Articles , Books and Media

At the conclusion of the previous discussion, it touched upon the issue of seeking remedies for “human rights victims,” which has led to substantive calls for a revision of the 1965 framework between Japan and South Korea—a demand for a peaceful change to the status quo. In this installment, I would like to explain the relationship between Reconciliation Studies and international politics and diplomacy, focusing on this theme.

The peaceful revision of the status quo is an enduring theme in international relations. A comparison with domestic politics offers a useful perspective. In domestic affairs, laws serve as the normative foundation of the status quo; however, changes in society lead to the amendment or creation of laws through legislative bodies that represent the people. Similarly, maintaining a stable international society requires “international legislation” adapted to change. Yet historically, up until World War I, changes to the international status quo could only be achieved through war. After two world wars, the necessity for peaceful international legislation has only grown stronger. Typical examples include environmental and energy issues, but today the need extends beyond trade and investment rules for developing countries to domains such as taxation, immigration and foreign labor regulations, military technologies (such as the regulation of AI-based lethal weapons), blockchain, cyberspace, and even the utilization rights over water and carbon on the Moon and Mars. The sphere of issues requiring legal definitions of global public interest is expanding.

Nevertheless, while the areas requiring legal frameworks are broadening, the international community still lacks a fully developed legislative mechanism. There is no international representative assembly; only voluntary coalitions such as the G7 and APEC exist. The influence of national power—akin to individual interests—remains pervasive and cannot be eliminated. No mechanism yet exists to extract a pure “common good” beyond national self-interest; thus, international politics remains inevitably driven by national interests and power dynamics. This results in tactics such as threatening to apply domestic laws to block market entry, or flexing military strength through new weapons and exercises.

However, Reconciliation Studies does not advocate for the immediate imposition of any particular value or claim of justice. Rather, it seeks to soberly recognize the dynamics—both internal and external—by which values, including concepts of justice, become intertwined with national memories, leading to emotional conflicts between nations and even to internal divisions among citizens. The field aims to offer pathways to disengage from such cycles. As an applied example, we may consider how Canadians prioritize environmental and green energy concerns, whereas Americans continue high levels of energy consumption. Yet despite these differences, neither side resorts to economic or military coercion. Disputes arise, but they are largely resolved through judicial means, and even when legislative action is needed, mutual intelligibility and the predictability of each other’s behavior patterns prevent escalation into political crises driven by national emotions (though jokes that satirize each other’s national characteristics exist).

Thus, the ideal envisioned by Reconciliation Studies can be said to resemble the “pluralistic security community” conceptualized by Karl Deutsch. It is not the rule of law as a mere tool to freeze an advantageous status quo for one party, but rather a “living rule of law” that encompasses mechanisms for the peaceful establishment and repeal of laws and treaties based on mutual consent. Without such mechanisms, law merely becomes the instrument of the powerful. It is worth noting that the most difficult disputes are those involving territorial issues, where emotions run highest; yet, in a true community, even “justice” itself can be harmonized. Territorial issues may persist but are not treated as critical existential threats, and a shared attitude of prioritizing mutual benefit emerges alongside healthy competition.

Maintaining such attitudes ultimately depends on the actions of individual citizens. In this sense, reconciliation between peoples is deeply tied to the shared historical memories that underpin political legitimacy within nations. In order to establish global rules responsive to changes in the international environment—based on mutual trust among nations—the reconciliation of the peoples of East Asia is indispensable. This region is crowded with relatively young nations formed over the past 150 years, whose historical memories continue to provoke mutual suspicions despite their economic successes.

At present, the Chinese Communist Party uses the memory of victory in the anti-Japanese war as a foundational element of domestic legitimacy, combining it with the achievements of economic development. Similarly, South Korea’s democratization process has linked the memory of popular resistance, rooted in human rights values, to intensified historical disputes with Japan. Meanwhile, Japan has yet to fully confront its own historical memory of aggression in light of values such as freedom and human rights, beyond the narratives of “development” and “prosperity.” In any case, it is no longer tenable to view diplomacy as severed from the historical memory of peoples, operating solely on the logic of national interests and power.

Today more than ever, there is a pressing need to consciously engage with the emotions, values, and historical memories shared by citizens, and to foster wide-ranging dialogues across educational and cultural domains. Past modes of exchange that focused narrowly on youth culture, while neglecting deeper historical undercurrents, have reached their limits. Now is the time to cultivate a “culture of reconciliation,” one that recognizes and accepts divergences in national memories and emotions, engages in deep dialogue while laughing off minor differences, and at times maintains respectful silence out of consideration for others.

Note: This text was originally published in Toki no Hōrei. Minor editorial discrepancies may exist between this version and the published article.