Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Despite growing attention to parliamentary diplomacy, the Korea–Japan Parliamentarians’ League has struggled to manage bilateral conflicts since the early 2000s. This study explains why and examines future prospects by analyzing post-2001 changes in Japan’s foreign policy system.

Paper long abstract

Parliamentary diplomacy has gained increasing attention as a complementary instrument to executive-led foreign policy, particularly in the management of bilateral tensions. Despite this growing emphasis, parliamentary diplomacy conducted through the Korea–Japan Parliamentarians’ League has struggled to function effectively during periods of heightened conflict since the early 2000s. This paper seeks to explain why parliamentary diplomacy has failed to operate as a viable mechanism for conflict management under adverse bilateral conditions between Japan and Korea, and to examine the prospects for its future expansion.

The study identifies the distinctive nature of historical and territorial disputes, structural transformations in Korea–Japan relations, and shifts in Japan’s domestic political and public opinion environment as key contextual constraints. Focusing on developments since 2001, the paper analyzes how changes in Japan’s foreign policy system—particularly evolving political structures, dominant actors, and legislative incentive frameworks—have reshaped the conditions under which parliamentary diplomacy operates. The analysis is based on qualitative comparative research drawing on parliamentary records, policy documents, and secondary sources in Japan.

Through a comparative examination of institutional arrangements and support mechanisms for parliamentary diplomacy, the paper assesses how existing frameworks constrain legislators’ capacity to engage in conflict mediation. It further explores the institutional, political, and policy-level changes required for parliamentary diplomacy to regain relevance as an effective channel for dialogue and adjustment. By situating parliamentary diplomacy within Japan’s evolving political landscape, this study contributes to broader debates on the conditions under which legislative diplomacy can function as a meaningful tool for conflict management in contentious bilateral relationships.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Focusing on Japan’s 80th anniversary of WWII surrender, this paper examines how selective historical memory in Prime Ministerial and party statements, and media coverage, shapes domestic debates and informs regional security and diplomacy with China.

Paper long abstract

August 15, 2025, marked the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. Past statements (danwa) issued by prime ministers as cabinet decisions on the 50th, 60th and 70th anniversaries drew significant international attention, setting high expectations for the 80th anniversary. The anticipated statement, released two months after the date as personal opinion, failed to meet most of those expectations and was soon overshadowed by Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru’s resignation and Takaichi Sanae’s more assertive political turn. In the context of heightened regional tensions, particularly with China, historical narratives once again became an active component of contemporary foreign and security discourse.

This paper examines how historical memory is mobilized in Japanese political debates, both within domestic politics and in relation to Japan’s external positioning. Focusing on statements issued by Prime Minister Ishiba and Japanese political parties in connection with the 80th anniversary, it analyzes how different political actors invoke, reinterpret, or challenge earlier narratives, such as the Murayama Statement issued on the 50th anniversary, to shape domestic discourse and Japan’s regional diplomacy.

The analysis further considers how these historical framings intersect with ongoing debates on defense policy, Japan-China relations, and the Taiwan question. In particular, it examines how Chinese state-controlled media, such as the English-language China Daily, selectively cite Japanese scholars or politicians to reinforce Party-aligned narratives, underscoring the cross-border dimension of memory politics.

To better understand how historical narratives interact in both domestic and regional arenas, this paper uses qualitative discourse analysis of official statements, party documents, and public commentary. It is also informed by author’s ongoing policy and media analyses published at the Centre for Asian Affairs, University of Lodz.

Preliminary findings suggest that the selective mobilization of historical memory continues to shape Japan’s domestic debates and regional diplomacy. This ongoing linkage between memory politics and contemporary security challenges underscores how Japan's instrumentalized historical narratives influence its political discourse and its role in the region.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Shifting from state-level dynamics to the local level, this paper examines how activists translate grievances into historical justice norms. Analyzing "comfort women" redress across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, it shows how domestic state structures force divergent strategies, driving norm displacement and fragmentation rather than congruence.

Paper long abstract

While traditional International Relations (IR) scholarship largely prioritizes state-level interactions, this paper shifts focus to the local level to investigate how grassroots actors translate historical grievances into the emerging norm of historical justice. Examining the "comfort women" redress movement across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, it argues that global norms are actively reshaped and contested by local activists navigating multi-layered political friction, rather than being smoothly adopted.

Drawing on fieldwork and qualitative interviews with the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace in Tokyo, the War and Women’s Human Rights Museum in Seoul, and the Ama Museum in Taipei, the study shows how divergent state architectures force activists into conflicting strategies: South Korean advocates leverage universal human rights to transcend bilateral disputes, Japanese activists link wartime memory to domestic and international feminist struggles to counter state revisionism, and Taiwanese advocates balance survivor recognition with strategic alignment toward Japan.

By centering local-level analysis, this paper contributes to constructivist IR and memory studies by challenging top-down assumptions of normative convergence. Ultimately, it demonstrates that when local actors take up emerging norms, the resulting friction holds the potential to displace the norm's core meaning while fracturing regional coalitions, generating sustained divergence that may compel the movement to seek new sites of localization.