The spread of rationalist concepts of natural law in Japan was associated with the influence of the Western civilization, which intensified considerably with the beginning of the Meiji period. After the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate's feudal regime (1603-1868), Japan opted for a large-scale modernization of national legal institutions and the social and political system based on the model of progressive Western states. Westernization affected practically all spheres of social life of the Japanese. One of the directions of reception of Western ideas was the adoption (internalization / perception) of foreign doctrines of natural law by Japanese intellectuals. In this article, the authors examine how the European philosophy of natural law was introduced into Japan and why a “foreign” idea of natural law was able to establish itself in the legal environment of this Far Eastern country. The authors analyze the peculiarities of the legal tradition of pre-Meiji Japan which distinguish it from the Western legal tradition, determine the first cases of Japanese acquaintance with the New European philosophy of natural law. The article specifies that the introduction of the natural law theory into the Japanese “legal circulation” took place in the process of reception of the French law as well as thanks to the teaching activities of the French lawyers hired by the Ministry of Justice to teach Japanese students. It is noted that a prominent French comparativist, professor at the University of Paris, Gustave Boissonade de Fontarabie, played a major role in promoting the ideas of natural law in the Japanese archipelago. In 1873, Boissonade came to the Far East at the invitation of the Meiji government to provide advice on modernizing Japan's legal system and to help train legal personnel for the new institutions of justice. The article provides a detailed description of Gustave Boissonade's views on natural law and an overall evaluation of his legal philosophy.
The article considers the evaluations of Japan and its policy in 1940-1945 by the Soviet leadership and diplomats on the basis of materials from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation. The research analyses official and personal sources, in particular, Soviet-Japanese agreements and diplomatic correspondence, as well as the diaries of the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo Yakov Malik. The first part of the article considers the views of the Soviet leadership on Japan in the early 1940s and argues that the evaluation of Japan in the official rhetoric depended on external circumstances and factors: the dynamics of changes of the balance of power in Europe and coordination between the powers of the antiHitler coalition. While, in the beginning, Moscow saw Japan as a friendly country, based on the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, later, since the denunciation of this pact in 1945, in view of the coming victory over Germany and the declaration of war against Japan, the Soviet Union's official position changed. As a result of these changes, we can see the return of negative connotations of Japan, which was reflected in the contents of the official correspondence and the Soviet press. The second part presents an analysis of the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo Yakov Malik's diaries, which demonstrate private evaluations of Japanese policy. It is noted that the explanation of events through the prism of Marxist-Leninist optics in foreign policy defined Japan as an imperialist power and an enslaver of Asian peoples. In domestic politics, Malik tends to divide the population of Japan by socio-economic characteristics - the “Japanese” and the “Japanese people”, i.e., those who exploit and those who are exploited, respectively. In general, Malik's diaries allow us to trace the dynamics of the changing mood among the Japanese elite during the war. So, with the involvement of new historical materials, it is possible to expand the understanding of Japan in 1940-1945 among the Soviet leadership and diplomats.
Japan has traditionally built its energy policy towards Russia and the countries of Central Asia by relying on the raw materials nature of their exports; moreover, such situation met the needs of Japan, which suffers from a significant lack of its own primary energy resources and minerals. It applied the principle of “resource diplomacy” - a bilateral format of trade and economic relations, according to which, in exchange for Japanese investments in certain economic and energy sectors (including Japanese official development assistance), firm contracts to supply hydrocarbons with appreciable discounts compared to current prices in the world market were concluded. However, the institutionalization of economic cooperation in the post-Soviet space within the framework of the EAEU and the SCO led to the fact that Japan became a “third party” for the countries that joined these structures. Eventually, it complicated and expanded the system of Tokyo's interaction with the governments of Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Today, new contours of energy cooperation are gradually forming, involving not only trade in energy resources, but also the development of transport energy infrastructure, interest in renewable energy (Russia and the Central Asian countries have suitable natural and climatic conditions for its development), discussions on joint projects in the field of new alternative types of energy, for example, hydrogen energy. As for the principles of Japan's energy cooperation with India and China, which also belong to resourcedeficient countries, the main emphasis is put on the supply of energy and transport equipment from Japan, as well as investments by Japanese companies in the construction of various energy infrastructure. The unification of Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan within the SCO significantly increases their international authority and helps them to conduct a more independent and balanced foreign trade policy.
The 32nd Olympic and Paralympic Games, held in Tokyo in July-September 2021, had several important features, one being the events taking place amid the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. It is not surprising that the Games were postponed for a year, the main events held without spectators, and the number of foreign visitors, officials, and support staff severely limited.
Nevertheless, the results of the sporting events were highly commendable. One should take note of the long list of participants from many countries, the variety of competitive events, and the number of world and Olympic records made. In addition, Japan recorded its best Olympic performance so far in terms of medals won. Measures to control the spread of infection also proved to be highly effective. Only a handful of cases were reported in the Olympic Village, and lack of transmission of the virus from the athletes to the volunteers and service personnel is proof of the effectiveness of the measures taken. It is not surprising that the Games' public perception in Japan gradually transitioned from negative to positive. The Games' economic benefits, however, need further assessment, as additional outlays for the implementation of antiinfection measures, ticket revenue loss, and some extra costs will likely mean lower economic benefits. Perhaps the most difficult task though is assessing what the Games symbolized. Tokyo's bid to host these Games was viewed as an effort to move on from the prolonged “lost decades,” a sign of recovery after the triple disaster of March 11, 2011, a way to showcase Japan's technological prowess, and a tool to improve the country's tourist destination image, among other things. Unfortunately, these aspects were poorly addressed during the Games, that is, the results of efforts made fell short of expectations.
Nonetheless, in spite of some initial skepticism, the final international assessments as well as public opinion in Japan turned out to be overwhelmingly positive. This indicates that the decision to hold the Games was correct, and the sporting extravaganza made a significant contribution to the Olympic movement.
The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020 has dramatically impacted higher education development in various aspects, including the shift of face-to-face teaching to online teaching and learning, the cancellation of physical events and activities, and the formation of a “new normality” in higher education [Tesar, 2020]. At the same time, COVID-19 has increased virtual mobility and collaborative online learning as alternatives to physical student mobility.
For developing promotion of intercultural dialogue through the online communication based on learning foreign languages and motivating students, faculty members from Kansai University (Japan, Osaka) and F.M. Dostoevsky Omsk State University (Russia, Omsk) started to use the platform Flipgrid for intercultural online exchange between the students of the above-mentioned universities.
Based on an online survey of students' participation in the exchange project, this research examines how the Russo-Japanese intercultural online project affected students' motivation and ultimately their participation in the project, as well as their evaluation of the achieved results. The feedback from this project has been positive - participants commented favorably on both the relevance of the model of effective language practice and the significance of international communication for better cultural understanding and furthering human relationships with Japan, a close neighbor of Russia in the Asia-Pacific region. It may be surmised that an appreciation for cultural diversity and other cultures provides the first step in developing the competences necessary for operating in multicultural environments. Therefore, this was, for the students of both universities, the start of intercultural dialogue between them.
The concept of a strategic triangle, which is usually used to describe the great-power political dynamics among Moscow, Washington, and Beijing, can be relevant to analyze relations between Moscow, Tokyo, and Beijing. The paper provides an overview of the historical evolution of the Russia-China-Japan strategic triangle and examines contemporary relations in each pair of the triangle: Russia-China, Japan-China, Russia-Japan. The authors take the early 2010s as the start of the contemporary period in the Russia-Japan-China triangle development.
From the late 19th century, the strategic triangle of Russia, China, and Japan has tried almost all possible configurations. Nowadays, the axis of Beijing and Moscow is directed against Tokyo. The peculiarity of the modern Northeast Asia triangle is that it is situated within the gravitational pull of the global triangle of the United States, China, and Russia. The dynamics in the relationships of Russia, China, and Japan is, to a significant extent, determined by the fact that Tokyo lacks full independence as a foreign policy actor, being attached to its senior ally, the US. This imposes considerable structural limitations on possible transformations of the triangle, as the antagonism between Washington and Beijing, as well as between Washington and Moscow, makes it more difficult for Tokyo to reach compromises with its greatpower neighbors in Northeast Asia. This was one of the reasons why Abe Shinzo failed to make significant progress on the resolution of the territorial dispute with Russia. He also failed to prevent further rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing. In 2020, when Abe stepped down as prime minister, the Russia-China relationship was much stronger than it was in 2013, when Abe launched his diplomacy of courting Moscow.
It can be predicted, with sufficient confidence, that, in the coming years, the configuration and character of the strategic triangle in Northeast Asia will not undergo major changes. At the same time, the polarization of the triangle's structure and the polarization of the international system as a whole will grow more intense. Japan will preserve and strengthen close political-military relations with the United States and other “Indo-Pacific” allies. For its part, Beijing will seek to build its own system of strategic partnership s and quasi-alliances, in which, apart from China itself, Russia will be the most important member.
This study focuses on the efforts of the Russian delegation at the Portsmouth Peace Conference to include in the peace treaty a clause on Japan's recognition of the full independence of Korea and the early withdrawal of troops from its territory. The article was written on the basis of a wide range of sources, most of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time.
The article provides a description of the international situation before the start of the peace negotiations. The attempts of the Japanese government to start peace negotiations with Russia in July 1904 are described, in particular, the detailed content of the proposal of the Japanese envoy to London T. Hayashi to the Russian Finance minister S.Yu. Witte about the meeting in Berlin to discuss the terms of peace is presented for the first time. Various opinions in the Japanese government about the supposed conditions of peace are considered, the change in the mood of the Russian government in favor of ending the war and the preparation of peace negotiations with Japan in March 1905 is shown, the meeting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs T. Delcasse with the Japanese envoy to France I . Motono on April 5 to clarify possible grounds for peace negotiations is described in detail.
The author considers the role of the US President T. Roosevelt in the preparation and conduct of the peace conference, as well as his attempts to ensure a leading role in the settlement of the Russo-Japanese conflict. In particular, this includes his proposal of “good offices” in March 1905 and the discussion of the issue of mediation at a meeting with аmbassador to Washington A.P. Cassini on March 30. His attempts to persuade the Japanese delegation to accept the terms are disclosed.
The article reproduces in detail the debates on the Korean question, the exposure of the aggressive nature of the Japanese demands by the Russian delegation at the conference, and advocacy for the preservation of Korean independence. It analyzes the arguments and demands of the Japanese delegates to the answers and proposals of the Russian representatives.
As a result of the research, the author came to the conclusion that the sovereignty of Korea was not shaken by the Portsmouth Peace Treaty. Although, under the treaty, Russia recognized Japan's predominant political, military and economic interests in Korea, the Russian government did not intend to violate the principle of Korean independence, which was the basis of Russia's policy in the Far East. At the same time, the recognition was stipulated by the obligation of Japan, fixed in the protocol of the conference, not to take measures affecting the sovereignty of Korea without the consent of the Korean government. This recognition became the only foreign policy obstacle to the complete destruction of the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean state by Japan for the whole five years after Portsmouth.
BOOK REVIEW
The article contains an analysis of Japan's Strategy in Central Asia: Political, Economic, and Cultural Dimensions, a monograph by O.A. Dobrinskaya, in terms of its academic level and practical significance. It assesses the author's contribution to the study of this topic, emphasizes her academic thoroughness, considers the most important provisions of the work, and adds some critical remarks.
