Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has just won another landslide victory from snap election last December. After two years of governance, his cabinet is still popular and powerful. There are high chances for him to accomplish tax reform and win the LDP presidential election this fall. The current political situation is often reported as “Prime Minister’s Office’s dominance” or “Abe dominates.” This Abe cabinet is becoming a sharp contrast to past six cabinets, including his own first cabinet. All six cabinets were short tenured, serving just for around a year, and prime ministers’ leadership were weak. Before these six prime minister, however, Junichiro Koizumi commanded strong power and leadership, succeeding in a series of reforms. Why do we witness two totally different outcomes of Japanese prime ministers’ power in the last decade?

In this presentation, Professor Takenaka gives an institutionalist explanation to this puzzle by examining the Japanese parliamentary system. To highlight its nature, he will make a brief comparison with the British system.

 

Harukata Takenaka is a professor of political science at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.  He specializes in comparative politics and international political economy, with a particular focus on Japanese political economy. His research interests include democracy in Japan, and Japan's political and economic stagnation since the 1990s. 

He received a B.A. from the Faculty of Law of the University of Tokyo and an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University.  He is the author of Failed Democratization in Prewar Japan: Breakdown of a Hybrid Regime, (Stanford University Press, 2014), and Sangiin to ha [What is House of Councillors], (Chuokoron Shinsha, 2010).

Abstract: With the development of cyber capabilities by an increasing number of states, policymakers as well as scholars have been calling for the negotiation of a new international treaty to regulate cyber warfare. This paper provides an account and analysis of relevant debates in the United Nations with a focus on the position of four states – Russia, China, the US and the UK. Discussions have been concentrated in the First Committee of the General Assembly which has been seized with the issue since 1998 when the Russian Federation submitted a proposal for an international convention to govern the use of information and communication technologies for military purposes. While these efforts towards a wholesale international treaty have not materialized, Russia and China continue to advocate a change in the legal status through the promulgation of additional norms. In contrast, the US and the UK have been firm supporters of applying current legal regimes, including the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, to the use of cyber capabilities by states. In advancing these positions, two powerful narratives have emerged each emphasizing different aspects of the cybersecurity debate.

 

About the Speaker: Elaine Korzak is a postdoctoral cybersecurity fellow at CISAC. She earned her Ph.D from the Department of War Studies at King´s College London in 2014. Her thesis examined the applicability and adequacy of international legal frameworks to the emerging phenomenon of cyber attacks. Her analysis focused on two legal areas in particular: international law on the use of force and international humanitarian law. Elaine holds both an MA in International Peace and Security from King´s College London and an LL.M in Public International Law from the LSE. Her professional experience includes various governmental and non-governmental institutions, including NATO´s Cyber Defence Section as well as the European Commission´s Directorate-General on Information Society and Media.

 

Last year was relatively quiet in inter-Korean relations, with no further North Korean military provocations against the South and no nuclear tests conducted. Then, on New Year’s Day this year, for the first time since he came to power on his father’s death, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un publicly expressed his willingness to hold an inter-Korean summit meeting “if the atmosphere and environment are ready." At the same time, he continued to emphasize the importance of his regime’s policies of “military first” and byeongjin, the simultaneous development of nuclear weapons and pursuit of economic growth. What are Kim’s real intentions? Can inter-Korean dialogue actually resume? Can the Six Party Talks to denuclearize the North be restarted after a six-year hiatus? Sook Kim, a former South Korean nuclear negotiator with North Korea, ambassador to the United Nations, and deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, will explore what the year 2015, the seventieth anniversary of Korea’s division, may hold for inter-Korean relations and the North Korean nuclear problem.