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

This paper examines how historical justice norms surrounding "comfort women" are localized and contested in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Drawing on fieldwork with advocacy and counter-mobilizing actors, it shows how women’s-rights frameworks, #MeToo, and geopolitics shape notions of redress, producing reinterpretation over normative convergence.

Paper long abstract

The “comfort women” issue is central to debates over women’s human rights, wartime sexual violence, and historical justice. Yet these normative frameworks have not produced a common understanding of responsibility or redress in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This paper asks how norms of historical justice are localized through “comfort women” memory politics and why this process takes different, contested forms across these cases.

Drawing on constructivist IR and norm localization theory, the paper treats localization as an ongoing process of political interpretation rather than straightforward domestic adoption. Advocacy actors selectively connect the issue to frameworks of women’s rights, sexual violence, and colonial injustice. Contemporary movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter provide new discursive resources, while revisionist actors advance competing interpretations in response. These dynamics unfold within distinct domestic political environments and regional geopolitical relationships.

Based on fieldwork and interviews with advocacy groups, memory institutions, and counter-mobilizing actors, including the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (Tokyo), the War and Women’s Human Rights Museum (Seoul), and the Ama Museum (Taipei), the paper identifies distinct patterns of localization. In South Korea, advocacy connects memory to international human rights, moving beyond an exclusively bilateral dispute with Japan. In Japan, activists link historical violence to contemporary struggles under strong state-level contestation. In Taiwan, survivor recognition coexists with positive views of Japan and complex geopolitical positioning.

The comparison demonstrates that localization does not produce distinct, static national norms. Instead, actors within each context compete over how historical justice is defined, utilizing broader social movements and domestic political currents as resources. Historical memory thus shapes both responses to international norms and the meanings those norms acquire in domestic struggles.

The paper argues that localization of historical justice norms is an ongoing process rather than a one-time adaptation. By synthesizing localization with memory politics, the study also shows how embedded conflicts, social movements, and geopolitics shape which interpretations gain legitimacy or encounter resistance. Ultimately, the internationalization of historical-justice norms generates pluralization and continued contestation rather than normative convergence.