2026年7月2日 《特別編》いま、「平和」を考える　水島 朝穂 氏

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

1) Purpose and framing: “peace” is not a fixed assumption

• The speaker (Mizushima Asa) frames the class as “Thinking about peace now.”
• He emphasizes that “peace” should not be treated as self-evident or guaranteed—even symbols like the Atomic Bomb Dome and the atomic bomb are not “taken for granted.”
• He uses real-world examples and historical artifacts/documents (accessed via QR codes and a homepage) to push learners toward re-examination, not passive acceptance.

2) Method for learning: don’t trust claims blindly—process them

He repeatedly urges a mindset built on doubt, careful reasoning, and self-directed verification:

• Ask questions

  • Treat new data as something to interrogate.
  • “Doubt what I’m saying” and verify whether it’s accurate.
  • He contrasts the approach with a “cult leader”:
    • He wants students to doubt the teacher rather than blindly believe a “founder,” and to check claims independently.

• Think through before concluding

  • Don’t jump to the conclusion that “peace must look like what Mizushima says.”
  • Slow deliberation is required.

• Avoid “peace as a slogan”

  • He criticizes reducing peace to feelings, comfort, or simplistic narratives.
  • Peace requires active reasoning and real institutional/legal design.

3) Peace definitions: “absence of war” vs. “positive peace”

Using peace scholarship (attributed to Johan Galtung), he distinguishes:

• Passive peace

  • Defined as the absence of war.
  • But he argues: if there is no war, is there automatically peace? Not necessarily—peace needs more.

• Positive peace

  • Peace arises from eliminating deeper causes of violence, including:
    • structural violence such as poverty, discrimination, and hunger
  • Therefore, peace requires social justice and reduction of systemic harm.

4) Peace through law: peace as predictability and rules

He argues that peace can be achieved gradually through legal mechanisms:

• Core claim

  • War and peace are linked (“two sides of the same coin”).
  • Peace through law works by making conflict less likely through rules governing how violence is used or constrained.

• How legal peace is built

  • Humans spend time crafting legal constraints such as:
    • rules about not killing civilians
    • rules about not killing prisoners of war
    • limits on certain forms of warfare/weapon use

• Historical anchor

  • The Treaty of Westphalia (with sovereign states possessing violence) is treated as a turning point enabling constitutional/legal frameworks.
  • The Treaty of Versailles era / interwar efforts (including the League of Nations) are framed as attempts at collective security, argued to have failed due to lack of enforcement/coercive power.

5) Why legal structures fail: lack of enforcement and enemy-making

He argues peace systems often collapse when:

• enforcement power is missing (e.g., the League of Nations)
• states defect or act unilaterally
• coalitions create “enemies,” enabling alliance logic and escalation

6) Collective security vs. collective self-defense (Japan–U.S. critique)

A major conceptual pivot:

• He critiques frameworks that depend on identifying an enemy.
• He links collective self-defense to enemy construction and argues it undermines peace.
• He contrasts this with collective security (e.g., UN-style systems), where “declaring an enemy” is not the organizing principle.

7) Institutional design question: who protects what, against whom, and to what extent

He proposes a structured way to analyze security policy:

• Who will protect?

  • The nation? Everyone? Local governments?

• What will be protected?

  • Depends on the above choice and political priorities.

• Against what (or whom)?

  • He contrasts threats from a nation-state perspective vs. non-state threats (using “Godzilla” as an analogy for non-nation disasters).

• To what extent can force be used?

  • He stresses gradation and constitutional legality.

8) Critique of “peace of mind” and reassurance-based security

He criticizes using “safety/peace of mind” to manage anxiety rather than solve structural problems:

• Threats trigger fear (e.g., North Korean missiles, harassment/crime analogies).
• Policies become focused on surveillance and fear-management rather than genuine peace-building.
• He argues that absolute security can reduce freedom, contrasting U.S. approaches with “relative security” patterns in Europe.

9) Historical and contemporary war analysis (Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, etc.)

He uses multiple conflicts to argue that:

• War becomes profitable when military-industrial interests benefit.
• Public narratives often selectively frame events.
• Democracies, electoral systems, and institutional incentives can contribute to escalation.

Examples mentioned include:

• Ukraine / Russia

  • Wars are sustained by systemic incentives and external profiteering (military-industrial complex).
  • He insists he’s not taking sides, framing the conflict as tragically “sibling-like.”

• Gaza / Israel

  • Proportional electoral structures and incentives can drive leaders to continue conflict.
  • He discusses narratives and territorial slogans, and references Oslo-era Nobel Peace Prize contexts.

• Iran

  • He cites underreported child deaths and emphasizes accessing information through English-language sources he recommends.

10) Japan’s constitutional logic: Self-Defense Forces as constitutional restraint

He argues Japan’s approach should remain restraint-based:

• The Self-Defense Forces should not become an “army of opinion” in practice by expanding missions/authority.
• Constitutional interpretation should focus on:
  • self-defense “to the extent necessary”
  • avoiding proactive offensive framing (e.g., preemptive logic)
  • limiting escalation risks that can provoke attacks

11) Proposed paradigm shift: from alliance-based thinking to regional collective security

He advocates changing the security paradigm:

• From collective self-defense / enemy-based alliances
• Toward regional collective security
  • He repeatedly references the OSCE model in Europe (multi-pillar trust, economics, humanitarian contact).

12) Peace-building through civil society and local governments

He emphasizes that peace is not only national military policy:

• Local governments should participate

  • Examples include sister-city and regional municipal conferences.

• Citizens and CSOs

  • He prefers CSO (Civil Society Organization) over “NGO,” describing transnational citizen cooperation as peace infrastructure.

13) Concrete “what to do”: a three-part approach

Near the end, he offers a triad for building peace:

1. Reduce military size / disarmament

   • Shift resources from lethal systems toward protective human security (e.g., medical/disaster-oriented helicopter deployments).

2. Replace enemy-creating alliances with regional collective security

   • Suggests a regional framework analogous to OSCE, potentially involving North Korea, China, and others depending on feasibility.

3. Security is not only the state’s responsibility

   • Include local governments and citizens/CSOs as key peace actors.

14) Learning “today” vs. waiting: prevention of past revival

He closes with a motivational warning:

• “Revival of the past” is compared to authoritarian return (referencing Stalin-era camps and memory of genocide and repression).
• His message: stop it today, because waiting removes the chance to prevent recurrence.
• He uses a homework/report assignment approach to ensure students engage with ideas immediately.

---

Methodology / instruction list (detailed)

A) How students should approach claims in the lecture

• Step 1: Ask questions

  • Treat presented “scary things” as items to interrogate.
  • Do not accept claims at face value.
  • If you suspect misinformation, verify rather than dismiss.
  • Approach critically rather than emotionally.

• Step 2: Think before concluding

  • Don’t assume peace equals the lecturer’s definition.
  • Re-evaluate conclusions through deliberation.

• Step 3: Use provided resources to verify

  • Use the lecture homepage via QR codes.
  • Use the site search (e.g., type “collective self-defense” to retrieve related explanations).
  • Also search for war/peace concepts and supporting materials.

• Step 4: Apply constitutional/legal reasoning

  • Treat constitutional constraints as a boundary condition for what counts as “peaceful” policy.

B) How to use peace concepts in writing/assignments

When discussing peace, explicitly distinguish:

• passive peace (absence of war)
• positive peace (structural violence reduction)

Treat peace through law as:

• predictability + enforceable rules, not just idealism.

C) Homework / class obligations mentioned

• Report assignment

  • For students at the Faculty of Letters (Chuo University):
    • write a report in 300 minutes
    • choose the “most impactful quote”
    • submit to Professor Nagasaka

• Additional homework

  • write down the words that resonated most.

---

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

Speakers in the video

• Mizushima Asa（⽔島 朝穂） — main lecturer / guest lecturer
• Professor Shima（司会／進行役として言及） — mentioned as host/moderator role
• Professor Nagasaka（長坂） — referenced as assignment submission contact
• Professor Atachi（当地／阿達地として聞こえる） — asks a question
• T-san（Tさん） — student who asks the first question (only one is “available”)
• Professor Seibu（西部） — referenced as a Netflix-related lecture for later watching

(Nagasaka / Shima / Atachi are referred to by role or name; no extended biographical content is provided.)

Sources / named authorities mentioned

• Johan Galtung — peace scholar; “positive peace” concept attributed
• Johanno Garkunk — appears to be a misspelling/autosubtitle variant of Galtung
• Heiwa Co., Ltd. — referenced indirectly via “peace industry” search result (pachinko company)
• Atomic Bomb Dome / Peace Memorial Museum (Hiroshima) — historical place used as a theme anchor
• Treaty of Westphalia — treaty referenced
• League of Nations — collective security referenced
• United Nations (UN) — collective security and verification discussed
• OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) — collective security model referenced
• Westphalian pledge / Basso’s theory of the 30-year war — referenced (details appear unclearly)
• Johann Galtung — again referenced as peace-theory authority (as above)

Some additional conflict-related figures are referenced, but subtitles are error-prone, so not every name can be reliably enumerated.