Japanese Diplomacy: The Role of Leadership


H. D. P. Envall



About this book

A political leader is most often a nation’s most high-profile foreign policy figure, its chief diplomat. But how do individual leadership styles, personalities, perceptions, or beliefs shape diplomacy? In Japanese Diplomacy, the question of what role leadership plays in diplomacy is applied to Japan, a country where the individual is often viewed as being at the mercy of the group and where prime ministers have been largely thought of as reactive and weak. In challenging earlier, simplified ideas of Japanese political leadership, H. D. P. Envall argues that Japan’s leaders, from early Cold War figures such as Yoshida Shigeru to the charismatic and innovative Koizumi Jun ichirō to the present leadership of Abe Shinzō, have pursued leadership strategies of varying coherence and rationality, often independent of their political environment. He also finds that different Japanese leaders have shaped Japanese diplomacy in some important and underappreciated ways. In certain environments, individual difference has played a significant role in determining Japan’s diplomacy, both in terms of the country’s strategic identity and summit diplomacy. What emerges from Japanese Diplomacy, therefore, is a more nuanced overall picture of Japanese leadership in foreign affairs.



Envall, HDP (2015) Japanese Diplomacy: The Role of Leadership, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

SUNY series, James N. Rosenau series in Global Politics
David C. Earnest, editor


Why Leaders Are Important

Whether presidents or prime ministers, political leaders play a prominent role in a nation’s foreign affairs. When attending summits, conducting negotiations, or signing agreements, they are, in effect, the nation’s most high-profile foreign policy figure, its chief diplomat.1 In the popular consciousness, one common, if circular, view is that diplomatic successes are inevitably achieved by powerful leaders while failures are the product of weak leaders. Conversely, in academia, the role of leaders in international affairs is often overlooked. While political leadership is a concern for those working in the field of foreign policy analysis (FPA),2  scholars from the broader area of international relations (IR) theory have tended to focus on structural or normative explanations for international outcomes.3 In particular, they have paid less attention to questions of how individual leadership styles, personalities, perceptions, or beliefs shape international politics.4 As Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack note, the study of leaders has “not been attacked so much as ignored by international relations theorists.”5

Understanding more about how political leadership shapes foreign policy and international affairs is especially helpful for answering some important questions concerning political leadership—and diplomacy—in Japan. Because Japan is viewed as a nation where the individual is at the mercy of the group, prime ministers have been thought of largely as reactive and weak.6  The underlying assumption concerning Japan’s leaders is that they have had little effect on the country’s foreign policy. Constrained by a dominant central bureaucracy, their role has been to avoid scandals and, on occasion, demonstrate a little charisma. On the diplomatic front, they have often been expected just to enjoy the celebrity of leading a major world economy. Comparatively little regard, therefore, has been paid to their role in international affairs.

The arrival of Koizumi Jun’ichirō—Japan’s prime minister from 2001 until  2006—demonstrated  that  Japanese  leaders  can  wield  influence.7 Indeed, his impact on Japan and the region during these years raised doubts about this earlier orthodoxy: was past Japanese leadership as reactive as had been assumed? Previous attempts to locate Japan’s leaders in their environments have arguably mischaracterized Japanese leadership. “Caricatures of national leadership style,” as Richard Samuels has noted, “are,  like  most  stereotypes,  engaging  but  misleading.”8   By  seeing  Japanese leadership as overwhelmingly subject to structural constraints, the orthodoxy of Japanese politics has been to follow the same tendency as IR theory and ignore the role of leaders.9  But what role do leaders play in shaping Japan’s diplomacy?

International Relations and Leadership

In international affairs more widely, the role of leadership is complicated by the fact that leaders must operate across multiple political environments. Domestic politics must also be taken into account, something that has long been a difficult subject for IR theory. Kenneth Waltz, for example, argues that a consistent inability to explain outcomes in IR analytically (i.e., via an examination of the interacting units of IR) suggests that a “systems approach” is required.10 Waltz further suggests that, while the attributes  of  domestic  factors  vary  widely  throughout  the  world,  they are functionally the same. In other words, there is a consistent repetition  of similar international outcomes regardless of the types  of  leadership involved, thereby justifying the need for a systemic focus. John Mearsheimer similarly argues that systemic factors, such as the distribution of power and anarchy, matter the most for understanding and explaining IR.11

By contrast, others view the domestic level as vital to understanding IR. The FPA tradition has long maintained that multiple “decision structures,” including domestic politics and leadership, play an important role in international relations.12 James Rosenau observed the lack of consideration given to domestic politics in international relations in the 1960s, arguing that domestic politics may be a significant factor in IR outcomes and, in some cases, the dominant factor.13   Those examining the role of normative factors in shaping foreign policy have also taken a domestically oriented approach.14  Others have focused on the reverberation that takes place  between  the  levels  (Peter  Gourevitch’s  “second  image  reversed”), whereby the international environment shapes domestic politics which, in turn, reshape the international environment. As Gourevitch explains, “[t]hat international relations and domestic politics interact quite profoundly no longer seems to be a controversial statement.”15

Leaders are, of course, not the only participants in foreign policymaking: they operate in complex organizations, take on certain roles because of their position (rather than their personality), and contend with other political actors from all levels. Their participation in politics also depends upon how “power, preferences, and possible coalitions” are distributed among domestic actors.16 Identifying the role of leaders in IR is, therefore, a problem of individual, society, state, and system.17  As Valerie Hudson and Christopher Vore note, although such an approach can add considerable detail in any analysis of IR, it also means that “elegant and parsimonious theories, portrayed by . . . ‘billiard ball’ models, will prove elusive.”18

One example of such complexity is summit diplomacy. International summits involve three distinct political levels—domestic, international, and summitry. In this multilevel environment, leaders play a prominent role because they must often mediate between the different levels. When they assume the role of chief diplomat they do not relinquish their position as domestic leader, but act as the formal link between the domestic and international. When leaders spearhead foreign policy, they gain special access to information crossing between these different levels and, therefore, extra scope to shape the interplay of events.19  Summits also provide a usefully contained international environment by which to examine leadership, since they limit the number of actors, locations, and issues at stake. Accordingly, after examining leadership at the macro level of political environments and strategic policy, this book uses the Group of Seven (G7) summits to explore at a micro level how leaders’ individual differences shape diplomacy. The G7 summits—later superseded by the Group of Eight (G8) and then the Group of Twenty (G20) summits—are an  important  form  of  diplomacy  in  which  the  role  of  leaders  can  be readily assessed.20

Political Leadership

Foreign policy decision making, notes Hudson, “is dynamic and full of contingencies and creative agency.”21  This makes the task of understanding the role of leadership in IR doubly difficult. It is necessary not only to establish a comprehensive, adaptable, yet parsimonious approach to characterizing leadership, but also to explain its role in a system constantly in flux. In recent decades, the task of characterizing leadership has been taken up by scholars from numerous fields, such as political science, psychology, and management studies. Indeed, it has been argued that researchers often define leadership depending upon their own individual viewpoints and the dimensions of leadership that are most interesting to them.22 James MacGregor Burns, perhaps the most noted leadership scholar of the past 40 years, argues that leadership is when “persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers.”23

Political leadership therefore is chiefly concerned with political actors, motives and purposes, conflictual environments characterized by institutional as well as ideational frameworks, and followers. These characteristics constitute the basis of what is often described as the leadership environment. The power of other leaders and the expectations of followers, whether formalized through institutions or informally adopted, provide the most obvious boundaries by which leaders are constrained. Rosenau explains this clearly when he describes the fate of leaders who ignore such expectations: “it is when they [leaders] continuously ignore, dismiss, or otherwise fall short of the basic expectations held by their followers that their occupancy of high office becomes tenuous.”24

Leadership Preferences

To begin with, however, there are individual leaders and their “motives and purposes.” In some analyses, particularly those using two-level games approaches,  a  common  assumption  is  that  leaders  operate  as  rational actors and as agents for their domestic constituencies.25  Leaders are utility maximizers—with their utility often assumed, at least in the context of democratic political systems, to be closely linked to the need for re-election. Yet this assumption is subject to doubts at both the domestic and the international levels: leaders can be motivated by multiple other considerations, notably the attainment of personal policy preferences, which may be at odds with the preferences of domestic constituencies or power maximization considerations. The rationality of leaders is bounded by other factors too. Cognitive and emotive considerations—or what Andrew Moravcsik describes as “idiosyncratic ‘first image’ factors” in international relations—also combine with the inherent ambiguities or uncertainties of international diplomacy to limit leadership rationality.26

A first-image factor, according to this understanding, is the “past political history or personal idealism” that influences “individual policy preferences about the issues in question.”27   The term first image encapsulates the political histories, psychologies, and perspectives that leaders bring to their political roles, as opposed to the state-level second image and the international-level third image.28 First-image factors are particularly prevalent in diplomatic bargaining because of the way that leaders perceive, or filter, their circumstances and thereby determine their preferences. These factors in turn help shape how leaders respond to events, thereby shifting diplomatic outcomes away from what might be expected if leaders were merely agents of their political constituencies.29 Even though such factors are marginalized in the study of IR, they constitute a more important focus for research in leadership studies and FPA. Rather than assume that leaders are rational actors or are merely representative of their political constituencies, scholars in these areas consider the range of factors that motivate leaders and the ways in which leaders are often at odds with their environments. Some studies suggest that leaders in diplomacy often act according to their own preferences or ideology rather than those of their constituents.30

An Interactive Approach to Leadership Strategy

Beyond characterizing individual leaders, explaining leadership requires an understanding of the dynamic relationship between leader and environment, or an interactive model of political leadership. An interactive approach views leadership as the interaction of psychology, skills, and situation. It imagines leadership as a time-based process that is “continuous and reciprocal,” an ongoing exchange between different members in a group situation.31  Individual leaders in this process can be understood as “key junctures” in the wiring of politics or, in other words, as “circuit breakers.”32  The interaction between leaders and environments can differ widely, with broad historical trends often operating outside the control of leaders but nevertheless subject to leaders’ occasional capacity to change or modify these trends at key moments.

Unfortunately, the leadership studies field, like FPA, has struggled to clarify where and how leadership acts as a causative factor in politics. The failure to make clear when leadership is a process or an outcome has been critical in this regard. Many leadership scholars have focused on the different styles of political leadership (i.e., a process); yet there has also been a tendency to define political leadership as real and intended change or purposeful causation (i.e., an outcome).33  Both concepts are undeniably necessary: process without outcome is merely descriptive; outcome without process quickly becomes deterministic. However, confusing the two can easily lead to a type of circular reasoning, as is the case in much work on transformational leadership. Many studies create a logic whereby leadership outcomes become both a product of, and input into, their related leadership processes. Clearly, leadership needs to be seen as something that covers two distinct political phenomena: the way leaders behave, as well as what they achieve.34

Leadership and Japanese Diplomacy

The study of leadership in Japan highlights the difficulties facing those attempting  to  characterize  political  leadership.  Japan’s  prime  ministers have the formal power to shape their country’s diplomatic agenda, lay out its major foreign policy principles, and direct policy in key areas. As noted earlier, there is much to suggest that individual leaders can play a significant role in shaping Japan’s foreign affairs and that studies looking into how leadership strategies operate in Japanese diplomacy should be useful for wider understandings of leadership in FPA and IR.35   Glenn Hook et al. list the prime ministers who, through “moral authority,” have been able to push other parts of government into achieving their diplomatic goals.36   The most obvious example of a prime minster leaving a deep and long-lasting impact on Japan’s diplomacy (since the Second World War) is Yoshida Shigeru. Yoshida designed and implemented a pragmatic but far-reaching postwar foreign policy framework, the Yoshida Doctrine, which allowed Japan to focus on its economy but rely on the United States for its security.37

Similar  conclusions  have  been  reached  by  other  studies.  Bert Edström finds that by noting changes of leadership and then identifying concurrent policy shifts, it is possible to see which prime ministers have had an impact on Japan’s overall diplomatic orientation. Although not an assessment of the extent of leaders’ “impact” on the country’s “official foreign policy doctrine” or strategic identity, Edström’s study identifies a number of prime ministerships that coincided with substantial changes in policy thinking. Yet he also finds that there is little “linkage” between the existence, or degree, of change, and the nature (whether strong or weak) of relevant prime ministers.38 How and why leaders such as Yoshida or Koizumi are seen to have had such an influence on Japan’s diplomacy warrants further study.

Although much work on domestic leadership in Japan  exists,  less work has been done on Japanese leadership and foreign affairs prior to the 2000s. Tomohito Shinoda’s work on Koizumi’s diplomacy exemplifies the attention given to the role of leaders in Japan’s foreign affairs in the post-Koizumi period; for the pre-Koizumi era, only Edström focuses primarily on political leadership in foreign policy. No scholar looks specifically and extensively at the issue of leadership and summitry, although Hugo Dobson addresses the subject briefly in his book on Japan at the G7/8 summits.39 Otherwise, as with leadership in the domestic sphere, scholars have often viewed Japanese political leadership at the international level as constrained and reactive. Aurelia George Mulgan, for instance, argues that poor leadership made Japan an “unreliable ally” during the Gulf War in 1991 and incapable of decisive action during the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98.40

At the macro level, a useful way to study the role of leadership in Japanese diplomacy is through the country’s strategic thinking, or strategic identity, since the Second World War. Examining the role of leadership in the evolution of the country’s strategic identity may indeed help explain some important puzzles of this period, particularly the fact that Japan’s foreign and security policies have often not met the expectations of IR scholars with regard to normal nation-state behavior. Japan’s reluctance to adopt strategic policies commensurate to its rising power, both during and since the Cold War, is particularly puzzling for structural IR theories. On the other hand, the country’s intermittent process of security “normalization” is not fully explained by theories that focus on normative domestic factors. A better understanding of leadership’s role in the evolution of Japan’s strategic identity may help clarify these problems. Further, given the implication that domestic factors may reverberate back into the international system, as Gourevitch’s “second image reversed” concept suggests, understanding Japan’s strategic behavior should help provide a better understanding of international relations in both the Asia-Pacific and wider world.

At  the  micro  level,  an  obvious  area  to  study  the  role  of  leaders in Japan’s diplomacy is at international summits such as the G7 of the 1970s and 1980s. First, the G7 summits have been a vital forum for Japanese diplomacy: they have fitted well with the Yoshida Doctrine’s focus on economic development; have been useful for dealing with immediate international economic problems; and have also suited Japan’s preference for multilateralism. Second, a focus on the G7 summits of the 1970s and 1980s allows for a detailed examination of the connections between Japanese political leadership and diplomatic outcomes before the arrival of Koizumi and subsequent reconsideration of Japanese leadership. Finally, the G7 summits are also useful case studies because they provide consistency in the leadership environment across different leadership examples. While Japan faced a range of diplomatic challenges during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the main features of its international circumstances were relatively consistent. The country was an emerging power, about to become a major economy but still unsure of its influence in global politics; it also faced the economic and political turmoil of the oil shocks and subsequent global economic downturn. Japan’s transition from a catch-up country to an advanced nation (senshinkoku) reshaped its thinking about its own development and its role in the world. As Kenneth Pyle argues, Japan had changed into “a pioneer seeking to chart the future course of economic, technological, and social organization.”41

This Book


John Masciulli and W. Andy Knight observe that leadership is important in foreign policymaking “all of the time” as a “descriptive/explanatory/ predictive variable and cause.”42  This book explores in detail how individual leaders operate in international affairs. First, by further developing a framework of political leadership, the book helps to characterize how leaders operate in foreign affairs and to what extent their leadership matches their domestic environments or the idiosyncratic, individual characteristics noted above. Second, the book identifies where and how leadership plays a causal role in the processes and outcomes of foreign policy decision making. What impact do individual leaders have on their environments? Drawing on these general objectives, the book examines and explains the narrower topic of Japanese political leadership and foreign affairs. To what extent have Japanese prime ministers, especially before the arrival of Koizumi, been able to pursue idiosyncratic leadership styles not necessarily in step with their political environments? To what extent have these leaders shaped the country’s diplomacy as well as international affairs in Japan’s immediate region and the wider world? And what are the implications of reconsidering the leadership of these earlier prime ministers for understanding Japanese leadership in foreign affairs today?


In order to fill such gaps—to better characterize leaders and more clearly identify their roles within their political environments—a clearer linkage between leadership process and outcome is required. Vital to this task is the need to make use of four clearly defined concepts central to political leadership. Adapted from the leadership studies literature discussed above, these are: (1) leadership vision (or intended political change), (2) leadership style (political or leadership behavior), (3) leadership environment(s), and (4) leadership outcomes (or effected political change).

Leadership vision comprises the values and goals of political leaders, their motivations, perceptions, biases and morality, while leadership style covers leaders’ traits, skills, and behaviors, such as political tactics and techniques.43  As such, they cover many of these “first-image” factors. Leadership vision and style, taken together, constitute a type of leadership strategy. This might be defined as an overarching agenda that combines vision and style in the pursuit of leadership outcomes in a given political environment (in this case, Japanese politics and Japan’s G7 environment). The third concept, leadership environment(s), incorporates the multiple environments of international summitry, covering the domestic, summitry, and international levels of analysis. There are a number of intervening variables that come into play during the different summits. Specific economic, political, and security issues, such as oil security, trade protectionism, and missile deployment emerge in various ways. Nonetheless, the basic framework of the summits remains constant.

This leaves the question: what constitutes leadership outcomes? Political outcomes are relatively easy to discern. In Japan’s summitry context, they encompass the particular outcomes of the G7 and surrounding diplomacy relevant to Japan, as well as the policies and approaches Japan adopted at these forums. Yet determining how these outcomes have been the products of individual political leadership is more problematic. In this regard, the concepts of action and actor dispensability are crucial.44 Action dispensability is concerned with questions of how important a certain action is to a particular outcome (regardless of the actor). Would a different outcome have occurred if a different action had taken place? Actor dispensability is concerned with the role played by a leader’s personality, preferences, or strategy in outcomes. If a different leader with different preferences had been substituted, would the political outcomes have been the same?

In examining these questions, the book moves from general theory, to broad Japanese context, and then to specific Japanese cases. The initial focus is on how political leadership is seen to function, while the subsequent aim is to explain the domestic and international environmental contexts in which Japan’s leaders operate. The book then seeks to explain the role of leadership at a macro level of Japanese strategic thinking. In particular, it looks at how leaders have shaped Japan’s strategic identity since the Second World War. Finally, the book tests the role of leaders in narrower environments.

The main method employed is the comparative case study, with a particular  focus  on  the  differences between  leaders  in  similarly  structured contexts (the “method of difference”).45  The data used to construct these case studies is extracted from a range of material, in both English and Japanese. Primary material such as summit statements and declarations, speeches, media interviews, and so on, are widely used. Other documents include memoirs, biographies, and newspaper accounts. A variety of Japanese-language materials, including journalistic accounts of events, as well as subsequent analyses and memoirs by participants, are also referred to widely.


This book makes the case for a more nuanced picture of past Japanese leadership than is currently accepted, as well as for the important role of leadership in shaping Japanese diplomacy. The first argument is that Japan’s leaders have pursued leadership strategies of varying coherence and rationality, often independent of their political environment. Despite their similar life and political backgrounds, and in the face of broadly similar leadership environments, the leaders in the three case studies—Ōhira Masayoshi, Suzuki Zenkō, and Nakasone Yasuhiro—demonstrated quite distinct leadership visions and styles that reflected their own personal beliefs and preferences. This supports similar findings in the context of Japan’s evolving strategic identity.

The second argument is that different Japanese leaders have shaped Japanese diplomacy in some important, and underappreciated, ways. High actor indispensability to diplomatic outcomes is present in two of the three cases examined, those of Suzuki and Nakasone. Yet the presence of high leadership indispensability cannot inevitably be linked to particular leadership strategies. Rather, leadership indispensability is best explained through the interaction of intervening factors—both individual and environmental—with this interaction at times leading to counter-intuitive but nevertheless important outcomes. This in turn points strongly to the fact that, in certain environments, individual difference can directly shape diplomacy. The results of these narrow case studies match similar observations at the macro level of Japan’s strategic identity. By examining leadership as a factor shaping Japan’s strategic identity and foreign policies, it is possible to see how Japan’s supposedly anomalous foreign policies (in the view of much IR theory) have been shaped by dominant norm entrepreneurs. At times of upheaval in the international order, these entrepreneurs engaged in highly effective forms of “strategic social construction” with regard to Japanese diplomacy, suggesting that their visions and strategies have been as important to change in Japan’s strategic identity as systemic and normative pressures.46

In seeking to determine the role of Japanese political leadership, it is necessary to reach two findings in the case studies examined in this book. First, the case studies should show whether, or to what extent, the Japanese prime ministers pursued strategies reflecting individual factors, such as their own beliefs or ideologies outside the preferences of their political environments. Were they independent of their political environments? Did they shape the outcomes of the summits? Second, the case studies should show how the Japanese prime ministers themselves were able to play a role, if any, in shaping the summitry outcomes. How indispensable were they as individuals both to Japanese diplomacy and to the overall summitry outcomes?

Japan’s prime ministers were, it must be said, unlikely to have enjoyed, or necessarily desired, a free hand in pursuing their own leadership strategies or in shaping Japan’s summit policy. The studies accordingly reveal a number of constraints on Japanese leaders, such as domestic preferences or international issues. This applies both to the general study on Japan’s strategic identity and to the specific studies on summits. Yet the task here is not to demonstrate that the leaders pursued entirely idiosyncratic or irrational leadership strategies or overwhelmingly drove Japanese diplomacy. The task instead is to demonstrate the  significant ways in which the leaders deviated from their domestic environments, displayed leadership that was heavily bounded in its rationality, or were indispensable to particular foreign policy outcomes.


The book is divided into three sections. In the first section, the theoretical, environmental, and broader historical contexts are developed. Chapter 1 introduces the broad outlines of leadership studies, extends the characterization of political leadership, and examines the multiple environments relevant to diplomatic leadership. These include the domestic, international, and summitry levels. Chapter 2 then extrapolates the general analysis of the first chapter to the specific context of Japanese political and diplomatic leadership. Chapter 3 examines the role of political leadership at the macro level of Japan’s strategic behavior from the Second World War until the present day. The second section contains the book’s micro-level empirical work and consists of three case studies—chapter 4 evaluates Ōhira’s leadership at the Tokyo summit in 1979, chapter 5 looks at Suzuki’s leadership at Ottawa in 1981, and chapter 6 examines the leadership of Nakasone at the Williamsburg summit of 1983. Finally, the book concludes with an overall assessment of the role of leadership in Japanese diplomacy.



  1. See Tomohito Shinoda, Koizumi Diplomacy: Japan’s Kantei Approach to Foreign and Defense Affairs (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2007), 18.
  2. For good examples from the FPA literature, see Margaret G. Hermann, “Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders,” International Studies Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1980); Raymond Birt, “Personality and Foreign Policy: The Case of Stalin,” Political Psychology 14, no. 4 (1993); Jonathan W. Keller, “Leadership Style, Regime Type, and Foreign Policy Crisis Behavior: A Contingent Monadic Peace?” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 2 (2005).
  3. Ariel Ilan Roth, Leadership in International Relations: The Balance of Power and the Origins of World War II (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 4–5. IR scholars do examine the agency-structure problem. See Alexander Wendt, “The Agency-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987); Walter Carlsnaes, “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1992); Gil Friedman and Harvey Starr, Agency, Structure, and International Politics: From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry (London: Routledge, 1997).
  4. Keller, “Leadership Style.” On ideas, perceptions or learning, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976); Jack S. Levy, “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield,” International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994).
  5. Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In,” International Security 25, no. 4 (2001): 110.
  6. Kenji Hayao, The Japanese Prime Minister and Public Policy (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993); Karel van Wolferen, The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation (London: Macmillan, 1989).
  7. Richard J. Samuels, Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and their Legacies in Italy and Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003); Alisa Gaunder, Political Reform in Japan: Leadership Looming Large (London: Routledge, 2007); Yū Uchiyama, Koizumi and Japanese Politics: Reform Strategies and Leadership Style, trans. Carl Freire  (London: Routledge, 2010).
  8. Samuels, Machiavelli’s Children, 352.
  9. H. D. P. Envall, “Exceptions that Make the Rule? Koizumi Jun’ichirō and Political Leadership in Japan,” Japanese Studies 28, no. 2 (2008).
  10. Kenneth N.  Waltz,  Theory  of  International  Politics  (Boston,  MA: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 68.
  11. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), 10.
  12. See Joe D. Hagan, “Does Decision Making Matter? Systemic Assumptions vs. Historical Reality in International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review 3, no. 2 (2001).
  13. James N. Rosenau, “Introduction,” in Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, ed. James Rosenau (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 4.
  14. For example, see  Peter  J.  Katzenstein,  Cultural  Norms  and  National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).
  15. Peter Gourevitch, “Domestic Politics and International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (London: Sage, 2002), 309. For the “second image reversed” concept, also see Peter Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,” International Organization 32, no. 4 (1978).
  16. See Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 442; Helen V. Milner, Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 16.
  17. Colin Wight, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 178.
  18. Valerie M. Hudson and Christopher S. Vore, “Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Mershon International Studies Review 39, no.2 (1995): 211.
  19. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics,” 432–33.
  20. Ibid., 427–69.
  21. Valerie M. Hudson, Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 166.
  22. Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2010), 20.
  23. James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 18.
  24. James N. Rosenau, “Followership and Discretion: Assessing the Dynamics of Modern Leadership,” Harvard International Review 26, no. 3 (2004): 15.
  25. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics,” 435–36.
  26. Andrew Moravcsik, “Introduction:  Integrating  International and Domestic Theories  of  International  Bargaining,”  in  Double-Edged  Diplomacy: International  Bargaining  and  Domestic  Politics,  ed.  Peter  B.  Evans,  Harold  K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), 30.
  27. Ibid.
  28. On “images” of international relations, see Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).
  29. On strategic culture, see Alastair Iain Johnston, “Thinking About Strategic Culture,” International Security 19, no. 4 (1995). For leadership perceptions, see Joseph  Masciulli and W. Andy Knight, “Conceptions of Global Leadership for Contextually Intelligent, Innovatively Adaptive Political Leaders,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership, ed. Joseph Masciulli, Mikhaila A. Molchanov, and W. Andy Knight (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 95–97. For a study on the psychopathological personality variables of Joseph Stalin’s leadership, see Birt, “Personality and Foreign Policy.”
  30. For example, see Peter B. Evans, “Building an Integrative Approach to International and Domestic Politics: Reflections and Projections,” in Evans, Jacobson, and Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, 403–4. See also Margaret G. Hermann, “When Leader Personality Will Affect Foreign Policy: Some Propositions,” in In Search of Global Patterns, ed. James N. Rosenau (New York: The Free Press, 1976); Hermann, “Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior.”
  31. Francis J.  Yammarino  and  Bernard  M.  Bass,  “Person  and  Situation Views of Leadership: A Multiple Levels of Analysis Approach,” Leadership Quarterly 2, no. 2 (1991): 122.
  32. Fred I. Greenstein, “Can Personality and Politics be Studied Systematically?” Political Psychology 13, no. 1 (1992): 108.
  33. Burns, Leadership, 413–15.
  34. See Joseph S. Nye, The Powers to Lead (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 64–65.
  35. Tomohito Shinoda, Leading Japan: The Role of the Prime Minister (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000).
  36. Glenn D. Hook et al., Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security (London: Routledge, 2001), 49–50.
  37. Gerald L. Curtis, The Japanese Way of Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 7; Kenneth B. Pyle, Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 228–29; John Welfield, An Empire in Eclipse: Japan in the Postwar American Alliance System: A Study in the Interaction of Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy (London: Athlone Press, 1988), 91–92.
  38. Bert Edström, Japan’s Evolving Foreign Policy Doctrine: From Yoshida to Miyazawa (London: Macmillan, 1999), 177–79.
  39. See Shinoda,  Koizumi  Diplomacy;  Edström,  Japan’s  Evolving  Foreign Policy Doctrine; Hugo Dobson, Japan and the G7/8: 1975–2002 (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004).
  40. Aurelia George Mulgan, “Japan’s Political Leadership Deficit,” Australian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 2 (2000): 183–84.
  41. Kenneth B. Pyle, The Japanese Question: Power and Purpose in a New Era, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1996), 68–69. See also Gerald L. Curtis, “Japanese Security Policies and the United States,” Foreign Affairs 59, no. 4 (1981): 853.
  42. Masciulli and Knight, “Conceptions of Global Leadership,” 96.
  43. On leadership vision, see Jean Blondel, Political Leadership: Towards a General Analysis (London: Sage, 1987), 83.
  44. Fred I. Greenstein, Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference, and Conceptualization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 40–57.
  45. Jonathan Hopkin, “Comparative Methods,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, ed. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, 2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 252–53.
  46. On strategic social construction, see Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink,  “International  Norm  Dynamics  and  Political  Change,”  International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 909, 910–11.


  1. Abe, Shinzō. Utsukushii Kuni e. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū, 2006.
  2. Adam, Elaine P. “Chronology 1979.” Foreign Affairs 58, no. 3 (1980): 738–74.
  3. Adam, Elaine P. “Chronology 1980.” Foreign Affairs 59, no. 3 (1981): 714–42.
  4. Adam, Elaine P. “Chronology 1981.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 3 (1982): 719–52.
  5. Agence France Presse, “In Japan, Politics is a Family Affair.” September 17, 2006.
  6. Akaha, Tsuneo. “Japan’s Nonnuclear Policy.” Asian Survey 24, no. 8 (1984): 852–77.
  7. Akiyama, Nobumasa. “The Socio-Political Roots of Japan’s Non-Nuclear Posture.” In Japan’s Nuclear Option: Security, Politics, and Policy in the 21st Century, edited by Benjamin L. Self and Jeffrey W. Thompson, 64–91. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003.
  8. Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: HarperCollins, 1971.
  9. Amako, Satoshi. “The Senkaku Islands Incident and Japan–China Relations.” East Asia Forum, October 25, 2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/10/25/the-senkaku-islands-incident-and-japan-china-relations/.
  10. “Annex: Strengthening Economic Cooperation for Growth and Stability.” May 30, Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 238–41.
  11. Armstrong, J. D. “The Group of Seven Summits.” In Dunn, Diplomacy at the Highest Level, 41–52.
  12. Asahi Shinbun. “EC Kessoku, Bei mo Torikomu: ‘Ōhira Ryū’ Tsūyō sezu.” June 30, 1979.
  13. Asahi Shinbun. “Gunshuku Suishin o Uttae: Shushō, Samitto e Ikō.” July 20, 1981.
  14. Asahi Shinbun. “Kakuryō Aitsugi Yasukuni Sanpai.” August 15, 1980.
  15. Asahi Shinbun. “Kibishii Keizai Jyōsei Kakugo: Kaisan no Ki, Shinchō ni Mosaku.” June 30, 1979.
  16. Asahi Shinbun. “Kōshiki Sanpai wa Gōken.” November 6, 1980.
  17. Asahi Shinbun. “Kyōkasho, Shushō mo Shūsei Ikō.” August 24, 1982.
  18. Asahi Shinbun. “Reegan Beidaitōryō: Kaidan Tsukare ka Kuchi Omoku.” July 22, 1981.
  19. Asahi Shinbun. “Seifu  toshite  wa  Tsumenu:  Yasukuni  Kōshiki  Sanpai  no  Gō/Iken.” November 12, 1980.
  20. Asahi Shinbun. “Sekiyu Igai no Hanashi: Sukunakute Zannen–Miki, Fukuda ga Kansō.” June 30, 1979.
  21. Asahi Shinbun. “Shushō  ‘Shinryaku  Teigi,  Sadamatteinai’  Murayama  Danwa  ‘Aimai.’ ” April 23, 2013.
  22. Asahi Shinbun. “Suzuki  Shushō  no  ‘Yasukuni’  Sanpai:  Chūgoku  ga  Kansetsu  Hihan ‘Kōshi Bokashita’ to Hōdō.” August 16, 1982.
  23. Asahi Shinbun. “Tainichi Hihan o Sakujo.” July 22, 1981.
  24. Avolio,  Bruce  J.,  and  Bernard  M.  Bass.  “Individual  Consideration  Viewed  at Multiple Levels of Analysis: A Multi-Level Framework for Examining the Diffusion of Transformational Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1995): 199–218.
  25. Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56, no. 4 (1962): 947–52.
  26. Baerwald,  Hans  H.,  and  Akira  Hashimoto.  “Japan  in  1982:  Doing  Nothing  is Best?” Asian Survey 23, no. 1 (1983): 53–61.
  27. Bass, Bernard M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press, 1985.
  28. Battishill,  A.  M.  W.  “Memorandum:  Note  for  Record.”  June  28,  1979.  http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/3826C8D11A974D63A878DE92B17B563A.pdf.
  29. Bayne, Nicholas. “Are the World Leaders Puppets or Puppeteers? The Sherpas and Decision Making within the G7/8 System.” In Decision Making Within International Organizations, edited by Bob Reinalda and Bertjan Verbeek, 139–53. London: Routledge, 2004.
  30. Bayne, Nicholas. Staying Together: The G8 Summit Confronts the 21st Century. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
  31. Berger, Thomas U. Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
  32. Berger, Thomas U. “From Sword to Chrysanthemum: Japan’s Culture of Anti-Militarism.” International Security 17, no. 4 (1993): 119–50.
  33. Berger, Thomas U. “The Pragmatic Liberalism of an Adaptive State.” In Japan in International Politics:  The Foreign  Policies  of  an  Adaptive  State,  edited  by  Thomas U. Berger, Mike M. Mochizuki, and Jitsuo Tsuchiyama, 259–99. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2007.
  34. Berridge, G. R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London: Prentice Hall, 1995.
  35. Birt,  Raymond.  “Personality  and  Foreign  Policy:  The Case  of  Stalin.”  Political Psychology 14, no. 4 (1993): 607–25.
  36. Blechinger-Talcott, Verena. “Shifting Incentives for Political Leadership.” In Japan’s Politics and Economy: Perspectives on Change, edited by Marie Söderberg and Patricia A. Nelson, 71–85. London: Routledge, 2010.
  37. Blondel,  Jean.  Political  Leadership:  Towards  a  General  Analysis.  London:  Sage, 1987.
  38. Bowen, Roger W. Japan’s Dysfunctional Democracy: The Liberal Democratic Party and Structural Corruption. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2003.
  39. Boyd, J. Patrick, and Richard J. Samuels. “Nine Lives? The Politics of Constitutional Reform in Japan.” Policy Studies 19. Washington, DC: East–West Center, 2005.
  40. Buckley, Roger. Japan Today. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  41. Buckley, Roger. The United States in the Asia-Pacific Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  42. Buckley, Roger. US–Japan   Alliance   Diplomacy,   1945–1990.   Cambridge:   Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  43. Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
  44. Burns, James MacGregor. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
  45. Burns, James MacGregor. Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Grove, 2003.
  46. Byman,  Daniel  L.,  and  Kenneth  M.  Pollack.  “Let  Us  Now  Praise  Great  Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In.” International Security 25, no. 4 (2001): 107–46.
  47. Cabinet  Law,  The (of  Japan).  http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government/frame_02.html.
  48. Cabinet Secretariat. “ ‘Koizumi Sōri Intabyū.” Shushō Kantei, August 15, 2006, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/koizumispeech/2006/08/15interview.html.
  49. Cabinet Secretariat. “Prime  Minister  Delivers  Address  at  the  National  Defense  Academy Graduation Ceremony.” Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, March 21, 2004,      http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/koizumiphoto/2004/03/21bouei_e.html.
  50. Cabinet Secretariat. “Prime Minister Koizumi Encourages Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF) to be Dispatched to Iraq.” Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, February 1, 2004, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/koizumiphoto/2004/02/01asahikawa_e.html.
  51. Calder,  Kent  E.  “Kanryō  vs.  Shomin:  Contrasting  Dynamics  of  Conservative Leadership  in  Postwar  Japan.”  In  Political  Leadership  in  Contemporary Japan,  edited  by  Terry  Edward  MacDougall,  1–29,  Michigan  Papers  in Japanese Studies 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1982.
  52. Campbell,  John  Creighton,  and  Ethan  Scheiner.  “Fragmentation  and  Power: Reconceptualizing  Policy  Making  under  Japan’s  1955  System.”  Japanese Journal of Political Science 9, no. 1 (2008): 89–113.
  53. Carey, Michael R. “Transformational Leadership and the Fundamental Option for Self-Transcendence.” Leadership Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1992): 217–36.
  54. Carlsnaes, Walter. “Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis.” In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, 85–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  55. Carlsnaes, Walter. “Foreign  Policy.”  In  Carlsnaes,  Risse,  and  Simmons,  Handbook  of International Relations, 331–49.
  56. Carlsnaes, Walter. “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1992): 245–70.
  57. Carlsnaes,  Walter,  Thomas  Risse,  and  Beth  A.  Simmons,  eds.  Handbook  of International Relations. London: Sage, 2002.
  58. Carlyle, Thomas. “The Leader as Hero.” In Kellerman, Political Leadership, 5–9. Carter,  Jimmy. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. Paperback ed. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1995.
  59. “Chairman’s Summary of Political Issues.” July 21, 1981. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 112–14.
  60. Chapman,  J.  W.  M.,  Reinhard  Drifte,  and  I.  T.  M.  Gow.  Japan’s  Quest  for Comprehensive  Security:  Defence,  Diplomacy,  and  Dependence.  London: Frances Pinter, 1983.
  61. Clausen,  Daniel.  “Examining  Japanese  Defense  Policy  and  Politics  Through Failures of Leadership: The Case of Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio.” Asian Politics & Policy 4, no. 4 (2012): 507–25.
  62. Clausen,  Daniel. “Leadership, Strategy, and Policy Entrepreneurship in Japanese Security Politics.”  Electronic  Journal  of  Contemporary  Japanese  Studies  13,  no.  1 (2013), http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol13/iss1/clausen.html.
  63. Cohen, Benjamin J. “An Explosion in the Kitchen? Economic Relations with Other Advanced Industrial States.” In Eagle Defiant: United States Foreign Policy in  the  1980s,  edited  by  Kenneth  A.  Oye,  Robert  J.  Lieber,  and  Donald Rothchild, 105–30. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1983.
  64. Curtis, Gerald. “A Time of Drift: Can Japanese Politics be Saved?” East Asia Forum Quarterly 4, no. 3 (2012): 5–6.
  65. Curtis, Gerald L. Election Campaigning Japanese Style. 1st paperback ed. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1983.
  66. Curtis, Gerald L. “Japanese Security Policies and the United States.” Foreign Affairs 59, no. 4 (1981): 852–74.
  67. Curtis, Gerald L. The Japanese Way of Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
  68. Curtis, Gerald L. The Logic  of  Japanese  Politics:  Leaders,  Institutions,  and  the  Limits  of Change. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
  69. Dahl,  Robert  A.  “The Concept  of  Power.”  Behavioral  Science  2,  no.  3  (1957): 201–15.
  70. Daily Yomiuri. “Yasukuni: Behind the Torii.” June 15, 2005.
  71. Davies, Mathew. “ASEAN and Human Rights Norms: Constructivism, Rational Choice, and the Action-Identity Gap.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 13, no. 2 (2013): 207–31.
  72. “Declaration” (for the Tokyo summit), June 29, 1979. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 64–70.
  73. “Declaration of the Ottawa Summit.” July 21, 1981. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 104–11.
  74. “Declaration on Economic Recovery.” Read by President Reagan, May 30, 1983. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 234–37.
  75. “Declaration of the Seven Heads of State and Government and Representatives of the European Communities.” June 6, 1982, http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/1982versailles/communique.html.
  76. Destler, I. M., and Hideo Sato, eds. Coping with US-Japanese Economic Conflicts. Lexington, MD: Lexington Books, 1982.
  77. Destler, I. M., and Hideo Sato. “Introduction.” In Destler and Sato, Coping with US-Japanese Economic Conflicts, 1–26.
  78. Destler,   I.   M.,   and   Hisao   Mitsuyu.   “Locomotives   on   Different   Tracks: Macroeconomic Diplomacy, 1977–1979.” In Destler and Sato, Coping with US-Japanese Economic Conflicts, 243–70.
  79. Dobson, Hugo. “Japan and the Changing Global Balance of Power: The View from the Summit.” Politics 31, no. 1 (2010): 33–42.
  80. Dobson, Hugo. Japan and the G7/8: 1975–2002. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.
  81. Dobson, Hugo. “The 2008 Hokkaido–Toyako G8 Summit: Neither Summit nor Plummet.” Asia-Pacific Journal, 48-5-08 (30 November 2008), http://www.japanfocus.org/_Hugo_Dobson-The_2008_Hokkaido_Toyako_G8_Summit    neither_summit_nor_plummet.
  82. Doi,  Takeo.  The  Anatomy  of  Dependence.  Tokyo  and  New  York:  Kodansha International, 1971.
  83. Dower,  John  W.  Empire  and  Aftermath:  Yoshida  Shigeru  and  the  Japanese Experience, 18781954. Paperback ed. Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Affairs, Harvard University Press, 1988.
  84. Downton,   James   V.   Rebel   Leadership:   Commitment   and   Charisma   in   the Revolutionary Process. New York: The Free Press, 1973.
  85. Dunn, David H., ed. Diplomacy at the Highest Level: The Evolution of International Summitry. London: Macmillan, 1996.
  86. Dunn, David H. “What is Summitry?” In Dunn, Diplomacy at the Highest Level, 3–22.
  87. Economist. “A Modern Guide to G-ology.” November 13, 2009.
  88. Economist. “Japan and Abenomics: Taxing Times.” October 5, 2013.
  89. Economist. “Japan’s Election: Look Young Please.” November 1, 2003.
  90. Edinger, Lewis J. “The Comparative Analysis of Political Leadership.” Comparative Politics 7, no. 2 (1975): 253–69.
  91. Edström, Bert. Japan’s Evolving Foreign Policy Doctrine: From Yoshida to Miyazawa. London: Macmillan, 1999.
  92. Edström, Bert. “Prime  Ministerial  Leadership  in  Japanese  Foreign  Policy.”  In  Neary, Leaders and Leadership in Japan, 243–64.
  93. Eguchi, Yujiro. “Japanese Energy Policy.” International Affairs 56, no. 2 (1980): 263–79.
  94. Eichenberg, Richard C. “Dual Track and Double Trouble: The Two-Level Politics of INF.” In Evans, Jacobson, and Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, 45–76.
  95. Elgie, Robert. Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies. London: Macmillan, 1995.
  96. Elliott, James. “The 1981 Administrative Reform in Japan.” Asian Survey 23, no. 6 (1983): 765–79.
  97. Envall, H. D. P. “Abe’s Fall: Leadership and Expectations in Japanese Politics.” Asian Journal of Political Science 19, no. 2 (2011): 149–70.
  98. Envall, H. D. P. “Abe’s  Yasukuni  Visit  Escalates  Tensions  in  Asia.”  East  Asia  Forum, January 3, 2014, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/01/03/abes-yasukuni-visit-escalates-tensions-in-asia/.
  99. Envall, H. D. P. “Exceptions  that  Make  the  Rule?  Koizumi  Jun’ichirō  and  Political Leadership in Japan.” Japanese Studies 28, no. 2 (2008): 227–42.
  100. Envall, H. D. P. “Japan’s  Grand  Strategy:  Goldilocks  and  the  Search  for  the  Perfect Porridge.”  Electronic  Journal  of  Contemporary  Japanese  Studies  10,  no.  1 (2010), http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/reviews/2010/Envall.html.
  101. Envall, H. D. P. “Japan’s Strategic Challenges in Asia.” AIIA Policy Commentary 15 (2013): 37–43.
  102. Envall, H. D. P. “Transforming  Security  Politics:  Koizumi  Jun’ichiro  and  the  Gaullist Tradition in Japan.” Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies 8,no. 2 (2008), https://japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/2008/Envall.html.
  103. Envall, H. D. P. “Underplaying the ‘Okinawa Card’: How Japan Negotiates its Alliance with the United States.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 67, no. 4 (2013): 383–402.
  104. Envall, H. D. P.,   and   Kiichi   Fujiwara,   “Japan’s   Misfiring  Security   Hedge: Discovering  the  Limits  of  Middle-Power  Internationalism  and  Strategic Convergence.” In Bilateral Perspectives on Regional Security: Australia, Japan and the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by William T. Tow and Rikki Kersten, 60–76. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
  105. Envall, H. D. P., and Kerri Ng. “Okinawa, the US–Japan Alliance, and Asia-Pacific Security,” ANU–MASI Policy Background Paper 11 (2013), http://asi.anu.edu.au/policy_background/ANU-MASI_Policy_Background_Paper_011.pdf.
  106. Evans, Peter B. “Building an Integrative Approach to International and Domestic Politics:  Reflections  and  Projections.”  In  Evans,  Jacobson,  and  Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, 397–430.
  107. Evans, Peter B., Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam, eds. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993.
  108. Farnham, Barbara. “Impact of the Political Context on Foreign Policy Decision-Making.” Political Psychology 25, no. 3 (2004): 441–63.
  109. Farnsworth, Lee W. “Japan in 1980: The Conservative Resurgence.” Asian Survey 21, no. 1 (1981): 70–83.
  110. Farnsworth, Lee W. “Japan in 1981: Meeting the Challenges.” Asian Survey 22, no. 1 (1982): 56–68.
  111. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917.
  112. Forester,  John.  “Bounded  Rationality  and  the  Politics  of  Muddling  Through.” Public Administration Review 44, no. 1 (1984): 23–31.
  113. Foyle, Douglas C. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a Mediating Variable.” International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1997): 141–69.
  114. Friedman,  Gil,  and  Harvey  Starr.  Agency,  Structure,  and  International  Politics: From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry. London: Routledge, 1997.
  115. Fujimura, Naofumi. “The Power Relationship Between the Prime Minister and Ruling Party Legislators: The Postal Service Privatization Act of 2005 in Japan.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8, no. 2 (2007): 233–61.
  116. Fukai, Shigeko N. “The Missing Leader: The Structure and Traits of Political Leadership in Japan.” In Political Psychology in Japan: Behind the Nails that Sometimes Stick Out (and get Hammered Down), edited by Ofer Feldman, 171–92. Commack, NY: Nova Science, 1999.
  117. Fukunaga, Fumio. Ōhira Masayoshi. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2008.
  118. Fukushima, Shingo. Nihon no Seiji Shidō to Kadai. Tokyo: Miraisha, 1992.
  119. Funabashi, Yōichi. “Daisan no Kaikoku: Nakasone Yasuhiro ‘Seij to Jinsei.’ ” Foresight January (2001): 58–61.
  120. Funabashi, Yōichi. Samitto no Shisō. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbun, 1980.
  121. Gaunder,  Alisa.  Political Reform in Japan: Leadership Looming Large. London: Routledge, 2007.
  122. George  Mulgan,  Aurelia.  “Abe  Rocks  Japan’s  Constitutional  Boat.”  East  Asia Forum, May 21, 2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/21/abe-rocks-japans-constitutional-boat/.
  123. George  Mulgan,  Aureli—. Japan’s Failed Revolution: Koizumi and the Politics of Economic Reform. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press, 2002.
  124. George  Mulgan,  Aureli. “Japan’s Political Leadership Deficit.” Australian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 2 (2000): 183–202.
  125. George  Mulgan,  Aureli. “The Leadership Role of the Prime Minister and Party.” Policy and Society 23, no. 1 (2004): 5–20.
  126. Gotōda, Masaharu. Jō to Ri: Gotōda Masaharu Kaikoroku, vol. 2. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1998.
  127. Gourevitch, Peter. “Domestic Politics and International Relations.” In Carlsnaes, Risse, and Simmons, Handbook of International Relations, 309–28.
  128. Gourevitch, Peter. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics.” International Organization 32, no. 4 (1978): 881–912.
  129. Graham, Euan. Japan’s Sea Lane Security, 1940–2004: A Matter of Life and Death? London: Routledge, 2006.
  130. Green, Michael J. “Balance of Power.” In US–Japan Relations in a Changing World, edited by Steven K. Vogel, 9–34. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2002.
  131. Green, Michael J. Japan’s Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of Uncertain Power. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
  132. Green, Michael J. “The Search for an Active Security Partnership: Lessons from the 1980s.” In Partnership: The United States and Japan, 1951–2001, edited by Akira Iriye and Robert A. Wampler, 135–60. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 2001.
  133. Green, Michael J., and Benjamin L. Self. “Japan’s Changing China Policy: From Commercial Liberalism to Reluctant Realism.” Survival 38, no. 2 (1996): 35–58.
  134. Greenstein,  Fred  I.  “Can  Personality  and  Politics  be  Studied  Systematically?” Political Psychology 13, no. 1 (1992): 105–28.
  135. Greenstein,  Fred  I. “The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush.” American Political Science Review 61, no. 3 (1967): 629–41.
  136. Greenstein,  Fred  I. Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference, and Conceptualization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.
  137. Grove,  Andrea  K.  Political  Leadership  in  Foreign  Policy:  Manipulating  Support Across Borders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
  138. Guardian. “Lockheed Verdicts Blow to Japan’s PM.” June 9, 1982.
  139. Gustafsson,  Karl.  “Japanese  Prime  Minister  Abe’s  U-turn  on  the  Murayama Statement.”  East  Asia  Forum,  May  31,  2013,  http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/31/japanese-prime-minister-abes-u-turn-on-the-murayama-statement/.
  140. Hagan, Joe D. “Does Decision Making Matter? Systemic Assumptions vs. Historical Reality in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 3, no. 2 (2001): 5–46.
  141. Hagström, Linus. “The Democratic Party of Japan’s Security Policy and Japanese Politics of Constitutional Revision: A Cloud Over Article 9?” Australian Journal of International Affairs 64, no. 5 (2010): 510–25.
  142. Hajnal, Peter I. The G7/G8 System: Evolution, Role and Documentation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
  143. Hajnal, Peter I., ed. The Seven-Power Summit: Documents from the Summits of Industrialized  Countries,  1975–1989.  Millwood,  NY:  Kraus  International Publications, 1989.
  144. Hajnal,  Peter  I.,  and  John  J.  Kirton.  “The Evolving  Role  and  Agenda  of  the G7/G8: A North American Perspective.” NIRA Review 7, no. 2 (2000): 5–10. http://www.nira.or.jp/past/publ/review/2000spring/03hajnal.pdf.
  145. Hall,  Ian.  “Still  the  English  Patient?  Closures  and  Inventions  in  the  English School.” International Affairs 77, no. 3 (2001): 931–42.
  146. Hashimoto, Gorō. “Nihonteki Riidaa no Shoruikei.” In Nihon Seiji no Kako, Genzai, Mirai, edited by Kobayashi Yoshiaki, 177–206. Tokyo: Keio University Press, 1999.
  147. Haslam, Jonathan. The Soviet Union and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1969–87: The Problem of the SS-20. London: Macmillan, 1989.
  148. Hatoyama, Yukio. “A New Path for Japan.” New York Times, August 26, 2009.
  149. Hatoyama, Yukio. “Japan’s New Commitment to Asia: Toward the Realization of an East Asian Community.” Address by H. E. Dr Yukio Hatoyama, Prime Minister of  Japan,  November  15,  2009,  http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/hatoyama/statement/200911/15singapore_e.html.
  150. Hatoyama, Yukio. “Policy Speech by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at the 174th Session of the Diet.” January 29, 2010, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/hatoyama/statement/201001/29siseihousin_e.html.
  151. Hatoyama, Yukio. “Sofu, Ichirō ni Manada “Yūai” to iu Tatakai no Hatajirushi.” Voice, September 2009, http://voiceplus-php.jp/archive/detail.jsp?id=197.
  152. Hayao, Kenji. The Japanese Prime Minister and Public Policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993.
  153. Heginbotham, Eric, and Richard J. Samuels. “Mercantile Realism and Japanese Foreign Policy.” International Security 22, no. 4 (1998): 171–203.
  154. Henshall,  Kenneth  G.  A  Guide  to  Remembering  Japanese  Characters.  Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Co., 1988.
  155. Hermann, Margaret G. “Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders.” International Studies Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1980): 7–46.
  156. Hermann, Margaret G. “When Leader Personality Will Affect Foreign Policy: Some Propositions.” In In Search of Global Patterns, edited by James N. Rosenau, 326–33. New York: The Free Press, 1976.
  157. Hermann, Margaret G., and Joe D. Hagan, “International Decision Making: Leadership Matters.” Foreign Policy 110, Spring (1998): 124–37.
  158. Hermann, Margaret G., and Charles F. Hermann. “Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry.” International Studies Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1989): 361–87.
  159. Hermann, Margaret G., and Charles W. Kegley Jr. “Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology.” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 4 (1995): 511–33.
  160. Hermann, Margaret G., Thomas Preston, Baghat Korany, and Timothy M. Shaw. “Who  Leads  Matters:  The Effects of  Powerful  Individuals.”  International Studies Review 3, no. 2 (2001): 83–131.
  161. Hollander, Edwin P. “Legitimacy, Power, and Influence: A Perspective on Relational Features of Leadership.” In Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, edited by Martin M. Chemers and Roya Ayman, 29–46. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.
  162. Honda, Masatoshi. Gendai Nihon no Seiji to Gyōsei. Tokyo: Hokuju Shuppan, 2001.
  163. Hook, Glenn D. Militarization and Demilitarization in Contemporary Japan. London: Routledge, 1996.
  164. Hook, Glenn D., Julie Gilson, Christopher W. Hughes, and Hugo Dobson. Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security. London: Routledge, 2001.
  165. Hopkin, Jonathan. “Comparative Methods.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, 249–67. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
  166. Hrebenar, Ronald J. Japan’s New Party System. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000.
  167. Hudson, Valerie M. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
  168. Hudson, Valerie M., and Christopher S. Vore. “Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Mershon International Studies Review 39, no. 2 (1995): 209–38.
  169. Hughes, Christopher W. Japan’s Remilitarisation, Adelphi series 403. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
  170. Hughes, Christopher W. Japan’s Security Agenda: Military, Economic, and Environmental Dimensions. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2004.
  171. Hughes, Christopher W., and Ellis S. Krauss. “Japan’s New Security Agenda.” Survival 49, no. 2 (2007): 157–76.
  172. Hunt, John, and Henry Owen. “Stock of the Seven-Power Summits: Two Views.” International Affairs 60, no. 4 (1984): 657–61.
  173. Hurd, Ian. “Constructivism.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited  by  Christian  Reus-Smit  and  Duncan  Snidal,  298–316.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  174. Igarashi, Jin. “Nakasone Moto Shushō ni Okeru Riidaashippu no Kenkyū.” Revaiasan 5 (1989): 167–82.
  175. Iida,  Keisuke.  “When  and  How  Do  Domestic  Constraints  Matter?  Two-Level Games with Uncertainty.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37, no. 3 (1993): 403–26.
  176. Inoguchi, Takashi. Japan’s International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.
  177. Inoguchi, Takashi. “Kanryōsei no Rekishi Kara Mita Nihon Seiji.” Revaiasan 18 (1996): 7–28.
  178. Inoguchi, Takashi, and Paul Bacon. “Japan’s Emerging Role as a ‘Global Ordinary Power,’” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 6, no. 1 (2006): 1–22.
  179. Inoguchi,  Takashi,  and  Iwai  Tomoaki.  Zokugiin  no  Kenkyū:  Jimintō  Seiken  o Gyūjiru Shuyakutachi. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 1987.
  180. Iokibe, Makoto. “Fukuda Takeo: Seisaku no Shōsha, Seisō no Haisha.” In Watanabe, Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi, 261–96.
  181. Iokibe, Makoto. “Introduction: Japanese Diplomacy from Prewar to Postwar.” In Iokibe and Eldridge, The Diplomatic History of Postwar Japan, 1–16.
  182. Iokibe, Makoto. “Japanese Diplomacy After the Cold War.” In Iokibe and Eldridge, The Diplomatic History of Postwar Japan, 173–209.
  183. Iokibe, Makoto, ed., and Robert D. Eldridge, trans. The Diplomatic History of Postwar Japan. London: Routledge, 2011.
  184. Iriye, Akira. Japan and the Wider World: From Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present. New York: Longman, 1997.
  185. Izumikawa, Yasuhiro. “Explaining Japanese Antimilitarism: Normative and Realist Constraints on Japan’s Security Policy.” International Security 35, no. 2 (2010): 123–60.
  186. Japan Times. “Cabinet Secretary Calls Summit Very Successful.” July 23, 1981.
  187. Japan Times. “ ‘Consensus’ Main Purpose of Summit, Suzuki Says.” July 17, 1981.
  188. Japan Times. “Defiant Koizumi Visits Yasukuni.” August 16, 2006.
  189. Japan Times. “Inflation Vital Issue, Ohira Tells Summit.” June 29, 1979.
  190. Japan Times. “Japan Calls on West for Cooperation.” May 30, 1983.
  191. Japan Times. “Japan Politically Bound with NATO.” June 1, 1983.
  192. Japan Times. “Nakasone Calls for Greater Japan-ASEAN Cooperation.” May 10, 1983.
  193. Japan Times. “Nakasone Expresses Hope for US–USSR Summit.” May 29, 1983.
  194. Japan Times. “Nakasone–Reagan Summit Ends; Trade Steps Vowed.” January 21, 1983.
  195. Japan Times. “Nakasone Returns Home From ASEAN, Brunei Tour.” May 11, 1983.
  196. Japan Times. “Officials Hail Ottawa Summit Communiqué over Free Trade.” July 23, 1981.
  197. Japan Times. “Ohira, Ministers to Push MTN Accords at Summit.” June 8, 1979.
  198. Japan Times. “Ohira to Present 5-Point Energy Program of Japan at Summit.” June 23, 1979.
  199. Japan Times. “Ohira to Push Int’l Unity at June Summit.” June 6, 1979.
  200. Japan Times—. “ ‘Powerful Leadership’ Needed, Nakasone Says.” May 31, 1983.
  201. Japan Times. “Premier Admits Saying Japan Should Be ‘Unsinkable Carrier.’ ” January 22, 1983.
  202. Japan Times. “Reagan Expects Nakasone Meet Will Make Progress on Trade Issues.” January 19, 1983.
  203. Japan Times. “Reagan, Suzuki to Meet Separately at Summit.” July 12, 1981.
  204. Japan Times. “Seven Challenged to Prove Value of Economic Summit.” June 8, 1979.
  205. Japan Times. “Summit Leaders Fail to Persuade Reagan to Lower Interest Rates.” July 22, 1981.
  206. Japan Times. “Suzuki Lauds Summit Faith in Free Trade.” July 23, 1981.
  207. Japan Times. “Suzuki, Reagan Discuss Relations.” July 22, 1981.
  208. Japan Times. “Suzuki to Explain Gov’t Position On Defense to Reagan in Ottawa.” July 9, 1981.
  209. Japan Times. “US Interest Rates, Japanese Exports to Be Topics at Summit.” July 20, 1981.
  210. Japan Times. “West Must Adjust Basic Economic Setup: Suzuki.” July 22, 1981.
  211. Japan Times. “Williamsburg Summit Participants Display Unity on Nuclear Missiles.” May 31, 1983.
  212. Japan Times Online. “Upper House Showdown.” July 30, 2007.
  213. Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
  214. Johnson,  Chalmers.  “East  Asia:  Another  Year  of  Living  Dangerously.”  Foreign Affairs 62, no. 3 (1984): 721–45.
  215. Johnson,  Chalmers. Japan: Who Governs? The Rise of the Developmental State. New York:W. W. Norton,
  216. Johnson,  Chalmers. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982.
  217. Johnston, Alastair Iain. “Thinking About Strategic Culture.” International Security 19, no. 4 (1995): 32–64.
  218. “Joint Communique, Productive Partnership for the 1980’s” (visit of Prime Minister Ohira of Japan). Reproduced at The World and Japan Database Project, University  of  Tokyo.  http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/JPUS/19790502.D1E.html.
  219. Jones, Bryan D. “Causation, Constraint, and Political Leadership.” In Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science, edited by Bryan D. Jones, 3–14. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1989.
  220. Jones, Bryan D. Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
  221. Kaarbo,  Juliet.  “Prime  Minister  Leadership  Styles  in  Foreign  Policy  Decision-Making: A Framework for Research.” Political Psychology 18, no. 3 (1997): 553–81.
  222. Kaarbo, Juliet, and Margaret G. Hermann. “Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers: How Individual Differences Affect the Foreign Policymaking Process.” Leadership Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1998): 243–63.
  223. Kabashima, Ikuo, and Gill Steel. “How Junichiro Koizumi Seized the Leadership of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8, no. 1 (2007): 95–114.
  224. Kageyama, Noboru. Seinen Suzuki Zenkō to Gyokyō Undō: Moto Sōri no Kiseki. Tokyo: Naruyama Dōshoten, 1992.
  225. Kaiser, Robert G. “US-Soviet Relations: Goodbye to Détente.” Foreign Affairs 59,no. 3 (1981): 500–21.
  226. Katzenstein, Peter J. Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).
  227. Katzenstein,  Peter  J.,  ed.  Rethinking  Japanese  Security:  Internal  and  External Dimensions. London: Routledge, 2008.
  228. Katzenstein, Peter J., and Nobuo Okawara. “Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism.” In Katzenstein, Rethinking Japanese Security, 32–55.
  229. Katzenstein, Peter J., and Nobuo Okawara. “Japan’s National Security: Structures, Norms, and Policies.” International Security 17, no. 4 (1993): 84–118.
  230. Katzenstein, Peter J., and Rudra Sil. “Rethinking Asian Security: A Case for Analytical Eclecticism.” In Katzenstein, Rethinking Japanese Security, 249–85.
  231. Kawahira,  Masato. “Campaigning to Start Today for 126 Upper House Seats.” Japan Times, June 3, 1983.
  232. Kawasaki, Tsuyoshi. “Postclassical Realism and Japanese Security Policy.” Pacific Review 14, no. 2 (2001): 221–40.
  233. Kawauchi, Issei. Ōhira Seiken:554 Nichi: Mizukara no Seimei o kakete Hoshu o Mamotta. Tokyo: Gyōsei Mondai Kenkyūjo Shuppankyoku, 1982.
  234. Keddell,  Joseph  P.  Jr.  The Politics  of  Defense  in  Japan:  Managing  Internal  and External Pressures. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1993.
  235. Keller, Jonathan W. “Leadership Style, Regime Type, and Foreign Policy Crisis Behavior: A Contingent Monadic Peace?” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 2 (2005): 205–31.
  236. Kellerman, Barbara, ed. Political Leadership: A Source Book. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986.
  237. Kemezis, Paul. “The Permanent Crisis: Changes in the World Oil System.” Orbis 23, no. 4 (1980): 761–84.
  238. Kennedy,  Andrew  Bingham.  The International  Ambitions  of  Mao  and  Nehru: National Efficacy Beliefs and the Making of Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  239. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. 3rd ed. New York: Longman, 2001.
  240. Kersten, Rikki. “Japanese Security Policy Formation: Assessing the Koizumi Revolution.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 65, no. 1 (2011): 5–23.
  241. Kikuchi, Kiyoaki. “Otawa Samitto no Seika to Nihon.” Sekai Keizai Hyōron October (1981): 4–13.
  242. Kirton, John J. “The G7/8 and China: Toward a Closer Association.” In Guiding Global Order: G8 Governance in the Twenty-first Century, edited by John J. Kirton, Joseph P. Daniels, and Andreas Freytag, 189–222. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.
  243. Kirton, John J. “The G20  Takes  Centre  Stage.”  In  Growth,  Innovation,  Inclusion:  The G20 at Ten, edited by John Kirton and Madeline Koch, 16–17. London: Newsdesk Communications, 2008.
  244. Kishi, Nobusuke. “Makoto no Dokuritsu Nihon no tame ni.” Fūsei, January 1954,  reproduced in Kishi Nobusuke. Kishi Nobusuke Kaikoroku: Hoshu Gōdō to Anpo Kaitei. Tokyo: Kōsaidō, 1983.
  245. Kitaoka,  Shin’ichi.  “Kishi  Nobusuke:  Yashin  to  Zassetsu.”  In  Watanabe,  Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi, 121–47.
  246. Kitaoka,  Shin’ichi. “Sengo Nihon no Gaikō Shisō.” In Sengo Nihon Gaikō Ronshū, edited by Kitaoka Shin’ichi, 5–41. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1995.
  247. Kiyomiya, Ryū. Fukuda Seiken: 714 Nichi. Tokyo: Gyōsei Mondai Kenkyūjo Shuppankyoku, 1984.
  248. Klein, Donald W. “Japan 1979: The Second Oil Crisis.” Asian Survey 20, no. 1 (1980): 42–52.
  249. Klien, Susanne. Rethinking Japan’s Identity and International Role: An Intercultural Perspective. London: Routledge, 2002.
  250. Kliman, Daniel. Japan’s Security Strategy in the Post–9/11 World: Embracing a New Realpolitik. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.
  251. Kohno, Masaru. Japan’s Postwar Party Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
  252. Krauss, Ellis S., and Benjamin Nyblade. “ ‘Presidentialization’ in Japan? The Prime Minister, Media and Elections in Japan.” British Journal of Political Science 35, no. 2 (2005): 357–68.
  253. Krauss, Ellis S., and Robert Pekkanen. “Profiles in Discourage: Prime Ministerial Leadership in Post-War Japan.” In Poor Leadership and Bad Governance: Reassessing  Presidents  and  Prime  Ministers  in  North  America,  Europe and Japan, edited by Ludger Helms, 173–94. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2012.
  254. Kreslins, Janis. “Chronology 1982.” Foreign Affairs 61, no. 3 (1983): 714–44.
  255. Kusano,  Atsushi.  “Nakasone  Yasuhiro:  Daitōryōteki  Shushō  no  Menboku.”  In Watanabe, Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi, 337–73.
  256. Kurzman, Dan. Kishi and Japan: The Search for the Sun. New York: Ivan Obolensky, 1960.
  257. Langdon,  Frank.  “Japan–United  States  Trade  Friction:  The Reciprocity  Issue.” Asian Survey 23, no. 5 (1983): 653–66.
  258. Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (1999): 5–55.
  259. Levy, Jack S. “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield.” International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994): 279–312.
  260. Levy, Walter J. “Oil and the Decline of the West.” Foreign Affairs 58, no. 5 (1980): 999–1015.
  261. Lewis, Flora. “Alarm Bells in the West.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 3 (1982): 551–72.
  262. Lind, Jennifer M. “Pacifism or Passing the Buck? Testing Theories of Japanese Security Policy.” International Security 29, no. 1 (2004): 92–121.
  263. Loderer, Claudio. “A Test of the OPEC Cartel Hypothesis: 1974–1983.” Journal of Finance 40, no. 3 (1985): 991–1006.
  264. Lukes, Steven, ed. Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
  265. Maeno, J. Rey. “Japan 1973: The End of an Era?” Asian Survey 14, no. 1 (1974): 52–64.
  266. Mainichi Daily News. “2 Elderly Women at Shelter who Formed Sister-Like Bond Fear Separation.” May 3, 2011.
  267. Maki, Tarō. Nakasone Seiken: 1806 Nichi, vols 1 and 2. Tokyo: Gyōken Shuppankyoku, 1988.
  268. Maki, Tarō. Nakasone wa Nan Datta no ka. Tokyo: Sōshisha, 1988.
  269. Masciulli, Joseph, and W. Andy Knight. “Conceptions of Global Leadership for Contextually  Intelligent,  Innovatively  Adaptive  Political  Leaders.”  In  The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership, edited by Joseph Masciulli,  Mikhaila  A.  Molchanov,  and  W.  Andy  Knight,  89–122.  Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.
  270. Masumi, Junnosuke. Contemporary Politics in Japan. Translated by Lonny E. Carlile, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995.
  271. Mayer, Jeremy D. “International Relations Theory and Japanese Pacifism: Why Didn’t Tokyo Go Ballistic Over North Korean Nukes?” Journal of Northeast Asian Studies 15, no. 2 (1996): 50–62.
  272. McCormack, Gavan. The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence. Revised ed. New York:E. Sharpe, 2001.
  273. McDougall, Derek. Asia Pacific in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2007.
  274. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
  275. Midford, Paul. “The Logic of Reassurance and Japan’s Grand Strategy.” Security Studies 11, no. 3 (2002): 1–43.
  276. Milner,  Helen  V.  Interests,  Institutions,  and  Information:  Domestic  Politics  and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
  277. Miyagi, Yukiko. “Foreign Policy Making under Koizumi: Norms and Japan’s Role in the 2003 Iraq War.” Foreign Policy Analysis 5, no. 4 (2009): 349–66.
  278. Miyashita, Akitoshi. “Where Do Norms Come From? Foundations of Japan’s Postwar Pacifism.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 1 (2007): 99–120.
  279. Miyazaki, Hiromichi. “Tōkyō Samitto no Shinsō to Nihon.” Sekai Keizai Hyōron September (1979): 4–22.
  280. Mo, Jongryn. “The Logic of Two-Level Games with Endogenous Domestic Coalitions.” Journal of Conflict 38, no. 39 (1994): 402–22.
  281. Moïsi, Dominique. “Mitterrand’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Continuity.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 2 (1981): 347–57.
  282. Moravcsik, Andrew. “Armaments Among Allies: European Weapons Collaboration, 1975–1985.” In Evans, Jacobson, and Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, 128–67.
  283. Moravcsik, Andrew. “Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining.” In Evans, Jacobson, and Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, 3–42.
  284. Mochizuki, Mike, and Michael O’Hanlon. “A Liberal Vision for the US-Japanese Alliance.” Survival 40, no. 2 (1998): 127–34.
  285. Muramatsu, Michio. “In Search of National Identity: The Politics and Policies of the Nakasone Administration.” Journal of Japanese Studies 13, no. 2 (1987): 307–42.
  286. Muramatsu, Michio. “Ōhira Masayoshi: Sainyū Saishutsu Seiji Mondai Teikisha.” In Watanabe, Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi, 297–313.
  287. Muramatsu, Michio. “Patterned Pluralism Under Challenge: The Policies of the 1980s.” In Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan, edited by Gary D. Allinson and Yasunori Sone, 50–71. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
  288. Muramatsu, Michio, and Ellis S. Krauss. “The Conservative Policy Line and the Development of Patterned Pluralism.” In The Political Economy of Japan Volume  One:  The Domestic  Transformation,  edited  by  Kozo  Yamamura and  Yasukichi  Yasuba,  516–54.  Stanford,  CA:  Stanford  University  Press, 1987.
  289. Murata, Kōji. “Do the New Guidelines Make the Japan-U.S. Alliance More Effective?” In The Japan–US Alliance: New Challenges for the Twenty-first Century, edited by Nishihara Masashi, 19–38. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2000.
  290. Murata, Kōji. “The Mission and Trials of an Emerging International State: Japanese Diplomacy in the 1980s.” In Iokibe and Eldridge, The Diplomatic History of Postwar Japan, 143–72.
  291. Nagatomi, Yuichiro, ed. Masayoshi Ohira’s Proposal: To Evolve the Global Society. Tokyo: Foundation for Advanced Information and Research, 1988.
  292. Nakamura, Takafusa. A History of Shōwa Japan, 1926–1989. Translated by Edwin Whenmouth, Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1998.
  293. Nakane, Chie. Japanese Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
  294. Nakasone, Yasuhiro. The Making of the New Japan: Reclaiming the Political Mainstream. Translated and annotated by Lesley Connors, Surry: Curzon Press, 1999.
  295. Nakasone, Yasuhiro. “Nijūsan Sai de Sanzennin no Sōshikikan.” In Owarinaki Kaigun: Wakai Sedai e Tsutaetai Nokoshitai, edited by Matsu’ura Takanori, 90–8. Tokyo: Bunka Hōsō Kaihatsu Sentā Shuppanbu, 1978.
  296. Nakasone, Yasuhiro. “Petition to General MacArthur.” January 1951. Reproduced in Nakasone, The Making of the New Japan, 236–52.
  297. Nakasone, Yasuhiro. Tenchi Yūjō: Gojūnen no Sengo Seiji o Kataru. Interviewed by Itō Takahashi and Satō Seizaburō. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū, 1996.
  298. Neary, Ian. “Leaders and Leadership in Japan.” In Neary, Leaders and Leadership in Japan, 1–13.
  299. Neary, Ian, ed. Leaders and Leadership in Japan. Richmond, UK: Japan Library, 1996.
  300. Nihon  Keizai  Shinbun.  “Gunkan  Māchi  ga  Kangei:  Samitto  Beigawa  ‘Misu’ Shakumei.” May 30, 1983.
  301. Nihon  Keizai  Shinbun. “NATO Gunji Kyōryoku Nai: Nakasone Shushō, Samitto Seiji Seimei de Setsumei.” May 31, 1983.
  302. Nihon  Keizai  Shinbun. “Zenchikyū Kibo de Suishin: INF Kōshō Seiji Seimei o Happyō.” May 30, 1983.
  303. Nishihara,  Masashi.  “Expanding  Japan’s  Credible  Defense  Role.”  International Security 8, no. 3 (1983/1984): 180–205.
  304. Nishimura, Yoshihiro. “Ohira Seeks ‘Long Range Viewpoint.’ ” Japan Times, June 26, 1979.
  305. Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007.
  306. Nye, Joseph S. The Powers to Lead. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  307. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). OECD Economic Outlook 30, December (1981).
  308. OECD. OECD Economic Outlook 32, December (1982).
  309. OECD. OECD Economic Outlook 34, December (1983).
  310. OECD. OECD Economic Outlook 35, July (1984).
  311. OECD. OECD Economic Outlook 38, December (1985).
  312. OECD. OECD Economic Surveys: Japan. Paris: OECD, July 1979.
  313. OECD. OECD Economic Surveys: Japan. Paris: OECD, July 1980.
  314. Ōhira, Masayoshi. “Meeting Drawing Attention, Expectations of the World.” Japan Times, June 28, 1979.
  315. Ōhira, Masayoshi. “Policy  Speech.”  Official  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  translation  of speech given to the 87th Diet (January 25, 1979). Reproduced in Brush Strokes: Moments from My Life, by Masayoshi Ōhira, 173–87. Translated by  Simul  International,  English  ed.  Tokyo:  Foreign  Press  Center,  Japan, 1979.
  316. Okazaki  Institute.  United  States–Japan  Strategic  Dialogue:  Beyond  the  Defense Guidelines. Transcript of a public seminar, CGP International Conference Hall, Ark Mori Building, Tokyo (January 15, 2001). http://www.glocomnet.or.jp/okazaki-inst/e2juproje/e2juproje.opening.html.
  317. Okita,  Saburo.  Tightrope:  Balancing  Economics  and  Responsibility  in  Japanese Diplomacy  1979–1980.  Tokyo:  Institute  for  Domestic  and  International Policy Studies, 1992.
  318. Oriental  Economist.  “ ‘Can’t  Help  Myself ’:  Abe  Goes  Way  Off  Message  with ‘Aggression’ Retraction.” 81, no. 5 (2013): 1–2, 13.
  319. Oriental  Economist. “How Many Arrows has Abe? MOF, BOJ Press Abe to Reverse Second Arrow.” 81, no. 4 (2013): 1–4.
  320. Oros, Andrew L. Normalizing Japan: Politics, Identity and the Evolution of Security Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008.
  321. Ostry, Sylvia. “The World Economy in 1983: Marking Time.” Foreign Affairs 62,no. 3 (1984): 553–60.
  322. “Ottawa Summit Statement on Terrorism.” July 21, 1981. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 115–16.
  323. Owada, Hisashi. “A Japanese Perspective on the Role and Future of the G-7.” The International Spectator 29, no. 2 (1994): 95–112. http://www.library. utoronto.ca/g7/scholar/owada1994/document.html.
  324. Owen, Henry. “Memorandum: For the President.” Tokyo Summit (June 22, 1979). http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/9942B14F0E714127A8EABAD2690CCD95.pdf.
  325. Ozawa, Ichiro. Blueprint for a New Japan: The Rethinking of a Nation. Translated by Louisa Rubinfien and edited by Eric Gower. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1994.
  326. Paige, Glenn D. The Scientific Study of Political Leadership. New York: Macmillan, 1977.
  327. Pempel, T. J. “The Bureaucratization of Policymaking in Postwar Japan.” American Journal of Political Science 18, no. 4 (1974): 647–64.
  328. Pempel, T. J. “The Unbundling of ‘Japan, Inc.’: The Changing Dynamics of Japanese Policy Formation.” Journal of Japanese Studies 13, no. 2 (1987): 271–306.
  329. Pereira, Derwin, and Kwan Weng Kin. “Will Abe Learn to Rock and Roll?” Straits Times, October 1, 2006.
  330. Pharr, Susan J., and Takako Kishima. “Japan in 1986: A Landmark Year for the LDP.” Asian Survey 27, no. 1 (1987): 23–34.
  331. Post, Jerrold M. Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.
  332. “Prime Minister Ohira’s Concluding Statement at the Joint News Conference.” Tokyo Summit (June 29, 1979). Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 72–4.
  333. Putnam, Robert D. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–69.
  334. Putnam, Robert . “Summit Sense.” Foreign Policy 55, Summer (1984): 73–91.
  335. Putnam, Robert D., and Nicholas Bayne. Hanging Together: The Seven-Power Summits. London: Heinemann for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1984.
  336. Putnam, Robert D., and Nicholas Bayne. Hanging Together: Cooperation and Conflict in the Seven-Power Summits. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
  337. Pyle, Kenneth B. Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose. New York: Public Affairs, 2007.
  338. Pyle, Kenneth B. The Japanese Question: Power and Purpose in a New Era. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1996.
  339. Ramseyer, J. Mark, and Frances McCall Rosenbluth. Japan’s Political Marketplace. Paperback ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
  340. Reagan, Ronald. “Joint Communique Following Discussions with Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki of Japan.” May 8, 1981. Reproduced in The American Presidency Project, by John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, Santa Barbara, CA. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43793.
  341. Rejai, Mostafa, and Kay Phillips. Loyalists and Revolutionaries: Political Leaders Compared. New York: Praeger, 1988.
  342. Richardson, Bradley M. The Political Culture of Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974.
  343. Richardson, Bradley M., and Scott C. Flanagan. Politics in Japan. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1984.
  344. Rose,  Gideon.  “Neoclassical  Realism  and  Theories  of  Foreign  Policy.”  World Politics 51, no. 1 (1998): 144–72.
  345. Rosenau, James N. “Introduction.” In Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, edited by James N. Rosenau, 1–10. New York: The Free Press, 1967.
  346. Rosenau, James N. “Followership and Discretion: Assessing the Dynamics of Modern Leadership.” Harvard International Review 26, no. 3 (2004): 14–17.
  347. Rosenbluth, Frances McCall, and Michael F. Thies. Japan Transformed: Political Change and Economic Restructuring. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.
  348. Ross, Robert S. “US Relations with China.” In Vogel, Ming, and Akihiko, The Golden Age of the US–China–Japan Triangle, 1972–1989, 79–108.
  349. Roth, Ariel Ilan. Leadership in International Relations: The Balance of Power and the Origins of World War II. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
  350. Ruscio, Kenneth P. The Leadership Dilemma in Modern Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004.
  351. Rusk, James. “PM Visits Reagan in Last-Minute Bid for Summit Unity.” Globe and Mail, July 10, 1981.
  352. Sadō, Akihiro. Sengo Nihon no Bōei to Seiji. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2003.
  353. Saito, Shiro. Japan at the Summit: Its Role in the Western Alliance and in Asian Pacific Co-operation. London: Routledge, 1990.
  354. Sakamoto,  Kazuya.  “Conditions  of  an  Independent  State:  Japanese  Diplomacy in the 1950s.” In Iokibe and Eldridge, The Diplomatic History of Postwar Japan, 50–80.
  355. Sakurada, Daizo. Japan and the Management of the International Political Economy: Japan’s Seven Power Summit Diplomacy, Country Study No. 6. Toronto: Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, 1988.
  356. Sankei Shinbun. “Jieitai o ‘Guntai ni’: Shushō, Shōrai no Kenpō Kaisei ni Kitai.” May 21, 2003.
  357. Satake,  Tomohiko,  and  Yusuke  Ishihara.  “America’s  Rebalance  to  Asia  and  its Implications  for  Japan–US–Australia  Security  Cooperation.”  Asia-Pacific Review 19, no. 2 (2012): 6–25.
  358. Samuels, Richard J. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and their Legacies in Italy and Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.
  359. Samuels, Richard J. Rich  Nation,  Strong  Army”:  National  Security  and  the  Technological Transformation of Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
  360. Samuels, Richard J. Securing Japan: Tokyo’s Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007.
  361. Satō, Seizaburō, Ken’ichi Koyama, and Shunpei Kumon. Postwar Politician: The Life and Times of Former Prime Minister Masayoshi Ōhira. Translated by William R. Carter, Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1990.
  362. Schlesinger, Jacob M. Shadow Shoguns: The Rise and Fall of Japan’s Postwar Political Machine. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
  363. Schoppa, Leonard J. “Zoku Power and LDP Power: A Case Study of the Zoku Role in Education Policy,” Journal of Japanese Studies 17, no. 1 (1991): 79–106.
  364. Sekai Heiwa Kenkyūjo. Nakasone Naikakushi: Hibi no Chōsen. Tokyo: Marunouchi Shuppan, 1996.
  365. Sekai Heiwa Kenkyūjo. Nakasone Naikakushi: Shiryōhen. Tokyo: Marunouchi Shuppan, 1995.
  366. Seligman, Lester G. “The Study of Political Leadership.” American Political Science Review 44, no. 4 (1950): 904–15.
  367. Sengo Nihon Seijishi Kenkyūkai. Gendai Nihon Seijishi: Nenpyō, Kaisetsu. Tokyo: Hōken Bunkasha, 1988.
  368. Shima, Nobuhiko. Shunō Gaikō: Senshinkoku Samitto no Rimenshi. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū Publishing, 2000.
  369. Shimizu, Minoru. “ ‘Abnormal’ Diet Leaves Some Questions.” Japan Times, June 21, 1979.
  370. Shimizu, Minoru. “Ohira’s ‘Politics of Waiting’ and Summit.” Japan Times, June 14, 1979.
  371. Shimizu, Minoru. “ ‘Unstable’ Suzuki Cabinet Enters Second Year.” Japan Times, July 16, 1981.
  372. Shimoyachi, Nao. “Koizumi’s Iraq Pledge Signals New Chapter for SDF.” Japan Times Online, June 11, 2004.
  373. Shinoda, Tomohito. Koizumi Diplomacy: Japan’s Kantei Approach to Foreign and Defense Affairs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2007.
  374. Shinoda, Tomohito. Leading Japan: The Role of the Prime Minister. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
  375. Shonfield, Andrew. “The Politics of the Mixed Economy in the International System of the 1970s.” International Affairs 56, no. 1 (1980): 1–14.
  376. Shonfield, Andrew. “The World Economy 1979.” Foreign Affairs 58, no. 3 (1980): 596–621.
  377. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1957.
  378. Sims, Richard. Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868–2000. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
  379. Singh, Bhubhindar. Japan’s Security Identity: From a Peace State to an International State. London: Routledge, 2013.
  380. Sneider, Daniel. “The New Asianism: Japanese Foreign Policy Under the Democratic Party of Japan.” Asia Policy 12 (2011): 99–129.
  381. Soeya, Yoshihide. “Japan’s Relations with China.” In Vogel, Ming, and Akihiko, The Golden Age of the US–China–Japan Triangle, 1972–1989, 210–26.
  382. Solomon, Richard H. “East Asia and the Great Power Coalitions.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 3 (1982): 686–718.
  383. Solomon, Robert. “ ‘The Elephant in the Boat?’: The United States and the World Economy.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 3 (1982): 573–92.
  384. Sorenson, Georgia. “An Intellectual History of Leadership Studies.” In Reflections on Leadership, edited by Richard A. Couto, 19–29. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007.
  385. Spencer, Herbert. “The Great Man Theory Breaks Down.” In Kellerman, Political Leadership, 10–15.
  386. “Statement at Williamsburg [Declaration on Security].” May 29, 1983. Reproduced in Hajnal, The Seven-Power Summit, 242–43.
  387. Stockwin, J. A. A. Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Japan. London: Routledge, 2003.
  388. Stockwin, J. A. A. Governing Japan: Divided Politics in a Major Economy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
  389. Sudo, Sueo. The Fukuda Doctrine and ASEAN: New Dimensions in Japanese Foreign Policy. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1992.
  390. Suzuki, Zenkō. “Nashonaru Puresu Kurabu ni okeru Enzetsu: Atarashii Nichibei Kankei to Ware ga Kuni no Yakuwari.” May 8, 1981. Reproduced in Suzuki, Suzuki Naikaku Sōridaijin Enzetsushū, supplementary volume, 106–11.
  391. Suzuki, Zenkō. “Otawa Samitto ni okeru Bōtō Hatsugen.” (July 20, 1981). Reproduced in Suzuki Naikaku Sōridaijin Enzetsushū, main volume, by Suzuki Zenkō, 119–23. Tokyo: Nihon Kōhō Kyōkai, 1983.
  392. Suzuki, Zenkō. Suzuki Naikaku Sōridaijin Enzetsushū, supplementary volume. Tokyo: Nihon Kōhō Kyōkai, 1983.
  393. Suzuki, Zenkō. “ ‘Suzuki San Mattanashi’: Terebi Asahi ‘Sōri to Kataru.’ ” Reproduced in Suzuki, Suzuki Naikaku Sōridaijin Enzetsushū, supplementary volume, 246–55.
  394. Suzuki, Zenkō, and Iwate Hōsō Kabushiki Gaisha. Moto Sōri Suzuki Zenkō Gekidō no Nihon Seiji o Kataru: Sengo 40 Nen no Kenshō. Morioka: Iwate Hōsō, 1991.
  395. Takayasu, Kensuke. “Prime-Ministerial Power in Japan: A Re-Examination.” Japan Forum 17, no. 2 (2005): 163–84.
  396. Takenaka, Harukata. Shushō Shihai: Nihon Seiji no Henbō. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2006.
  397. Talbott,  Strobe.  “Buildup  and  Breakdown.”  Foreign  Affairs  62,  no.  3  (1984): 587–615.
  398. Tanaka,  Akihiko,  Makoto  Iokibe,  and  Koji  Murata.  “Hisahiko  Okazaki  Oral History Interview.” (December 18, 1995). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/japan/okazakiohinterview.htm.
  399. Tanaka,  Yuki.  Japan’s  Comfort  Women:  Sexual  Slavery  and  Prostitution  during World War II and the US Occupation. London: Routledge, 2002.
  400. Tanaka, Zen’ichirō. “Suzuki Zenkō: Kenryoku ga Motometa Seijika.” In Watanabe, Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi, 315–36.
  401. Tarar, Ahmer. “Constituencies and Preferences in International Bargaining.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, no. 3 (2005): 383–407.
  402. Tasker, Peter. Insaido Japan. Translated by Sasano Yōko. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1988.
  403. Tawara, Kōtarō. Seijika no Fūkei. Tokyo: Gakushū Kenkyūsha, 1994.
  404. Togo, Kazuhiko. Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1945–2003: The Quest for a Proactive Policy. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
  405. Tokuyama, Jirō. “The Leaderless State.” Japan Echo 18, no. 4 (1991): 35–41.
  406. Tōkyō   Shinbun.   “ ‘Guntai   da’:   Honne   no   Koizumi   Shushō,   Fukuda   Yasuo Kanbōchōkan wa Tatemae ‘Jieitai wa jieitai.’ ” May 22, 2003.
  407. Tsurutani, Taketsugu. “Old Habits, New Times: Challenges to Japanese–American Security Relations.” International Security 7, no. 2 (1982): 175–87.
  408. Tsuzuki, Chushichi. The Pursuit of Power in Modern Japan, 1825–1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  409. Tucker, Robert C. Politics as Leadership. Columbia, MI: University of Missouri Press, 1981.
  410. Uchida, Kenzō. Habatsu. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1983.
  411. Uchiyama, Yū. Koizumi and Japanese Politics: Reform Strategies and Leadership Style. Translated by Carl Freire. London: Routledge, 2010.
  412. Uchiyama, Yū. Koizumi Seiken: “Patosu no Shushō” wa Nani o Kaeta no ka. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2007.
  413. Uji, Toshihiko. Suzuki Seiken: 863 Nichi. Tokyo: Gyōsei Mondai Kenkyūjo Shuppankyoku, 1983.
  414. United  Nations  Statistical  Division.  UN  Commodity  Trade  Statistics  Database. http://comtrade.un.org/.
  415. van Wolferen, Karel. The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation. London: Macmillan, 1989.
  416. Vogel, Ezra F. Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
  417. Vogel, Ezra F., Yuan Ming, and Tanaka Akihiko, eds. The Golden Age of the US–China–Japan  Triangle,  1972–1989.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University Press, 2002.
  418. Wain, Barry. “The Indochina Refugee Crisis.” Foreign Affairs 58, no. 1 (1979): 160–80.
  419. Wakata, Kyōji. Gendai Nihon no Seiji to Fūdo. Tokyo: Mineruva Shobō, 1981.
  420. Walsh, Bryan. “The Abe Enigma.” Time Asia, September 11, 2006.
  421. Walt, Stephen M. “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power.” International Security 9, no. 4 (1985): 3–43.
  422. Walt, Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.
  423. Waltz, Kenneth N. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics.” International Security 18, no. 2 (1993): 44–79.
  424. Waltz, Kenneth N. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
  425. Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25, no. 1 (2000): 5–41.
  426. Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
  427. Ward, Robert E. “The Constitution and Current Japanese Politics.” Far Eastern Survey 25, no. 4 (1956): 49–58.
  428. Watanabe, Akio, ed. Sengo Nihon no Saishōtachi. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1995.
  429. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press, 2 vols, 1968.
  430. Weber, Max. “Types of Authority.” In Kellerman, Political Leadership, 232–44.
  431. Weilemann, Peter R. “The Summit Meeting: The Role and Agenda of Diplomacy at its Highest Level.” NIRA Review 7, no. 2 (2000): 16–20.
  432. Weisman, Steven R. “Japanese Premier Vows ‘Even Greater Efforts’ on Defense.” New York Times, May 9, 1981.
  433. Welfield, John.  An  Empire  in  Eclipse:  Japan  in  the  Postwar  American  Alliance System: A Study in the Interaction of Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy. London: Athlone Press, 1988.
  434. Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
  435. Wendt, Alexander. “The Agency-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987): 335–70.
  436. Wight, Colin. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  437. Williams, David. “Ozawa Ichirō: The Making of a Japanese Kingmaker.” In Neary, Leaders and Leadership in Japan, 276–96.
  438. Willner, Ann Ruth. The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984.
  439. Yammarino,  Francis J., and Bernard M. Bass. “Person and Situation Views of Leadership: A Multiple Levels of Analysis Approach.” Leadership Quarterly 2, no. 2 (1991): 121–39.
  440. Yammarino, Francis J., William D. Spangler, and Bernard M. Bass. “Transformational Leadership and Performance: A Longitudinal Investigation.” Leadership Quarterly 4, no. 1 (1993): 81–102.
  441. Yomiuri Shinbun. “Abe shi ‘Kenpō o Zenmen Kaisei’ Seiken Kōsō ni Sakaru Ikō Yokohama de Kōen.” August 22, 2006.
  442. Yomiuri Shinbun. “Deepen Debate on Constitution to Build Consensus on Revision.” July 15, 2013.
  443. Yoshiaki, Yoshimi. Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military during World War II. Translated by Suzanne O’Brien. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
  444. Yoshida, Reiji. “Nakasone Claims His ‘Ian-jo’ Was For R&R.” Japan Times, March 24, 2007.
  445. Yoshida, Shigeru. Japan’s Decisive Century, 1867–1967. New York: Praeger, 1967.
  446. Yoshida, Shigeru. The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis. Translated by Kenichi Yoshida. London: Heinemann, 1961.
  447. Yoshino, Kosaku. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan. London: Routledge, 1992.
  448. Yukl, Gary. Leadership in Organizations. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2010.