Suchergebnisse

Wong, Ying Suet. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2009. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 120-131). ; In English with some Chinese and Japanese; abstract also in Chinese. ; Chapter Chapter One: --- Introduction --- p.3 ; Literature Review --- p.7 ; Structure --- p.10 ; Notes on Sources --- p.13 ; Chapter Chapter Two: --- Venereal Disease Policies in the Metropole and Their Colonies --- p.15 ; The Case of Britain --- p.16 ; VD Policy in the Metropole: The case of Britain --- p.16 ; VD Policy in the Colonies: The Case of Colonies under Britain --- p.23 ; The Case of Japan with Reference of Britain as the Pioneer Policy Maker --- p.28 ; Chapter Chapter Three: --- Venereal Disease control in the Metropole --- p.31 ; Legislation --- p.32 ; Institutions --- p.44 ; Education and Social Discussion --- p.49 ; Resistance --- p.55 ; VD control in the Japanese Military Force --- p.60 ; Summary --- p.67 ; Chapter Chapter Four: --- Venereal Disease Control in Colonial Taiwan --- p.70 ; Legislation --- p.72 ; Licensed prostitution system --- p.72 ; The VD Prevention Law --- p.79 ; Education and Social Discussion --- p.84 ; Before the VD Prevention Law in Japan in 1927 --- p.84 ; Education and Public Discussion of VD after the promulgation of the VD Prevention Law in 1927 --- p.90 ; The Changing Discourse of VD --- p.95 ; Summary --- p.100 ; Chapter Chapter Five: --- "Sex, Gender, Class, Race and Colonialism" --- p.101 ; Taiwanese Women´ةs image: Scapegoating --- p.101 ; Medical Development: State Medicine and Local Elites --- p.106 ; VD Control in the Military in Taiwan --- p.109 ; Summary --- p.111 ; Chapter Chapter Six: --- Conclusion --- p.114 ; Bibliography --- p.120

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America is probably one of the most oftreferred books today in the United States. It is widely seen as the best book ever written on this country, its words endlessly quoted by different political camps which claim the book as their own. This article examines the ways in which the American have read this magnum opus of the Frenchman, especially during the last few decades, on the assumption that their reading is reflecting their perceptions on contemporary American society and its future. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it tries to show that Democracy has long been read in America as an (or, in not a few cases, the) important source to reflect on a remedy for an increasingly "individualistic" and thus "despotic" American society. What the American have commonly found a solution to this problem out of reading the book is the restoration of the tradition of self-government, which is highly hailed by Tocqueville as an admirable feature of American society. Second, this article aims at showing that, although the different political views between conservatives and liberals (one of the most visible political divisions in this society today) are surely affecting the American reading of Democracy, this is only one aspect of the story. Many Americans, whatever their political tendencies are, end up calling for the revival of a self-governed American society as a consequence of studying the book. This common 'conclusion' derived from their reading could be interpreted as a proof that the image that America is the country built on citizens' active participation in public affairs is widely shared among the American themselves. In this considerably diverse society that could fragment at any time potentially, the image has thus been contributing to keeping it in unity, probably to not a small extent.

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Chap. 1: Hirano, K.: Introduction: Manifesto of African economies

English translation of the marginalia, or marginal notes, that were added to the text of the Deshima Diaries from the 1670's onwards in order to provide the Dutch chief of Deshima with a quick reference to the notes of his predecessors. This volume covers the marginalia from the 1700-1740 diaries. Providing the general public, and especially those who have neither a command of Dutch nor of Japanese, access to a fascinating period of Japanese history in which the Dutch played such a singular role. At the same time, the serious scholar wil obtain an easy key to the extremely rich holdings of the archive of the Deshima trading factory, which covers a shelf length of more than forty meters in the National Archives in the Netherlands, but which has been only rarely utilized by historians, Japanologists or other scholars. The Deshima archives of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) were used originally as a corpus of knowledge and experience amassed over the years by generations of Company personnel. It was a source which was consulted by opperhoofden whenever they were in doubt about the right answer to exasperating questions or challenges posed by Japanese society in the form of shogunal decrees, orders by the governors of Nagasaki, and the stubborn demeanor by blackmailing and manipulative officials. Life at Deshima was so regulated and controlled both by workings of the Japanese bureaucracy and by the rhythms of the East India Company's seasonal trade with Japan, that keeping a dagregister or diary in which all the remarkable occurances were noted, assumed crucial importance. This in contrast to other VOC factories where the keeping of a diary, though obligatory, was often neglected. In the isolation of Deshima almost everything seen or heard was 'notable'. Skipping through the text one is also inevitably touched by the suffering inflicted on Japanese society by perennial scourges such as earthquakes, epidemics, 'that one general disease called poverty' and the fires which periodically destroyed large portions of the great cities. The present volume is a thoroughly revised edition, especially with regard to the Japanese personal and topographical names occurring in the text, of volumes III-IV of the Leiden edition. Scientific Publications of the Japan-Netherlands Institute No. 12. Published by the Japan-Netherlands Institute, Tokyo 1992 (original ISBN 4930921015)

The conflict environment is changing, and—after almost two decades of continuous COIN, stabilisation and counterterrorism missions—government and public opinion in western and allied countries are unlikely to support continued large-scale or long-duration missions of this type. Yet history demonstrates that such missions are, and are likely to remain, some of the most frequent and geographically widespread. Likewise, ground forces are critical for success in COIN and stabilisation missions, due to the need to interact closely with local government and populations, which implies the need to establish and maintain a physical presence in the area of operations, which in turn implies the need to survive and prevail in a close combat environment, which only ground forces can do. Thus, despite their unpopularity, ground forces can expect (and must be prepared) to continue engaging in these types of operations. However, the same factors that have enhanced the threat in recent decades—in particular, connectivity and the ability to conduct collaborative and remote engagement— also create opportunities for new operating methods for ground forces conducting COIN and stabilisation. These include the ability to deploy only a small element forward on the ground, conducting SFA and FID tasks, while supporting it with a QRF and other enablers that remain offshore in a sea-base or in regionally-deployed FOBs. In such a scenario the main force might be withheld from the theatre of operations and either deploy for a brief initial period only, or not at all. For a force operating in this manner, protected mobility and communications would remain essential, as would the ability to access and deliver precision fire support when required. Deployed forces would probably be modular to a very low level, operating in a mesh of multi-role, semi-autonomous small teams supporting each other and swapping roles as needed. Traditional intelligence, engineering, civil affairs, psychological operations and military governance capabilities would remain essential, but might be called forward as needed. Ultimately, however, while ground forces will almost certainly continue to play a central role in counterinsurgency and stabilisation operations, the way they perform this role, the organisation and equipment with which they do so, and the environment in which they conduct such missions is likely to change, and keep changing, into the foreseeable future.