place of the church in contemporary multi-faith society. Ryuichi Yamaoka and Masakazu Matsumoto, the discussants, asked

questions about the definition of the concepts and the structure of the speakers’ arguments. Their comments stimulated two speakers to clear their arguments. There were also interesting questions from the floor, stimulating a lively discussion.

　川上洋平氏は、現代フランスの民主主義理論とニヒリズムとの関連を検討した。川上氏はランシエールを取り上げ、彼の民主主義理論の鍵概念である「政治的主体化」（political subjectification）を、「知の詩学」（Poetics of Knowledge）という、彼が歴史学についての著作で展開した方法論と照らし合わせることによって検討した。ランシエールにおいて歴史と政治は

「物語（narrative）」と、ニヒリズムへの傾向を有する「科学（science）」の間にのみ存在しており、したがってその民主主義理論はニヒリズムとの終わりなき闘いとして解釈されるべきであると川上氏は結論づけた。　原田健二朗氏はイギリス国教会が近代社会における宗教的多様性にどのように対処してきたのか、また国家の実践と政治的な言説にどのように影響を及ぼしたのかについて、歴史的背景とその限界を検討した。原田氏は教会と国家のリベラル・アングリカンによる調停、国教会の「ヴィア・メディア」（中道）的あり方を通じたイギリスにおける近代性などを検討し、最後に、信仰が多様化する現代社会における教会の位置づけについても言及した。　コメンテーターの山岡龍一氏と松元雅和氏からは報告者の議論における構造や概念の定義についての質問があったほか、フロアからも興味深い質問が提起され、討論は活気に溢れるものとなった。

14

4th Session for Governance Theory UnitChair: Masakazu Matsumoto (GCOE-CGCS Assistant Professor) Speakers: Yoshihisa Hagiwara (Professor, Keio University) “Concept of Governance for Civil Society: A Critical Assessment”

Ryuichi Yamaoka (Associate Professor, the Open University of Japan) “The Art of Governance”

Masanaru Tanoue (Associate Professor, Keio University) “Where Does God Act?: Billy Graham and the Political Consciousness of American Evangelicals”

Discussants: Jörgen Ödalen (Lecturer, Uppsala University) Chiara Cordelli (Ph.D. Candidate, University College London)

Yoshihisa Hagiwara’s presentation examined the concept of “governance” in the light of democratic theories. According to Hagiwara, “governance” is a normative and empirical concept which emerged as a response to the necessity of efficiency of governmental administration, decentralization, network organizations, and so on. But the concept has its problems. For example, it justifies new power like “Neo-liberal Governmentality” and also it obscures the location of responsibility. Given these problems, Hagiwara turned to the governance network (GN) approach, because it takes into consideration civil society and democracy. Though the traditional parliamentary democracy is not compatible with the GN approach, it is not the only form of democracy. Hagiwara therefore examined three new theories of democracy, which he called post-liberal democratic theories: deliberative democracy, communitarianisim or civic republicanism, and agonistic democracy. Examining these three theories, he concluded that only agonistic democracy can embrace the GN approach, and in this light, suggested how we should develop this approach. Ryuichi Yamaoka’s presentation examined in the light of historical perspectives how we should deal with the concept of governance. As is well known, the concept of governance has attracted attention with the development of globalization and the retreat of the state. But Yamaoka situated the concept more specifically in the context of the legitimacy crisis of the state. According to Yamaoka, the concept of governance may be the right response to the problem of substantial legitimacy of the state, but it is not a response to formal legitimacy which concerns the problem of accountability. In order to consider this problem, Yamaoka turned his eyes to the history of political thought, and examined the long debated question of how we can tame the governance which exists beyond the jurisdiction of law. In particular, he found in the concept of “trust” and “appeal to heaven” which John Locke advocated in his Two Treatises of Government contributions to today’s argument about governance, because, according to Yamaoka, Locke’s concepts remind us of the oft-forgotten “political” aspect in discussions of governance. Masanaru Tanoue examined the influence of evangelism in the United States, especially Billy Graham’s thought in the 1950s. This is because, given the prodigious influence of the Religious Right in the United States today, it is very significant to examine the thoughts of evangelists who play a large part in this political/religious trend. According to Tanoue, even though evangelists have much concern with political and social problems, they cannot value public matters theologically, for the following reason: while mainline Protestants stress the Biblical God who had acted in concrete historical situations, evangelists drawing on the New Testament emphasize personal and individual salvation which can be brought about as a final solution. Nevertheless despite

　萩原能久氏の報告は、ガバナンス概念の代表的な諸理論を概観しその基本的特徴を捉えた上で、民主主義理論との関連からこの概念に批判的検討を加えるものであった。ガバナンスとは、統治の効率性の追求や地方分権、NGO・NPOなどによるネットワーク型統治の必要性に応じて登場した規範的・経験的な概念である。しかし、そこには「ガバナンス指標」にもとづく新たな権力性（「ネオ・リベラル的統治性」）や責任の所在の曖昧化などの問題点も存在する。ゆえにガバナンス・ネットワーク（GN）アプローチは、市民社会や民主主義への配慮を備えている点では高く評価できるが、その場合の民主主義とは従来型の議会制民主主義に限定されるものではない。萩原氏は従来型の民主主義に代わるポスト・リベラル民主主義の三つの理論（熟議的民主主義、コミュニタリアン・市民的共和主義、闘議的民主主義）を検討し、闘議的民主主義の枠組みに基づく民主主義理論のみが、ガバナンス概念を積極的に取り入れることができると述べ GNアプローチの発展の方向性を示した。　山岡龍一氏の報告は、ガバナンス概念の今日的課題への取り組みの示唆を歴史的視点のうちに探るものであった。山岡氏はガバナンスという概念への注目を国家の正当性の危機への回答という文脈で捉え、ガバナンスは国家の実質的正当性への回答たりえるとしても、被統治者の「代表」の問題などの形式的な正当性の問題、つまり説明責任の欠如という問題には答えていないと指摘した。後者の問題は「司法」と区別されたガバナンス（法を越えた権力性）をいかに飼い馴らすかという古くからの問いに繋がることから、山岡氏は17 世紀イングランドのジョン・ロックによる「信託」の概念および信託違反における「天への訴え」という構想に着目し、「説明責任」という観点からは忘れられがちな「政治的なもの」の次元に眼を向けさせるという意味でこの構想は今日のガバナンスの議論に大きな示唆を与えていると主張した。　田上雅徳氏は、今日のアメリカ政治におけるキリスト教、とりわけ宗教右派の影響力の大きさに鑑み、宗教右派の中心を占める福音主義を、その代表的人物であるビリー・グラハムの1950 年代の思想から検討した。田上氏によれば、福音主義は政治問題に関心を有するにもかかわらず、神学的に政治を論ずることができない。なぜなら、プロテスタント主流派が、神を歴史の中に行動するものと捉える旧約聖書を重視しつつ、具体的な歴史状況における具体的な正義を論

Symposiumセッション概要

15

their essentially apolitical attitude, in effect they have been politicized. Tanoue therefore concluded that the problem is not whether the evangelists are essentially liberal or conservative, but how they come to these political camps. Concerning these three presentations, the two discussants asked about the question of availability of agonistic democracy, the relation between accountability and governance, and the meaning of “apolitical” of Graham.

じるのと対照的に、福音主義者は新約聖書に基づいて個人の救済という最終解決を重視するからである。このような非政治性にもかかわらず現実には福音主義は右派にも左派にも政治化する。こうしたことから、田上氏は、福音主義が本質的に保守かリベラルかと問うのではなく、いかにしてそうなるかを問うべきであると指摘した。　三者の報告に対して、討論者からは、闘技的民主主義についての疑義、「説明責任」とガバナンスとの関係、グラハムの「非政治性」の意味などについての質問や意見が提出され、報告者との活発な議論が展開された。

Governance and Reform in the PhilippinesChair: Yuko Kasuya (Associate Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Nathan Gilbert Quimpo (Associate Professor, University of Tsukuba) “The Presidency, Political Parties and Predatory Politics in the Philippines”

Edna E. A. Co (Professor, University of the Philippines) “Road Infrastructures in the Philippines and Some Challenges to Reform”

Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem (Professor, University of the Philippines) “The Middle Class and Political Reform: Examining the Philippine Technocracy”

Wataru Kusaka (Research Fellow, Kyoto University) “Governing Informalities: Street Vendors and Social Order Making in Metro Manila”

Discussant: Erik Kuhonta (Assistant Professor, McGill University)

Nathan Gilbert Quimpo examined the problem of political decay in the Philippines from an institutional approach. First, he gave an overview of the historical Presidents in the Philippines. He identified the Marcos period as a predatory regime and argued that the political decay in the post-Marcos period trumpeted “the return of the predatory regime”. Quimpo argued that the interplay of the two corrupted institutions – the presidency and political parties – as was seen under the administration of Estrada and Arroyo, plays a key role in the return of the predatory regime in the Philippines. Edna Estifania A. Co focused on the problem of road infrastructure, and explained how there were vulnerabilities that lead to corruption were seen throughout the various phases of road works. She posited immediate and medium-term methods of enlarging the space for policy reform. According to Co, these methods are as follows: 1) multiplying community-based and citizens’ efforts at monitoring and exacting transparency and accountability, 2) reviewing executive policies that allow the proliferation of players and their roles in road works, 3) an oversight by legislation on the existing policies and statutes that mandate multiple yet unrestrained player in the field including proposals of policies or rules that would put limit to wide discretion, 4) a transparency system that is built in the routine of the users and policy makers and which should clarify the technical aspects of the road sector. Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem considered the relationship between the middle class and political reform by examining technocracy in the Philippines. On Tadem’s account, although the technocrats could not curb the corruption in the government during the martial law and post-martial law period, the technocracy as part of the middle class should play a key role to improve the political governance in the country, addressing issues such as

　Nathan Gilbert Quimpo 氏は、制度的な手法を用いてフィリピン政治の問題点を検討した。Quimpo 氏は初めに歴代の政権を検討し、マルコス大統領政権期を略奪的体制と名づけ、ポスト・マルコス期における政治腐敗は略奪的体制への回帰であると述べた。Quimpo氏は、大統領の地位と政党が、そのような略奪的体制への回帰をもたらす主要な役割を果たしたと論じ、具体例として Estrada とArroyo の腐敗した政治体制を挙げた。　Edna Estifania A. Co 氏は、道路施設に焦点を当て、フィリピンの改革について論じた。Co 氏は、道路工事の様々な段階全体に汚職や政治的腐敗に繋がる脆弱性が見受けられると説明した。そして、政治改革の可能性を広げる短期・中期的な方法を提案した。具体的には、複合的なコミュニティや市民の協力による透明性の監視と説明責任要求、道路工事関係者の増加や彼らの発言力の増大をもたらしている行政部の政策の評価、関係者に無規制に一任する政策に対し立法が恣意性を制限する政策提言や規則を課しているかどうかといった立法部の見落としの確認、最後に、透明性のある制度設計を利用者と政策立案者の所定の手順に組み込み、しかもそれが道路部門の技術的側面の明確化を満たすこと、の四つの案を提示した。　Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem 氏は、中流階層と政治改革の問題について、フィリピン

16

Electoral and Party Politics in the PhilippinesChair: Nathan Gilbert Quimpo (Associate Professor, University of Tsukuba) Speakers: Cleo Calimbahin (Senior Lecturer, University of Asia and the Pacific) “The COMELEC, NAMFREL and New Patterns of Electoral Fraud”

Masataka Kimura (Professor, Ibaraki University) “The ICT and Reform in Electoral Administration”

Julio C. Teehankee (Associate Professor, De La Salle University) “Image, Issues, and Machinery: Presidential Campaigns in Post-1986 Philippines”

Joel Rocamora (Research Associate, Institute for Popular Democracy) “Partisanship and Reform - The Potential for Change in the 2010 Election”

Discussant: Alfredo Robles (Professor, De la Salle University)

In this session, four panelists analyzed election administration and election campaigns in the Philippines from multilateral perspectives. Cleo Calimbahin examined the changes in the relationship between Philippine Commission on Elections (COMELEC), an independent organization leading the electoral process, and the National Movement for Free Election (NAMFREL), a voluntary organization monitoring elections. Focusing on the elections in 1953, 1986, and 2004, she illustrated the limits and possibilities of these actors to monitor elections. Masataka Kimura focused on the history of electoral modernization, owing to the information and communication technology (ICT) in the Philippines. Looking through the history of the electoral reform beginning in the early 1990s, he assessed the recent developments in electoral systems using ICT and identified accomplishments and problems of the reform. Julio C. Teehankee focused on three recent presidential election campaigns to analyze trends of voting behavior in the post-authoritarian Philippines. Reviewing campaigns in 1992, 1998, and 2004, he identified the key elements contributing to a successful campaign, which helps to understand the political terrain leading to the 2010 presidential election.

　このセッションでは選挙政治と政党政治に焦点を当て、フィリピンの選挙管理や選挙キャンペーンに関する 4 つの研究報告が行われた。　Cleo Calimbahin 氏は、1953 年、1986 年、

2004 年の選 挙における、選 挙 管理 委 員会（COMELEC）と選挙監視団体（NAMFREL）の関係を分析し、政府以外の団体による選挙監視の限界と可能性を探った。　木村昌孝氏は、1990 年代以降のフィリピンにおける選挙への ICT 導入の過程を分析し、その成果と問題点を指摘し、今後の選挙システム発展に対する提言も行った。　Julio C. Teehankee 氏は、2010 年に行われるフィリピン大統領選挙へ向けた政治状況を考察するため、1992 年、1998 年、2004 年の大統領選挙における有権者の選挙行動を分析し、選挙キャンペーン成功の鍵を明らかにした。　Joel Rocamora 氏は、2009 年 8 月のコラソ

poverty, socioeconomic inequalities and accountability against corruption. Wataru Kusaka analyzed the issue of street vending in Metro Manila. While street vending is non-law-abiding occupation, street vendors have been tolerated through bribing street-level bureaucrats. He pointed out that this informal relationship operates in interaction with the local power order to defy state power to implement laws. He argued that public and private actors should create an environment where the poor will be able to engage in social reform projects to acquire long-term interests instead of informal activities.

のテクノクラート（技術官僚）を検討した。Tadem 氏は、戒厳令期およびそれ以後の時期、テクノクラートは政治的な腐敗を抑制できなかったが、彼らは中流階層の一部として、貧困や社会経済的不平等をもたらしている政策決定への関与にあたってガバナンスを改善し、汚職や腐敗に対する説明責任を果たすといった役割をまっとうすべきであると主張した。　日下渉氏は、マニラ市の露天商人の問題を検討した。露天商人は違法な職業だが、末端の役人に贈賄することで黙認されている。日下氏は、この非公式な関係は、地方が国の法執行に対抗するという相互関係において成立していると指摘した。そして、貧困層が非公式な関係から脱出し、長期的な利益を得るための社会改革計画に参加できるよう、官民が場を提供するべきであると主張した。

Symposiumセッション概要

17

Joel Rocamora examined the recently increasing public interest in reformism after the death of the former president Corazon C. Aquino in August 2009, and predicted the victory of her son, Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, and the political reforms that would follow after the 2010 presidential election. The discussant, Alfredo Robles, commented on the content and the structure of each paper, asking Kimura to explain about the importance of ICT for the electoral reform and raising a question about the use of images in the election campaigns emphasized by Teehankee.

ン・アキノ元大統領死去を契機に改革への気運が高まりつつある状況を鑑み、2010 年の大統領選ではアキノ元大統領の長男、ベニグノ・アキノ三世上院議員が勝利し、その後大規模な政治改革がありうるのではないかと予想した。　討論者 Alfredo Robles 氏は、各報告の内容および構成について詳細にコメントした。会場からも各報告に対する建設的なコメント、質問が多く出された。

Reform and Civil Society in the PhilippinesChair: Yuko Kasuya (Associate Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Paul Hutchcroft (Professor, Australian National University) “Dreams of Redemption: Localist Strategies of Political Reform in the Postwar Philippines”

Raul Pertierra (Research Associate, Ateneo de Manila University) “The New Media: New Possibilities for Civil Society”

Michael Pinches (Professor, University of Western Australia) “Middle Class Transformation of Civil Society in the Philippines”

Discussant: Maria Rosario Piquero-Ballescas (Professor, Toyo University)

Through examining the character of patronage structures (national/local) in the Philippines, Paul Hutchcroft argued that a false dichotomy is often drawn in the existing literature between the character of national and local politics. While localist strategies of reform have an important impact on the distribution of patronage, they have not proven effective in curbing the system of patronage politics as a whole. Hutchcoft’s study emphasized that it is essential to move beyond simplistic dichotomies and carefully consider strategies of political reforms that can address the patronage system at both the national and the local level. Given the rapid penetration of mobile phone and the increasing access to the internet, the communication landscape has transformed in the Philippines. Raul Pertierra examined to what extent these recent changes by the new media have had an impact on areas such as economy, politics and culture. Giving examples from the latest events in the Philippines, his study indicated that the new communication technology appears to offer more possibilities for citizens to build network in society and new individual identities. Michael Pinches examined how the middle class has formed and transformed in the Philippines by taking a case from the recent politics (post-Marcos and EDSA3) between 1986 and 2001. He pointed out that the media and NGOs has become highly visible in contemporary Philippine civil society, which reflects how the middle class responds to society and politics through these channels. Lastly, based on the comments and questions from the discussant and the

audience, the participants discussed about the definition of the term “middle class” in the context of the Philippines and the historical background of patronage system in Philippine politics, and also about the perspective of the strategy of political reform beyond national/local level.

　Paul Hutchcroft 氏は利益誘導型政治の問題を取り上げ、克服のための政治改革のあり方を検討した。Hutchcroft 氏は、中央政治と地方政治の二項対立枠組において地方政治の貢献を積極的に評価してきた先行研究を批判的に考察し、二項対立を超えた政治改革のストラテジーを模索する必要性を主張した。　Raul Pertierra 氏は、現代フィリピン社会におけるメディアの役割と社会への影響を検討した。Pertierra 氏はラジオやテレビなどの「古い」メディアと、近年普及し始めたインターネットや携帯電話などの「新しい」メディアとを比較しながら、フィリピンのメディア発展の経緯を概観した。中でも携帯電話の急速な浸透は注目すべき現象であり、台風被害時の救済活動や選挙キャンペーンでは携帯電話やインターネットが活用されており、今後も民衆による新旧メディアを活用した新たな市民社会のネットワーク形成が行われるであろうと示唆した。　Michael Pinches 氏はフィリピン社会における中間層の動向を論じた。フィリピンではマルコス政権後、経済成長によって新たな中間層が出現した。Pinches 氏は 1986 年から 2001 年までの中間層と市民社会に関して、2001 年に起きた大統領への反対キャンペーン（EDSA3）の際にみられたメディアや NGO の印象的な活動について検討し、現在のフィリピン社会では両者の影響が無視できなくなっていることを明らかにした。　討論では ｢中間層｣ をめぐる定義の問題、フィリピンにおける利益誘導型政治の歴史的背景、政治改革のストラテジーなどについてフロアから多くの質問が寄せられ、活発な議論が行われた。

18

Towards Democratic Consolidation in the Philippines?Chair: Nathan Gilbert Quimpo (Associate Professor, University of Tsukuba) Speakers: Yuko Kasuya (Associate Professor, Keio University) “Democratic Consolidation in the Philippines: Who Tolerate Extra-Constitutional Government Change?”

Peter M. Kreuzer (Research Fellow, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt) “Protracted Civil War in Mindanao: Can Civil Society Help to Cut the Gordian Knot?”

Raymund Jose G. Quilop (Associate Professor, University of the Philippines) “Keeping the Philippine Military Out of Politics: Challenges and Prospects”

Mark R. Thompson (Professor, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg) “After Populism: The Past and the Future Bourgeois Democracy in the Philippines”

Discussant: Temario Rivera (Professor, International Christian University)

Yuko Kasuya considered democratic consolidation in the Philippines and explored factors that facilitate Filipinos to tolerate government-change through extra-Constitutional means. According to Kasuya’s analysis, those with stronger subjective competence and who have more to lose by the continuation of democratically elected government have a higher tendency to support

that change, while those who are more engaged with civil society organization tend not to support it. She argued that the analyses implied that fostering of civil society is one of the means to facilitate democratic consolidation in the Philippines. Peter M. Kreuzer explored the role of civil society can play to arrive at a peaceful solution for protracted civil war in Mindanao. He pointed out that participation of civil society actors was crucial in the new strategy for negotiating peace. This is because a lack of public participation led to the repeated failure at conflict resolution in the previous peace process. On the other hand, Kreuzer argued that the incentive-structure for the political players must be changed to raise the costs for spoilers, implying that fundamental change of Philippine politics is unrealistic and that peace agreement are no all-catch solutions to the problem of a society. Raymund Jose G. Quilop considered the challenges and prospects of depoliticizing the Philippine military. He pointed out that, while at the national level, there was a political environment which induced the Philippine military to be involved in governance affairs, owing to the two extra-constitutional leadership changes (1986 and 2001), at the local level, the military was involved in the local governance affair because of the incompetence of local political leaders and also because of lingering insurgencies. Quilop argued that professionalizing and depoliticizing the Armed Forces of Philippine need both internal efforts for reformation of the government and military as well as the involvement and the change in the mindset among the various stakeholders outside the government. Mark R. Thompson examined how populism had a potential appeal in a bourgeois polity because income inequality remained still high among the Philippines. In his view, the Arroyo administration was associated with corruption in defeating populism. Noting the cycle in Philippine politics from populism, clientelism to reformism and that therefore populism would become an attractive political strategy following the lack of economic redistribution during reformism, Thompson predicted the likely consequences of the probable failure of reform under the expected President, Benigno Aquino III.

　粕谷祐子氏は、フィリピンにおける民主主義の強化の問題を取り上げ、体制外の手段を通した政権交代を許容する要因を検討した。粕谷氏は、自己の政治的影響力が強いとの主観を有する人々や、民主的に選ばれた政権の継続によって損失を被る人々は、体制外の手段による政権交代を支持し、一方で市民社会の組織に従事する人々は支持しない傾向があると分析し、市民社会の育成がフィリピンにおける民主主義の強化を促す一つの手段であると示唆した。　Peter M. Kreuzer 氏はミンダナオ紛争の平和的解決に市民社会が果たす役割を検討した。Kreuzer 氏は、従来の和平交渉では市民社会組織の公的参加の欠如が度重なる紛争解決の失敗を招いたと指摘し、新たな和平プロセスでは、市民社会の主体の公的な参加が重要になると主張した。同時に、Kreuzer 氏はフィリピン政治の根本的な構造変化は非現実的であると留保し、和平合意は社会問題に対する包括的な解決策ではなく、和平妨害者たちの代償を高めるよう政治参加者のインセンティヴ構造を変えなければならないと論じた。　Raymund Jose G. Quilop 氏は軍隊の非政治化という課題を検討し、その展望を示した。Quilop氏は、フィリピンでは軍隊が国政に関与しうる政治的環境が存在し 1986 年と2001 年の二度の体制外の政権交代が軍隊の政治化を促進したこと、地方レベルでも地方政治家の無力さや暴動の発生が軍隊と軍人に地方政治への関与の道を開いていることを指摘した。Quilop 氏は、軍隊の専門職化と非政治化には、政府や軍隊の内的な改革努力だけではなく、政府外の多様な人々の関与や意識の変化が必要であると論じた。　Mark R. Thompson 氏は、フィリピンに依然として存在する収入格差から、ブルジョワ政治形態においてポピュリズムがいかに潜在的魅力を持っているかについて検討し、アロヨ政権はポピュリズムの打倒において腐敗を伴っていたと論じた。その上で、Thompson 氏は、フィリピン政治におけるポピュリズム、恩顧主義、改革主義の循環から、ポピュリズムが改革主義に続く魅力的な政治戦略になるとして、ベニグノ・アキノ3 世のもとでは改革が失敗に帰するという見通しを示した。

Symposiumセッション概要

19

Civil Society and Governance in the Middle EastChair: Hiroshi Tomita (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Makoto Imai (Ph.D. Candidate, Keio University) “Rethinking Authoritarian ‘Governance’?: State Power and Institutional Reforms in the Middle East”

Erina Iwasaki (Letrurer, Kyoritsu Women’s University) “Regional Differences in Political and Economic Perception: Based on 2008 Egyptian Perception Survey”

Hiroshi Tomita (Professor, Keio University) “Comparative Political Awareness of Cairo and Lebanese Citizens: A Report on the 2005 Lebanese and the 2007 Egyptian Public Opinion Surveys”

Discussants: Takeji Ino (Professor, Wayo Women’s University) Seiichi Igarashi (Assistant Professor,Waseda University)

Makoto Imai reconsidered authoritarian “governance” by explaining institutional reforms and their inf luence on party competition and cooperation under authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Imai showed several definitions and analytical objects of “governance” and developed two hypotheses about authoritarian “governance”. With the two contrast cases of these interactions under multi-party authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, Egypt under Mubarak and Yemen after unification, Imai illustrated the situation of authoritarian “governance” in the Middle East. Erina Iwasaki explored the spatial variation of social consciousness using the data from “Egypt Poll Survey 2008”. The survey distinguishes three areas of Egypt. Urban Governorates, Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt are different not only in socioeconomic structure, but also in social consciousness. The difference of social consciousness is connected with living standard and also affects politic awareness. Hiroshi Tomita compared the political awareness of Cairo and Lebanese citizens based on the report of 2005 Lebanese and 2007 Egyptian public opinion surveys. Analyzing political interests, voting behavior in elections, citizen participation in local communities,

Tomita showed that Cairo citizens have a strong interest in politics but low sense of effective involvement in politics. On the other hand, Lebanese citizens have greater awareness of citizen participation, but like Cairo citizens they do not take part in the citizen participation.

　今井真士氏は中東地域の国家体制と制度改革の事例を踏まえて、権威主義におけるガバナンスについて検討した。今井氏は「ガバナンス」の定義と分析対象を明らかにし、権威主義体制下のガバナンスに関する二つの仮説を提示した。また、複数政党制導入後の中東諸国の権威主義体制の対照的事例として、ムバーラク政権下のエジプトと国家統合後のイエメンを取り上げ、権威主義の「ガバナンス」の現状を明らかにした。　岩崎えり奈氏は 2008 年のエジプト世論調査に基づき、エジプト国内の地域ごとの社会意識を分析した。エジプトは都市部、上エジプト、下エジプトの各地域によって社会構造が異なり、社会意識にも大きな違いがある。岩崎氏は、社会意識の違いは生活水準に関わっており、異なる社会意識は政治意識にも影響していることを示した。　富田広士氏は 2005 年のレバノンと 2007 年のエジプトの市民意識調査の結果をもとに、カイロ市とレバノン市における市民の政治意識を比較した。政治に対する興味や投票行動、地方レベルの市民参加などの調査データの分析を通じて、富田氏は、カイロ市民は政治に対し興味をもっているが政治参加の意識は薄く、これに対してレバノン市民は政治参加を意識してはいるものの参加には踏み出せていないことを明らかにした。

慶應義塾大学GCOE-CGCSでは、2010年3月5日・6日の二日間の日程で、慶應義塾大学三田キャンパスにて、国際シンポジウムを実施いたします。当拠点の研究者はもちろん、国内外の研究者を招いて、最新の研究成果を提示し、今後の研究教育活動につなげてゆきたいと考えております。皆様のご参加を心からお待ちしております。プログラムの詳細は、後日決定次第、当拠点のホームページ上でお知らせします。

The Center of Governance for Civil Society will be hosting a two-day International Symposium on March 5th and 6th, 2010, at Mita Campus, Keio University. Speakers will include eminent scholars from Japan and overseas and also researchers from our Center, who will be presenting on their most recent works. We hope that many of you will participate in this event. Details of the Symposium will be uploaded on our website in due course.

2009年度国際シンポジウム開催のご案内

Gender and Violence: Problematizing Discourse on Assaults <Japanese session>Chair: Hideki Watanabe (Professor, Keio University) Speakers: Mayumi Yamamoto (Lecturer, Waseda University) “The Unstoppable Pendulum: The Politics of Comfort Woman Discourse”

Eri Ohba (Associate Professor, Kanagawa University) “Difficulty in Constructing a Social Problem of Domestic Violence”

Takamichi Onuki (Lecturer, Toyo University) and Tomoko Fujita (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant) “Criminal Justice as Symbolic Violence: Gender Analysis of the Murder Case Against a Female Domestic Violence Victim”

Discussants: Hiroto Matsuki (Assistant Professor, Tokyo University of Social Welfare) Yuichiro Sakai (GCOE-CGCS Research Assistant)

Mayumi Yamamoto scrutinized the “introductory” period of comfort women discourse, focusing on the key terms such as “sexual slave” etc. which are manipulated in the comfort women discourse, she demonstrated the problems of comfort women research. Yamamoto pointed out that although scholars of women and gender studies are interested in comfort women research, being reluctant to be labeled as “left” or “right” by criticizing the existing studies, they are likely to remain silent. She thus claimed that it is necessary to depoliticize the discourse of past problems such as comfort women. From the perspective of social constructionism, Eri Ohba noted the difficulties faced by the victims of domestic violence (DV) in making a claim about their conditions, and discussed the social factors behind this difficulty. In order to answer the question “Why can’t the victims escape?”, she explored the reality of the victims, and demonstrated how the family and gender norms of modern society disturb the construction of DV as a public problem. Takamichi Onuki and Tomoko Fujita analyzed the criminal justice process of a murder case against a female domestic violence victim from the perspectives of “construction of reality” and “Symbolic Violence”. They argued that it is impossible for the “reality” and “objectivity” in criminal justice to be “neutral” from a “normative” evaluation; in this case, the trial excludes the fact that the accused is a DV victim by using family norm, and it is a vicious circle that the trial punishes the accused who is a victim of modern family model because she has deviated from the family norm.

　山本まゆみ氏は、従軍慰安婦をめぐる言説の形成期の状況を紐解き、これまでの慰安婦言説に登場した「性奴隷」などのキータームに焦点を当て慰安婦研究の問題点を検証した。山本氏は、女性学やジェンダーの研究者たちは、慰安婦問題に関心を抱いたとしても既存の慰安婦研究を批判しようとすると必ず

「左か右か」という枠組みへと括られてしまうことに嫌気がさして、沈黙してしまったと指摘し、従軍慰安婦のような過去の問題を扱う際には言説の脱政治化が必要だと主張した。　大庭絵里氏は、社会的構築主義の視点から、DV 被害者たちがその被害を訴える際に直面する様々な困難を整理し、その社会的要因を検討した。大庭氏は「被害者たちがなぜ逃げないのか」という問いについて、被害者たちのリアリティから考察し、最後に、近代社会における家族やジェンダー規範がいかに DVを公的な問題として構築することを妨げているのかを論じた。　大貫挙学氏と藤田智子氏は、「リアリティ構築」と「象徴的暴力」の視点から、DV 被害女性が夫を殺害した事件の刑事司法過程を分析した。両氏は、刑事司法における「事実」や「客観性」は実のところ「規範」的評価から「中立」ではありえないと指摘し、取り上げた事例において、裁判は「家族」規範という解釈資源によって、被告人を「DV 被害者」とみなす弁護人のリアリティを排除する一方で近代家族モデルの犠牲者である被告人を「家族」規範からの「逸脱」ゆえに処罰するという悪循環に陥っていたと論じた。

Symposiumセッション概要

20

Co-Session with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIRに参 加して

　 11月22日に開催された1st Sessionでは、わが国で現実化したばかりの政権交代が取り上げられたが、各報告は図らずも、この事象に対する国内外の注目点の相違を反映する形となった。選挙で有権者の多くが期待したのは政権交代と、それに伴う公約の実現や旧弊の一新だと思われるが、二大政党による政権交代は大きな変革が期待される一方で、政治行政の連続性や安定性に不安を与えるものである。この点を取り上げたのが渡辺美智隆報告であり、渡辺は立法府の急激な変化を止揚する参議院の役割の再評価や、二大政党下における政権の「責任感」や「緊張感」について言及した。かつて福沢諭吉は、二大政党が「平均」を見失って極端な方向に流れることを恐れ、双方が「全体の方向」、すなわち長期的戦略を一致させる必要を説いた。われわれは今、まさにこうした課題に直面している。一方、グローバルな視点、とりわけわが国と一定の政治文化を共有する中韓の研究者からみると、政権交代のインパクトは、それ自体の安定性や新鮮さよりも、日本の伝統的政官関係への影響に向けられているようである。それを示唆したのが、Hyunjung JungとZiyi Qianの報告であった。戦前の日本では、憲政会と政友会による政権交代の劈頭にあたり、かつて福沢が理想とした英国の議院内閣制を理想とした憲政会が、政務と事務を分離し、内閣が政官双方をリードする強固な政党内閣像を実現しようとしたが、未完に終わった。果たして今回の政権交代はいかなる成果を生むのか。Qianは、民主党による官僚制改革や政治家の行政参加によって官の弱体化が実現するのか、あるいは何も変わらないのか問題提起したが、それは文字通り政官一体の中国から発せられた問題意識であると同時に、日本政治史の視座からも興味ある主題である。　2nd Sessionは、高齢化や男性の育児参加といった社会現象を取り上げ、その問題解決に向けた提言を行ったものである。Jihey Baeは、日韓の多くの男性が仕事と家庭生活との両立ができずに心理的ストレスを感じており、長時間労働や低調な育児参加がそれをもたらしているとして、両立の必要性の再認識や長時間労働の改善、男性の育児参加促進政策の再検証を提

案した。いうまでもなく、不況や財政難という経済・行政環境下において、伝統的な育児観念・状況を打破するのは容易ではない。Xue Yangは高齢者のケアの負担が長男家族の女性に集中しているとして、財政的支援に基づく問題解決を唱えたが、これもまた同様の課題を有している。そこで期待されるのが、濱雄亮が提示した専門家と非専門家をつなぐメディエーターの役割であろう。過去十年ほどの間に、わが国でも行政の機能不全や他者への奉仕欲求の増大などに伴い、NGOやNPOなどが急増してきた。メディエーターをよき参加者として迎えるシビル・ソサエティの成熟こそが、行政や経営への要求に止まらない育児・高齢対策として求められるのではないか、との印象を濃くした。　続く3rd Sessionでは、日本の国際貢献に対する周辺地域からのイメージを取り上げ、高木佑輔が東南アジアで注目されるのは安全保障より経済再生であることを明らかにし、続いてJoo-Hwan Kimが、自衛隊のPKO派遣は平和憲法に反し、国際的な世論を挑発するものではないか、それを国際社会は本当に望んでいるのか、と率直に問題提起した。またZhihai Xieは、日本の文化的ソフトパワーの重要性を指摘した上で、米国とアジアの友好国間のバランスをとることができれば、日本はアジア太平洋地域の安定と統合に貢献しうると提言した。侵略か自衛かという二者択一的言説空間のなかから、苦悶の末に国際貢献の道を見出してきた過去を踏まえると、あまりに率直な問題提起には当惑せざるを得なかったが、改めて、日本の自己イメージと他者イメージとのズレを認識し、これを埋めていく努力を怠ってはならないことを痛感した。「自由の気風」は「多事争論」の間からしか生まれない、といったのは他ならぬ福沢諭吉である。認識の壁を恐れずに議論を重ねることへの信頼を抱いて、今後もこうした議論が重ねられていくことを期待する。

The presentations in the 1st Session of the co-sessions with AAN, PEACE21, and CICIR held on 22 November 2009, addressed the change of government recently achieved in Japan, reflecting the different focal points in and out of Japan. Japanese

小 川 原 　 正 道慶應義塾大学　准教授

Symposium参加者の感想と講評

21

参加者の感想

銭　子易（GCOE－CGCS RA、1st Co-Session） [Voices of Speakers] Ziyi Qian(GCOE CGCS RA): “I had the opportunity to talk about my research with other researchers who I had never met before, and through this, I was able to get new ideas for my research. Also, in this two-day international symposium, many young researchers gave presentations on their research in various fields. I was able to learn about different fields such as social welfare, international politics, political theory and politics in Southeast Asia. I believe the knowledge I acquired here maybe be helpful for my own research.Also as a speaker in this symposium, I was given the chance to talk about Japanese politics, especially, my views about the current Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government. In our session, there were many researchers interested in Japanese politics, and they offered their thoughts about Japanese politics and also provided comments on my research. This was an opportunity for me to discover that some shared similar views with me while it was also an opportunity to rethink my argument where my views

　voters went to the polls anticipating a change of government and with this, the realization of the election pledges and reform of old practices. Yet under a two-party system, while a change of power gives hopes for great change, it also gives rise to a feeling of anxiety concerning the consistency and stability of political administration. This is precisely the problem Michitaka Watanabe’s presentation took up. His presentation touched on the need to reassess the role of the Upper House in preventing a radical change of the legislative and to consider the responsibilities of the government under a two-party system. In his time, Yukichi Fukuzawa had feared that a two-party system would lose sight of the “mean” and fall into extremism; thus, he had stressed the importance of agreeing upon the “overall direction”, that is, the long-term strategy of the community. We are indeed faced with such a challenge today. By contrast, from a global perspective, particularly from China and Korea, both of which share to a certain degree a similar political culture to that of Japan, the significance of the change of government seems to lie less in the issue of stability or newness than in the impact it has on the traditional relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in Japan. This was suggested both by Hyunjung Jung and Ziyi Qian. In pre-war Japan, at the outset of the change of government between the Kensei-kai and Seiyu-kai, the Kensei-kai, which had as its ideal (as did Fukuzawa) the British parliamentary system, tried to separate political affairs and general affairs and create a strong parliamentary cabinet that could take leadership over both politicians and bureaucrats. Ultimately though, this effort was left unfinished. What kind of outcomes will be produced by the recent change of government? The issue raised by Qian concerning whether the DPJ’s bureaucratic reform and politician-led public administration would actually weaken the bureaucracy or not, is one which is characteristically Chinese, where politicians and bureaucrats are unified, and at the same time, one which is interesting from the point of view of Japanese political history. The 2nd Session addressed social phenomena including aging and male participation in childcare, and offered approaches to tackle these problems. Jihey Bae observed that many men in both Japan and Korea experience psychological stress faced with the dilemma of reconciling work and family life, mainly as a consequence of long working hours and overtime work. Thus, she argued that a re-acknowledgement of the necessity of

balancing the two commitments, reducing long working hours, and reexamining policies promoting male participation in childcare, were vital for remedying this problem. Of course, given the economical and administrative climate of recession and financial pressure, it is not an easy task to break through the traditional idea and condition of childcare. Xue Yang observed that the burden of elderly care is shouldered by women in the family of the eldest son. Her solution is also based on financial support, but this faces the same challenge as Bae’s. Here, I believe that the mediator discussed in Yusuke Hama’s presentation, whose job it is to bridge professionals and non-professionals, can play an important role. In the last decade, the number of NGOs and NPOs has sharply increased in Japan as a result of the malfunctioning of government and the increasing desire to serve other people. The impression I received was that fostering civil society, a society which welcomes such mediators, is needed to address the problems of childcare and elderly care by going beyond making demands to the government and companies. The theme of the final 3rd Session was the image of Japan’s international contribution from the perspective of its surrounding countries. Yusuke Takagi showed that in Southeast Asian countries Japan’s economic revitalization has attracted more attention than its contribution in the area of security. Joo-Hwan Kim asked whether Japan’s Self-Defense Force’s PKO activities is not an infringement of its peace constitution, provoking international opinions, and moreover, whether the international community is really asking for this. Pointing out the importance of Japan’s soft power, Zhihai Xie argued that if Japan can balance its relationship with the US and other Asian countries, it may be able to contribute to the stability and integration of the Asia-Pacific region. To be honest, given the historical backdrop in which Japan tried to transcend a polarized debate of invasion or self-defense and strived to find a way of making international contributions, the crude questions raised here were somewhat bewildering. However, they reminded me of the gap existing between Japan’s self-image and others’ image, and of the importance to make efforts to bury this gap. It was none other than Fukuzawa who said that the spirit of freedom is born out of discussion. Putting trust on the use of bold discussions, I hope that discussions of this nature will continue to be carried out in the future.

　国際共同シンポジウムには今回が初めての参加だったが、新たな研究者たちとの出会いがあり、自分の研究について有益な議論を行う機会となったこと、自分の研究領域以外の社会保障や国際政治、政治理論、東南アジア地域研究などのさまざまな分野の知識

を得られたことなど、有意義な経験を得られた。報告者としては、現在の日本政治、特に民主党新政権に対する自分の見解を世に問うことができ、そして日本政治に関心を持つ多くの方々から自分の研究に対する率直な反応をじかに受け取ることができた。自分の研究と共通点を持つ見解や、現在の日本政治に対する異なる見方の存在を改めて発見し、自分の研究を違った視点から見直す良い経験となった。

　私は文化人類学・社会学の視点から「病い」と医療を研究対象としており、普段は主にミクロな分析を用いているので、対照的に国家や政策を中心とした今回の議論からは強い刺激を受けた。他分野や研究者以外の方々からの横断的なコメントも新鮮であった。

今後はそうした方々に対して研究成果をダイレクトに伝えられるような発表を積極的に行っていきたい。共同セッションへの参加は、共通点と相違点が交錯する

濱　雄亮（慶應義塾大学後期博士課程、2nd Co-Session）

Symposium参加者の感想と講評

22

“Comparative Analysis about Youth Relationship to Their Friends and Life Style between Japan and South Korea”

I was generously invited to participate in the Governance Theory Unit’s sessions of the GCOE-CGCS International Symposium. Overall, partaking in the conference was a very nice experience, socially as well as intellectually. I had many interesting discussions, and made some new

friends. I want to mention in particular the friendly graduate students and post docs with whom I had a lot of fun. The symposium in which I participated offered several interesting papers on a rather wide variety of topics. Sometimes one could have wished that there was more time for discussion – after the presentations and comments from the discussants there were seldom any time left for comments and questions from the other participants. But still, the quality of the comments and presentations was generally quite good. My own presentation was on a paper concerning the rights of environmental migrants, and it marked the premier for a research project I will pursue during the forthcoming two years. The reactions from my commentators were quite pleasing, mainly because they spurred my belief in the importance of the project, and provoked some ideas which will be of significance for my future research. For me, personally, given my research interests, I also took great pleasure in listening to some interesting presentations on issues in normative political theory concerning global democracy, humanitarian intervention, and public funding of private organizations. From participating in the conference, and from talking to researchers at the CGCS, I got the impression that Keio University, and the Center in particular, is quite an inspiring and active research environment. I would not mind visiting Keio University again, and I certainly hope the collaboration with my home department at Uppsala University will continue for the future.

Jörgen Ödalen（Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Uppsala University）

differed with others. This symposium was a invaluable opportunity for me to review my research critically.” Yusuke Hama (Ph.D. Candidate, Keio University): “My own research involves examining illness and medical care from the point of view of cultural anthropology and sociology. I focus on micro human relations, and the culture, society, and folk culture lying beneath it. I therefore found the discussions on the state and policy very stimulating because they contrasted with what I usually do. I also found the comments from people working in different fields and the media interesting. In the future, I hope to present my work in a way that would be clear to people in other fields. The presentations in the session of which I took part considered very interesting cases, and it was an opportunity to appreciate the importance of comparative studies in the East Asian region. This was because in the process of generalizing the cases from my research, conducting a comparison within East Asia would help me to see better the characteristics of the culture, society, and folk culture. This would then help us to resist top-down theories of East Asian community, which try to promote co-existence while divorcing itself from past cultural life, and instead, to create the basis for co-existence and cultural and sociological theories based on a bottom-up analysis of cultural life including labor, child-care, elderly care, ritual, and commemoration. ”

　開催日 ユニット／サブユニット 　　　　　　　　カンファレンス・ワークショップの内容 　　報告者　　　　　所　　属10月 ５日 政策形成分析ユニット 「市町村合併はなにをもたらしたか」 池田豊彦 聖学院大学10月 ９日 市民社会分析ユニット 「バトラー理論における言語・ハビトゥス・権力の関係：物質と社会はいかに関わるか？」 長野慎一 入間看護専門学校10月19日 政策形成分析ユニット 「世代会計・高齢化」 島澤諭 秋田大学10月26日 政策形成分析ユニット 「暴政とは何か」 将基面貴巳 オタゴ大学10月27日 市民社会分析ユニット・ 韓国青少年政策研究院10月27日 市民社会分析ユニット・ 韓国青少年政策研究院10月27日 市民社会分析ユニット・ 韓国青少年政策研究院10月29日 ガバナンス理論構築ユニット 「ポストデモクラシーの政治空間—回顧と展望」 五野井郁夫 日本学術振興会10月30日 市民社会分析ユニット 「刑事司法過程のジェンダー論的考察—DV被害女性による夫殺害事件と正当防衛の成否」

11月 ９日 政策形成分析ユニット 「代表制と政策形成」 森正 愛知学院大学11月16日 政策形成分析ユニット 「公務員制度の国際比較」 平井文三 総務省人事・恩給局総務課11月26日 ガバナンス理論構築ユニット “Fairness and International Trade” Jörgen Ödalen Uppsala University11月30日 政策形成分析ユニット 「住民自治をめぐる論点〜選挙・議会・住民投票〜」 久元喜造 総務省自治行政局12月 ７日 政策形成分析ユニット 「社会保障関係」 小塩隆士 一橋大学12月14日 政策形成分析ユニット 「消費者行政について」 犬伏由利子 消費科学連合会

各ユニットにおける研究活動報告リスト　（平成 21年 10 月〜平成 21 年 12 月）

“Women’s Employment and Gender Role Attitude” Jihey Bae Keio University

“Politics of Marital Mediation in the Wartime Japan” Yuichiro Sakai Keio University

藤田智子 慶應義塾大学 大貫挙学 東洋大学

Masayuki Ozawa Keio University

編集後記 今回のニューズレターは、11月に行われた国際共同シンポジウムの特集号と致しました。本拠点の研究者を含め、報告者と討論者、参加者間の活発な議論が繰り広げられ、大盛況で終わることができました。当日ご参加頂けなかった方々にも当拠点の成果をご理解頂ければ幸いです。（裵・沼尾）

東アジアの各地域間の比較研究の重要性と有用性を意識する機会ともなった。東アジア内での比較を通じてそれぞれの「文化・社会・民俗」の特徴が可視化されれば、過去の生活文化を切り捨てる形で「共生」を謳い上げる上からの東アジア共同体論に流されることなく、労働・保育・介護・祭祀・供養といった足下の生活文化の分析に基づく文化・社会論や共生の基盤を作り上げる一助になるはずである。

23