SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

The Genealogy of Culturalist International Relations in Japan and Its Implications for Post-Western Discourse

Kosuke SHİMİZU
Pages
121–136
Publication Date
2017-07-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Japanese IR · diplomatic history · international cultural relations

Abstract

This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese

🔖

Cite This Article

SHİMİZU, K. (2017). The Genealogy of Culturalist International Relations in Japan and Its Implications for Post-Western Discourse. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 121–136. https://ajindex.com/articles/119709

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “International Relations Theory and the ‘Rise of Asia’.” In Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, edited by Saadia Pekkanen, John Ravenhill, and Rosemary Foot, 120-40. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
  2. Arrighi, Giovanni. “States, Markets, and Capitalism, East and West.” Positions 15, no. 2 (2007): 251-84.
  3. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919–1939. London: Macmillan, 1946.
  4. Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1(2011): 1-23. ———. “The Im/Possibility of Building Indigenous Theories in a Hegemonic Discipline: The Case of Japanese International Relations.” Asian Perspective 36, no. 3 (2012): 463-92.
  5. Chen, Kuan-Hsing. “Takeuchi Yoshimi’s 1960 ‘Asia as Method’ Lecture.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 13, no. 2 (2012): 317-24.
  6. Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: beyond international relations theory.” Millennium 10, no. 2 (1981): 126-55.
  7. Fairbank, John King, and Ta-tuan Ch’en, eds. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
  8. Frank, Andre Gunder. Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
  9. Goto-Jones, Chris. Political Philosophy in Japan: Nishida, the Kyoto School, and Co-Prosperity. London: Routledge, 2005. ———, ed. Re-Politicising the Kyoto School as Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2008.
  10. Hamashita, Takeshi. China, East Asia, and the Global Economy: Regional and Historical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2008. ———. “Tribute and Emigration: Japan and the Chinese Administration of Foreign Affairs.” Senri Ethnological Studies 25 (1989): 69-86.
  11. Hirano, Kenichiro. Kokusai Bunkaron [International cultural relations]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 2000.
  12. Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41-60.
  13. Hook, Glenn D., Julie Gilson, Christopher W. Hughes, and Hugo Dobson. Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security. London: Routledge, 2001.
  14. Hook, Glenn D., and Richard Siddle, eds. Japan and Okinawa: Structure and Subjectivity. London: Routledge Curzon, 2001.
  15. Hotta, Eri. Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. ———. Pan-Asianism and Japan’s War: 1931–1945. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2007.
  16. Inoguchi, Takashi. “Are There Any Theories of International Relations in Japan?” International Relations of