Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Literature review BA-thesis Talen en Culturen van Japan Focus IIIb Outlaws Dr. L.

Black Mark Mulder (0535052) The identification of outlaws or rogue states in international relations is an interesting problem for scholars of international relations. These states can pose a high security threat to even the worlds superpowers and are logically an important point on the agenda of policy makers. Nincic (2005, 1-7) argues that the importance of the threat of outlaws (or renegade regimes as he labels them) points to a structural change of the post-Cold War international order: the bipolar Cold War order was characterized by two opposing groups of states, comparable in military power and having a continuum of competing interests and values, while currently US hegemony is confronted by military unequal regimes that have essentially different goals that lack the possibility of such a common continuum. This difference cannot be explained sufficiently by theories that are based on power politics, because then outlaws would be interpreted as exceptions, instead of seeing them as actors in a structurally changed international order. These points to the importance of understanding rogue states and the ability to identify them. Nincic gives an interesting theoretical framework how to understand the ratio of renegade regimes in relation to the contemporary international situation of US hegemony in a world order thats characterized more by its similarities than its differences (like the spread of democracy, neo-liberal economic structures etc.). He formulates four identifying characteristics of renegade regimes, namely having or attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supporting terrorism, aggression (towards other nations), and externally consequential repression (for example resulting in refugees in neighbouring countries (Nincic 2005, 49-52). That in this approach democratic states cannot be identified as outlaws, points to the descriptive approach that Nincic chooses, instead of a normative approach. This implies that the four factors are commonly used by the international society to label regimes as outlaw (although Nincic rightly points out that there are some exceptions, like the US labelling Cuba as outlaw), instead of describing which states should be designated as outlaws. This means that problematic issues, like violating human rights arent necessarily addressed in this framework. The externally consequential repression category comes close to including these issues, but are definitely limited by the added necessity of external consequences. Admittedly, this describes actual practices in international politics (where external consequences are an important argument for violating a countrys sovereignty), but is a rather vague criteria: what is an external consequence (and what isnt), and what would be a reasonable threshold (one refugee? Ten? A thousand?). This criteria does not address the issue of serious violations of human rights and the possibilities of other states to intervene, because of its descriptive nature.

The security concept that can make a (conceptual) link between security policy and human rights is human security. The research question for this BA-thesis will thus be: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese concept of human security in identifying and dealing with outlaws or rogue states in international relations? Naturally, some key terms need to be elaborated on a bit more. First, the concept of human security: a new security approach established by the UN that is opposed (or complementary) to state security. William Bain explains how concepts of both state security and human security express not the objective content of security, but beliefs about how human beings might best achieve a condition of security (Bain 2001, 277). In his explanation the two concepts should be regarded more as conflicting frameworks of value orientation, with conflicting values of state sovereignty and security of the individual. Both frameworks clearly have their limits: guaranteeing state security doesnt imply security of the individual (while arguably this is an important component of statehood and thus sovereignty), while acting on human security has the risk of neocolonialism (the imposition of values on other states implies our values are better). Secondly, why study the Japanese approach to human security? First, the important position of Japan as a proponent of human security. The country implemented the concept quite readily in 1998, and erected the UN Human Security Fund, having thus an important influence on both content and execution of human security. Japans approach to human security is mostly determined by the aspect freedom from want, as the Japanese ODA connected to human security goes mostly to areas as education, poverty, health and the environment (Katsumata 2006, 258). This compared to governments that are focused more on the complementary freedom from fear, as Canada and Norway (MacFarlane 2006, 226). Thus, focusing on the Japanese concept of human security allows us to study both the strengths and weaknesses of the focus on freedom from want (and by comparison the strengths and weaknesses of the complementary freedom from fear) and its contribution to identifying outlaws or rogue states. Analysing Japanese policy in two case studies will allow us a more detailed perspective on the pros and cons of the human security concept. The first is the relation between Japan and North Korea: in this relation Japan is forced to balance state security interests with human security interests of the inhabitants of North Korea. This will arguably show the strength of the focus on freedom from want, for it allows Japan to be of assistance to the people of North Korea by appropriating a broader perspective on intervention. The narrow definition of intervention used by the English school, which is focused on (the possibilities of) military intervention in relation to state sovereignty, is limited in this way. By using a broader approach to intervention, as Bellamy argues (Bellamy 2003, 332), Japanese government is able to serve both purposes of increasing state security and increasing human security in North Korea (by means of the shipping of food to North Korea). The second case study will be the relation between Myanmar and Japan: in this case the focus on freedom from want loses out of the sight the violence of government against its citizens.

While there is no apparent need to balance state security and human security, the Japanese government clings to the notion of non-interventionism and fails to address this issue. In this case, the freedom from fear-side of human security would have provided a better ratio for the Japanese government to act on behalf of the Myanmar population. An interesting perspective for this approach is suggested by MacFarlane and Foong Khong, as they propose to define the concept of human security as protection against organized violence (MacFarlane 2006, 243). 1 Literature Bain, William 2001. The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human security, and the Practice of Statecraft. Global Society 15(3): 277-294. Bellamy, Alex J. 2003. Humanitarian responsibilities and interventionist claims in international society. Review of International Studies 29(3): 321-40. Brown, C. 2008. Human Rights. In The Globalization of World Politics An introduction to International Relations 3rd edition, eds. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Er, L.P. 2006. Japans Human Security Role in Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia 28(1): 141-59. Katsumata, H. 2006. Why does Japan downplay human rights in Southeast Asia? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 6: 249-67. MacFarlane, S., Foong Khong, Y. 2006. Human Security and the UN. A Critical History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nincic, Miroslav 2005. Renegade regimes, Confronting deviant behaviour in world politics . Columbia University Press.

Admittedly, no literature on both case studies has yet been included in this literature review.