Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)
Not a member yet
4321294 research outputs found
Sort by
<書評>Harumi Goto-Shibata, The League of Nations and the East Asian Imperial Order, 1920-1946
No full text本書への書評には以下のものがある。 Quincy Cloet, Diplomatica, Vol. 4, Issue 2 (2022), pp. 310-316, Thomas Gidney, Connections -- A Journal for Historians and Area Specialists, Tomoko Akami, The East Asian Journal of British History, Vol. 8 (2021), pp. 74-79
<論説>ウェレイウス『歴史』におけるアウグストゥスの歴史的位置づけ --尊厳毀損罪の裁判によるカエサルの記憶の再構成との関連から--
No full text一九世紀末以降、ローマの帝政への移行に関して活発な議論が行われた一方で、近年、帝政に対する同時代人の認識にも注目が集まり、ウェレイウスの『歴史』を根拠にティベリウス期では依然、現政治体制は共和政の連続として認識されていたといわれる。本稿は、この主張を再考するために、現政治体制への認識が形成・共有された場の検討を試みた。そこで、『歴史』におけるカエサルやアウグストゥスの歴史的位置づけを分析した後、ウェレイウスによる彼らの歴史的位置づけを、尊厳毀損罪の裁判の文脈に置いて考察した。その結果、この裁判によって共和政的なイデオロギーと皇帝家が相容れない関係であるという認識を元老院議員たちが共有したことで、『歴史』においてカエサルが現在の個人支配体制をはじめた人物と位置づけられたことを明らかにした。そして、ティベリウス期にはすでに現政治体制が共和政とは異なると認識されはじめていたと結論づけた。This paper examines elite perceptions of the existing political system by analyzing the historical status of Caesar and Augustus in the Tiberian age as seen from the History of Velleius Paterculus. Since the 19th century, scholars of Roman studies have actively debated the nature of the Principate in terms of the legal authority of the Roman emperor and social ties (patron-client relation and patronage). In contrast, recent scholarship has focused on perceptions of the Principate in its own time. It is generally said that, based on Velleius' History, people in the Tiberian age considered that the Republic still functioned. Furthermore, A. M. Gowing claimed that republican values remained in place during the Tiberian age, but they had become things of the past by Neronian times. However, his study does not make clear how elites formed and shared perception of the existing political system based on historical events and sites. This paper therefore focuses on the treason trials that had a large influence on reconstructing the historical memory of Caesar and Augustus and the writing of the History while paying attention to such events and sites. In the Roman empire, crimes termed maiestas constituted treason. Many people were tried for treason in the late Augustan age, and particularly large numbers in the Tiberian age. Moreover, the historical memory of defendants who had received a guilty verdict in this kind of trial was subject to attack. For example, the person's name was deleted from inscriptions and official documents, and statutes and buildings associated with that person were destroyed. As a result, many scholars have argued that, especially in the Tiberian age, treason trials restricted and suppressed freedom of speech and writing. While the treason trials certainly showed aspects of restriction and suppression, such trials had the capacity to perpetuate the historical memory of the person so dishonored. Therefore, this paper regards the treason trials as places for reconstructing and sharing historical memory among the senators. The following sections analyze descriptions of Caesar and Augustus in the History and consider the treason trials as a background of reconstructing their historical memory in the History. Firstly, section 2 examines the status of Caesar in the History in comparison with Sulla, who was his predecessor as dictator and who was known to be cruel. In this work, Sulla is depicted as a person who was a great general in wartime, but someone who behaved cruelly afterwards. Moreover, the work emphasizes his cruelty by likening him to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. Sulla is depicted as a person who behaved in a manner unlike a virtuous Roman in this analogy. In contrast with Sulla, Velleius shows Caesar as a person who behaved like a virtuous Roman, acting with magnanimity both during and after war, and using this capacity was able to bring the civil war to an end, if only for a short time. Secondly, in section 3 this paper investigates the status of Augustus in the History through a consideration of the significance of the insertion of chapter 68 in Velleius' work. Chapter 68 is a narrative describing Caesar's magnanimity in decision making, but it is inserted in the narrative of Augustus. As a result of this investigation, I show that Velleius understood Augustus as not magnanimous by nature but that we had inherited his magnanimity from Caesar. Velleius used Caesar as a paradigm to understand Augustus. Moreover, I place Caesar and Augustus within a genealogy of magnanimous people, while situating Sulla and Antony in a genealogy of cruel people. This method was meant to detract attention from Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cassius who supported the ideology of republican liberty. Velleius avoided depicting the civil war as an ideological conflict between the imperial family and people who upheld republican liberty, that is, the monarchy or tyranny versus the republic. Thirdly, section 4 examines the background of this depiction in the treason trials, especially the trial of Cremutius Cordus who praised Brutus and Cassius as the last Romans in his Annales, and who was consequently denounced as treasonous and declared guilty by a majority vote of the Senate. This section confirms that this trial made senators aware how dangerous it was to be in opposition to the political system by supporting liberty which Brutus and Cassius advocated. Velleius would have shared such an awareness as a senator. Consequently, in his History he disregarded the link between liberty and Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cassius, and instead he described their cruelty, which became an issue in the treason trials, in opposition to the ideology of the existing political system. Velleius depicted the civil war not as an ideological conflict but as a conflict to decide the leader of the Roman empire. This paper shows that Velleius and his contemporaries began to perceive the political system that started with Caesar as one of individual control that was clearly different from that of the republic. Gowing points out that such a change in perceptions was made suddenly, but, as this examination shows, that change occurred more gradually. It is said that Tiberian age was a period that carried on the Augustan system and status, but from this examination, this paper argues that this age was still a period of transition in the establishment of the Principate
台湾における脱原発プロセスとエネルギー供給計画
No full textThe Kuomintang （KMT） initiated nuclear power generation in Taiwan in the 1970s, resulting in three nuclear power plants being built. The debate over building a fourth nuclear power plant became a controversy that divided Taiwan before it was decided by the Democratic Progressive Party （DPP） that all nuclear power plants, including existing ones, would be phased out by 2025. However, once nuclear power plant operations are terminated, developing alternative power sources and promoting energy conservation will become major issues. The Atomic Energy Council（ AEC） is responsible for ensuring that Taiwan Power Company（ Taipower） is compliant with the license conditions throughout the operating license period of the nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the AEC has earned public trust by fulfilling its responsibilities. Taiwan is currently promoting the conversion from nuclear to renewable energy and energy conservation measures with the end of nuclear power plant operations. This study outlines the political process involved in abolishing nuclear power plants and the plans for alternative power sources and energy conservation after nuclear power plants have been shut down
<論説>第二辰丸事件と仲裁裁判
No full text一九〇八年二月マカオ沖で清朝が日本船籍の第二辰丸を武器密輸容疑で拿捕した事件は、日本との外交問題に発展した。この第二辰丸事件に関する研究は、交渉妥結後の反日ボイコットに集中してきた。だが、清朝外務部が英国海軍提督の仲裁裁判(公団)による解決を提案したことは、内外の新聞報道を通じて予想外の影響を引き起こしており、この件は日清と仲裁裁判をめぐる議論に新たな視点を与えてくれる。まず、当時の日本は仲裁裁判に消極的・反対的だったとされるが、この事件の仲裁裁判付託を一旦は閣議決定していた。また、『タイムズ』北京通信員モリソンは、第二辰丸事件とハーグ常設仲裁裁判所を結び付け、日露との満洲をめぐる懸案こそハーグ常設仲裁裁判所付託に相応しいとの印象を与える報道を行っており、こうした報道は、仲裁裁判を双方の合意に基づく裁判というより国際社会の「公論」による正義の実現と捉える中国の「公断」観を強めた。On February 5, 1908, the Dai-ni Tatsu Maru 第二辰丸 (hereafter referred to as the Tatsu Maru), a Japanese steamship, was seized by Cantonese navy officers and customs officials off the coast of Macao on a charge of arms smuggling. The seizure of the Tatsu Maru triggered a diplomatic row between China and Japan. The Japanese government protested that the seizure of the Tatsu Maru was illegal and demanded immediate release of the ship and its cargo, as well as payment of an indemnity and punishment of the Chinese officers involved. On the other hand , the Viceroy of Liangguang 両広総督 asserted the legitimacy of the seizure and claimed that the case should be determined by a joint investigation based on customs regulation if the captain continued to maintain that the alleged irregularity had not been committed. After a month-long negotiation, the Chinese government released the ship, and promised to compensate the losses and punish the Chinese officers involved, in return the Japanese government declared that it would strengthen control over arms exports to Macao. This result of the negotiation sparked an anti-Japanese boycott in China and in overseas Chinese communities, which was the first anti-Japanese boycott in Chinese history. Thus, many studies have been conducted on this anti-Japanese boycott movement. However, few studies have examined the process of the negotiation in detail, and little attention has been given to the suggestion made by the Waiwu Bu 外務部, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qing China, to the effect that the question of the arrest of the Tatsu Maru should be referred to the British Admiral Moore with a request to arbitrate (gongduan 公断). In fact, the Chinese suggestion of arbitration was reported in the domestic and international newspapers, which had an unexpected influence on the negotiation between the two countries. It is said that Japan at the time had a negative attitude towards or was opposed to arbitration. In fact, when the Waiwu Bu suggested to the Japanese Minister to China that Admiral Moore should be asked to arbitrate the Tatsu Maru case, the Japanese government rejected the suggestion, and used military threats to force the Chinese government to accept its demands. But, as the newspapers in Japan and abroad reported the Chinese suggestion of arbitration and the reaction of Japan, the Japanese government began to change its hardline stance. Considering international public opinion that encouraged dispute resolution through arbitration and criticized Japan's action in China after the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese government then made a cabinet decision to agree to submit the case to the arbitration as suggested by China. The newspaper reports, especially those of western newspapers also had an influence on the tone of the Chinese newspaper, Shenbao 申報, a major Chinese newspaper in modern China. Receiving the information that China suggested that Admiral Moore should be asked to arbitrate the Tatsu Maru case, the leading article of The Times recommended submitting the dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. After that, Shen Bao, which had previously been skeptical of arbitration and the Hague Peace Conference, based on the western newspaper reports like this leading article of The Times, criticized Japan for not accepting “gong duan” (i.e., international arbitration). In addition to the articles of G. E. Morrison, Peking correspondent of The Times, Thomas Millard, an American journalist, influenced Chinese people's understanding of arbitration. Morrison reported in The Times that in the course of the negotiations regarding the question of the Tatsu Maru, China suggested referral to the Hague, and that it was probable that China would propose that other questions, such as the Jiandao issue 間島問題 and the implementation of autonomy in Harbin by Russia be referred to the Hague. This article didn't report the Waiwu Bu's actual stance on arbitration, but Morrison attempted to give the impression that the infringement of Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria by Japan and Russia was an issue that should be referred to the Hague. Millard's article in the New York Times also concluded that the situation demanded international action if the integrity of China was to be maintain. Shen bao translated his conclusion as “other countries should actively conduct arbitration.” Since the late 19th century, the understanding that arbitration was international intervention against the injustice based on the public opinion (gonglun 公論) rather than a trial based on the mutual consent of both parties was prevalent in China. The articles of Morrison and Millard that aroused international public opinion and calls for international intervention on the Manchurian issue reinforced such an understanding by the Chinese people. As described above, this paper provides new perspectives on research about the stance and understanding of China and Japan toward arbitration
