<Articles>The Significance of the Debate on "In the Names of Their Respective People" in Reassessing the Debate on the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an Instrument of National Policy

DOI HANDLE Web Site Open Access

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • <論説>不戦条約論再考 : 「人民ノ名二於テ」論争の意味
  • 不戦条約論再考 : 「人民ノ名二於テ」論争の意味
  • フセン ジョウヤクロン サイコウ : 「 ジンミン ノメイ ニ オ テ 」 ロンソウ ノ イミ

Search this article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between the democratization of diplomacy and international cooperative diplomacy through an examination of the domestic debates that broke out in Japan over the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an Instrument of National Policy. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was proposed by the United States, but it was not intended to actually renounce war but to pander instead to the anti-war sentiment of the public. Although the Kellogg-Briand Pact had the character of an international peace proclamation, the clause reading "in the names of their respective peoples" was criticized in Japan as violating the sovereignty of the emperor and became a political issue. Pedantic and futile disputes over this clause then ensued. Premised on the idea that concluding a treaty on the basis of the sovereignty of the people, the disputes centered on whether the emperor was included among the people and whether "in the name of the people" indicated representative government However, the views of the participants in the dispute were in agreement regarding the idea that the treaty would have no effect and that it would be a denial of the democratization of diplomacy. In contrast, Takayanagi Kenzo, Shinobu Junpei and others who emphasized "people's diplomacy, " that is to say the democratization of diplomacy, appreciated the significance of a treaty concluded "in the names of their respective peoples." They advocated that concluding a treaty in the name of the people and the democratization of diplomacy would not be a violation of imperial sovereignty in a constitutional monarchy. In essence, the important point in the dispute over the Kellogg-Briand Pact was not in the wording, but how Japan would respond to the democratization of diplomacy. However, the issue of the extent of the right of self-defense along with the argument on the democratization of diplomacy remained superficial, and the treaty was concluded under the condition that the "in the names of their respective peoples" was not to apply to Japan. In this article I point out that a cause of the confusion in Japanese diplomacy was the fact that even many of the advocates of international cooperation turned their backs on "people's diplomacy."

Journal

  • 史林

    史林 96 (3), 452-479, 2013-05-31

    THE SHIGAKU KENKYUKAI (The Society of Historical Research), Kyoto University

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top