Theory of Global Legislative Politics

  • Takashi Inoguchi
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
Part of the Trust book series (TRUST, volume 3)


The theory of global legislative politics claims a perspective revolution of a sort in international relations research. We argue that instead of focusing on sources of power like wealth, might and ideology, i.e., the trinity of the Cold War period, and instead of focusing on communication messages in international relations, we had better examine the interaction modes and attributes of communications in international relations. When digitalized globalization permeates each and every part of the earth, the distinction between the three levels of analysis, i.e., individual, domestic (national) and international, has ceased to function neatly. Everything is connected to everything else; connectivity functions closely with vulnerability; complexity contains unpredictability. The development of multilateral treaties has played a key role in shaping and sharing an unprecedented liberal world order under digitalized globalization with two conditions: decline of use of violence and growth of democracy.


  1. Anderson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Transnational democracy: Political spaces and border crossings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, R. (2017, December 23–25). Wondering why, if this is America. New York Times.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, T. (2014). NGOs: A new history of transnational civil society. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gourevitch, P. (1978). The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics. International Organization, 32(4), 881–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hale, T., & Held, D. (2017). Beyond gridlock. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hale, T., Held, D., & Young, K. (2013). Gridlock: Why global cooperation is failing when we need it Most. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hidalgo, C. (2016). Why information grows: The evolution of order, from atoms to economies. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  8. Howard, M. (2012). Transnationalism in ancient and medieval societies: The role of cross-border trade and travels. New York: McFarland.Google Scholar
  9. Huntington, S. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Inoguchi, T. (1982). Kokusai Seiji Keizai no kozu (the framework of international political economy). Tokyo: Yuhikaku.Google Scholar
  12. Inoguchi, T. (2003). Political security: Toward a broader conceptualization. International Studies, 40(2), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inoguchi, T. (2015). War occurrence, hyper-insecurity and multilateral institutions. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16(3), 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inoguchi, T. (Ed.). (2018). The Wilsonian moment: Japan 1912–1952. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 565–621.Google Scholar
  15. Inoguchi, T., & Le, L. T. Q. (2016). Toward modelling a global social contract: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Institute of Security Studies. (2017). Strategic survey 2017: The annual assessment of geopolitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Iriye, A. (2004). Global community: The role of international organizations in the making of the contemporary world. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Iriye, A. (2014). Global interdependence: The world after 1945. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Iwabuchi, K. (2002). Recentering globalization: Popular culture and Japanese transnationalism. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le, T. Q. L., Mikami, Y., & Inoguchi, T. (2014). Global leadership and international regime: Empirical testing of cooperation without hegemony paradigm on the basis of 120 multilateral conventions deposited to the United Nations system. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(4), 523–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGrew, A., & Held, D. (2007). Globalization theory: Approaches and controversies. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy, C. (1994). International organization and industrial change: Global governance since 1850. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, E. (Ed.). (2012). A world connecting (Vol. 1870–1945). Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2013). The opening up of international organizations: Transnational access in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taseer, A. (2018, June 22). How Britain lost its power of seduction. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  27. Tett, G. (2019, April 17). Do we need an IMF to regulate the internet? Financial Times. (Nikkei Shimbun, April 29, 2019).Google Scholar
  28. The Economist. (2017, July 13). If Britain became ‘Singapore-on-Thames’: The British economy if the country crashes out of the European Union.
  29. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism (key ideas). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Inoguchi
    • 1
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Asian CulturesJ.F. Oberlin UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.College of EconomicsHue UniversityHueVietnam

Personalised recommendations