<論説>不戦条約論再考 : 「人民ノ名二於テ」論争の意味

Abstract

本稿の目的は、一九二九年に発効した不戦条約にかんする日本国内の諸議論を考察することによって、外交の民主化と国際協調外交の関係を探ることである。不戦条約は国際的平和宣言という性格だったにもかかわらず、日本では、条約中の一節「人民ノ名二於テ」が天皇大権を侵すとの批判がでて政治問題化した。この文言をめぐり、衒学的な不毛な論争が行われたが、条約に実効性がない点、外交の民主化に慎重である点では、意見が一致していた。これに対して、信夫淳平など、条約を高く評価する論者は、「国民外交」すなわち外交の民主化を重視していた。ここに条約をめぐる重大な論点があった。しかし、自衛権の範囲などの論点とともに、外交の民主化についても議論は深まらず、政争の面だけが注目されて、「人民ノ名二於テ」の一節は日本に適用されないとの条件をつけて条約は批准された。結論として、国際協調主義者でさえ、その多くが「国民外交」の問題に背を向けた点が日本外交混迷の一因となっていくことを指摘した。

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between the democratization of diplomacy and international cooperative diplomacy through an examination of the domestic debates that broke out in Japan over the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an Instrument of National Policy. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was proposed by the United States, but it was not intended to actually renounce war but to pander instead to the anti-war sentiment of the public. Although the Kellogg-Briand Pact had the character of an international peace proclamation, the clause reading "in the names of their respective peoples" was criticized in Japan as violating the sovereignty of the emperor and became a political issue. Pedantic and futile disputes over this clause then ensued. Premised on the idea that concluding a treaty on the basis of the sovereignty of the people, the disputes centered on whether the emperor was included among the people and whether "in the name of the people" indicated representative government However, the views of the participants in the dispute were in agreement regarding the idea that the treaty would have no effect and that it would be a denial of the democratization of diplomacy. In contrast, Takayanagi Kenzo, Shinobu Junpei and others who emphasized "people's diplomacy, " that is to say the democratization of diplomacy, appreciated the significance of a treaty concluded "in the names of their respective peoples." They advocated that concluding a treaty in the name of the people and the democratization of diplomacy would not be a violation of imperial sovereignty in a constitutional monarchy. In essence, the important point in the dispute over the Kellogg-Briand Pact was not in the wording, but how Japan would respond to the democratization of diplomacy. However, the issue of the extent of the right of self-defense along with the argument on the democratization of diplomacy remained superficial, and the treaty was concluded under the condition that the "in the names of their respective peoples" was not to apply to Japan. In this article I point out that a cause of the confusion in Japanese diplomacy was the fact that even many of the advocates of international cooperation turned their backs on "people's diplomacy."