This thesis re-examines the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia, the so-called “Northern Territories” issue, through a reinterpretation of the role of the indigenous Ainu of Japan. An exploration of Ainu history and historiography reveals that the long-standing emphasis on Wajin-based legitimacy of rule and annexation of northern areas was replaced by historical amnesia concerning the role and status of the Ainu. Discussion focuses on an interpretation of Ainu understandings of local, regional/national and international historical events. This approach underscores the importance of de-nationalising History by integrating the important perspectives of Indigeneity. It asserts, further, that the understanding of these events and processes require a broader disciplinary prism than that provided by the study of history. The preponderance of nation-based studies, and not only in the field of History, has seriously inhibited the analysis of historical phenomena involving Indigenous peoples, in this case the Ainu. The study of the Northern Territories issue offers, then, both a new perspective on the history of this important dispute and an illustration of the importance of broadening traditional academic studies in disciplines such as History, Anthropology, Ecology, Political Science, International Relations and Law to incorporate Indigenous perspectives and experience.

This thesis re-examines the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia, the so-called “Northern Territories” issue, through a reinterpretation of the role of the indigenous Ainu of Japan. An exploration of Ainu history and historiography reveals that the long-standing emphasis on Wajin-based legitimacy of rule and annexation of northern areas was replaced by historical amnesia concerning the role and status of the Ainu. Discussion focuses on an interpretation of Ainu understandings of local, regional/national and international historical events. This approach underscores the importance of de-nationalising History by integrating the important perspectives of Indigeneity. It asserts, further, that the understanding of these events and processes require a broader disciplinary prism than that provided by the study of history. The preponderance of nation-based studies, and not only in the field of History, has seriously inhibited the analysis of historical phenomena involving Indigenous peoples, in this case the Ainu. The study of the Northern Territories issue offers, then, both a new perspective on the history of this important dispute and an illustration of the importance of broadening traditional academic studies in disciplines such as History, Anthropology, Ecology, Political Science, International Relations and Law to incorporate Indigenous perspectives and experience.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 272-296).

Combating climate change has become the key objective of the 21st century. Energy transition, with the intensive introduction of the renewable energy sources to the world’s energy systems, is one of the biggest driving forces in stimulating global sustainable development. Growing shares of renewables, including wind power as a major player (35% of the world’s electricity needs by 2050 raised the issues of grid stability and supply/demand balancing (IRENA, 2019). A popular view on solutions for these issues lies with global energy interconnections, which could support grid stability and let the countries trade green electricity between themselves, creating big regional or even global electricity markets. These interconnections would call for close cooperation between the states, not only in the sphere of transmission, but in generation as well. The cross-border character of such projects would bring new aspects and nuances to the wind power developer’s work, making it more complex and politically sensitive. The potential planning process of such wind power projects has not been investigated before. Therefore, in order to fill this research gap, a cross-border wind power environment analysis framework was developed on the basis of the reviewed literature to assist a wind power developer in a potential planning process of a complex cross-border wind energy project in a sensitive setting. The developed framework was then used to evaluate an empirical case of an assumed offshore wind park on the Southern Kuril Islands, a disputed territory between Japan and Russia. The results showed that introduction of the cross-border factor makes permitting and coordination of projects more challenging and confusing. In addition to that, the wind power developer might have to contribute to the development of improved wind power regulations and norms. Moreover, coordination of such projects would not involve only the developer, but most likely representatives of the involved countries and regions, and possibly mediating organisations; the developers’ work would take place in a multicultural environment with people of various traditions, values, economic backgrounds and interests, which would complicate balancing the stakeholders’ interests during the planning phase.

A restrained relationship between the Soviet Union and Japan, great military and economic powers and geographically close neighbors in Northeast Asia, is an international anomaly of considerable magnitude. Resolution of this anomaly has been delayed for the last forty-five years by several factors, but none more so than that of what has commonly been referred to as the "Northern Territories" dispute. The territorial dispute of the Northern Territories, otherwise known as the four islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and the Habomai group is discussed in relation to both the historical and contemporary policies of Japan and the USSR. According to the Soviet’s perspective these islands belong to them on the basis of their military annexation in 1945. Japan fails to recognize this sovereignty, hence, leaving Japan and the USSR in a technical state of war, impeding normal Soviet-Japanese relations. Presently, Gorbachev’s policy of Perestroika has indicated the possibility of concessions and rapprochement over the islands after forty-five years of consistent deadlock. This new Soviet policy is aimed at improving relations with Japan and moving toward more economic and political cooperation, allowing the Soviets to participate in the economic prosperity of the Pacific Basin. However, Japan refuses to comply with such concessions, and demands Soviet recognition of the territorial issue prior to negotiations. Furthermore, opposition toward such conciliation exists in the USSR since any concession might lead China and other nations to press their own territorial claims. Thus, the political, economic and strategic implications of the Northern Territories problem ensures that it will remain a critical contemporary geopolitical issue in Northeast Asia. / Master of Science