Abstract
This article presents a qualitative analysis of persuasive strategies used in debates on Japan's security policy, related, in particular, to Article 9. The study examines the Japan Diet deliberations during the Gulf War, focusing on the Budget Committee of both Houses. Two hypotheses are tested: the first one suggests that threat perception arguments are more persuasive, while the second hypothesis proposes that sentiment-based arguments hold greater sway. The findings reveal the importance of seeking international recognition, feeling anxiety, taking pride in Japan's Constitution/Article 9, and anxiety management in driving or preventing security policy changes. The study emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that incorporates both sentiment-based and rational arguments in constitutional debates, providing insights for policymakers and stakeholders.
Author Information
Anastasiya Polishchuk, Waseda University, Japan
Paper Information
Conference: ACAS2023
Stream: Japanese Studies
This paper is part of the ACAS2023 Conference Proceedings (View)
Full Paper
View / Download the full paper in a new tab/window
To cite this article:
Polishchuk A. (2023) Persuasive Strategies in Debates on Japan’s Constitution and Article 9: The Gulf War Case Study ISSN: 2187-4735 The Asian Conference on Asian Studies 2023: Official Conference Proceedings (pp. 63-78) https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2187-4735.2023.6
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2187-4735.2023.6
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress