Also published as author's dissertation-Hamburg, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [401]-418).

Abridged Thesis (doctoral)--Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 275-296).

The premiership of Shinzo Abe has had a significant impact on the debate surrounding Japanese foreign policy. In the autumn of 2020, Shinzo Abe resigned, ending what would become the country’s longest consecutive tenure in history, lasting from 2012 to 2020. Following the Second World War, Japan has per its 1947 constitution constrained its foreign policy unlike that of any other country of comparable size. During Shinzo Abe’s tenure, from 2012 to 2020, the academic debate surrounding the potential dismantling of said constraints has moved significantly towards finding a so-called remilitarization a likely outcome. International relations schools of realism and to some extent liberalism find that predictions of remilitarization might strike true while constructivist scholars find that this might be the case despite prior reservations. This is a significant shift in the debate consensus, especially on the part of constructivist analysis which often held that Japan’s unique character, be it norms or institutions, was inherently antimilitaristic. Through previous literature we learn that there was long a divide between authors arguing for a remilitarization being imminent while others take the opposite stance. A shift in Japanese foreign policy has a number of implications for international relations theory, previously a hallmark of constructivist argumentation surrounding identity and a thorn in the side of realist assumptions of power politics. A methodical approach of theory comparison sheds light on the empirical case of Japanese foreign policy by the means of assessing each relevant perspective’s arguments against each respective set of expectations in the event of a remilitarization. Through this study we find that contributions to the debate overwhelmingly argue for an increased possibility of a remilitarization taking place. Likewise, we find that this may come to play into the hands of both realism and liberalism as well as potentially doing so for constructivist analysis. Despite the case of an antimilitarist Japan being an example showcasing the strengths of constructivist analysis, it might instead provide an opportunity wherein it is able to showcase the flexibility and adaptability of constructivism as an analytical approach. The study also explores the possibility of whether there is room for employing a theoretically eclectic approach to the case at hand as a means to break the deadlock within the debate on the topic and offer analysis that escapes the pitfalls inherent in each theoretical perspective when employed on its own.

After surrendering in World War II, Japan's new American-crafted constitution forced the formerly imperialistic country into pacifism. In accordance with Article 9 of the constitution, Japan was to be completely demilitarized and was therefore barred from keeping a standing military of its own. Over the course of the seven decades that have passed since the implementation of Supreme Commander MacArthur’s nonviolent constitution, Japan has slowly regained military strength. Rather than being the direct result of domestic politics and civic wishes, however, the rearmament of Japan has come as a result of foreign influences. Namely, the United States, North Korea, and China have forced the docile country to recoup its former martial power. Without these three countries’ actions over the years, Japan would never have had the backing or reasoning to rearm itself. The intent of this thesis is to explore the various actions that these three countries have taken that have led to Japan’s remilitarization. By taking a historical and chronological approach, this thesis will examine the actions each country has taken since the end of World War II and how they have gone on to spur Japan’s rearmament. Actions, such as domestic policy changes, military activities, and public announcements by the three countries, will be analyzed alongside Japan’s reactionary policies and responses.