Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain Japan’s role in the peace process on the Korean Peninsula that began in early 2018.

This paper emphasizes the historical context of international politics in Northeast Asia, rather than power politics or geopolitics. The paper reaffirms the significance of the ongoing peace process on the Korean Peninsula by considering a synthesis of three joint declarations published in 1998, 2000 and 2002 between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan, the ROK and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and between the DPRK and Japan.

The normalization of diplomatic relations between DPRK and Japan, along with reaffirmation of the joint declaration between the ROK and Japan, and the Panmunjeom Declaration, would be a base for denuclearizing Northeast Asia.

In Northeast Asia, historical reconciliation among the two Koreas and Japan and peace-building between the two parties on the Peninsula are closely linked. Moreover, the three bilateral relationships among these three parties are also the basis for creating a new multilateral security order in Northeast Asia.

Nuclear proliferation in Asia is basically rooted in psycho-cultural complexes of their ruling elites who are engaged in a frantic search for national security, national identity, and influence by developing n-weapon capability. A propensity for acquiring a credible nuclear deterrence as a security guarantee against any potential threat from adverse or hostile neighbours, political and military elites in volatile regions such as South Asia, Middle East, and Northeast Asia are perpetually indulged in producing artificially insecurity syndrome among their people to legitimize the imperative of nuclear weapon building programme. Inter-Asian regional nuclear collaboration, for instance, between North Korea and Pakistan, between North Korea and Myanmar, between Iran and Pakistan, between Pakistan and China are alarming signs of fomenting the nuclear armament and missile race in Asia. Alexei Arbatov, Director of the Centre of International Security, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences; writes that with the ceasing of ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the two superpowers, nuclear proliferation has gained momentum in the horizontal proliferation in countries of volatile regions of Asia – India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya – with the flawed support systems of the NPT, IAEA, and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). For instance, NPT does not offer any tangible benefits to those countries renouncing acquisition of nuclear weapons, nor does it “envision serious punishment for military nuclear activities” (Arbatov, 2004).

The purpose of this paper is to present the North Korea policy pursued by the Moon Jae-in administration and discuss the possibility of a weakened alliance between South Korea and the USA.

This paper compares the North Korean policies and the ROK–US alliance under the Moon administration, analyzing the recent inter-Korean and North Korea–US summits, with a focus on the issues of denuclearization and establishing a peace regime.

This paper reveals that the approach taken by the Moon administration regarding North Korea is similar to that of North Korea and China, and that the ROK–US alliance is likely to weaken should there be any change concerning the North Korean nuclear issue.

Denuclearization takes place in accordance with the agreement between North Korea and the USA, there is a high likelihood of the ROK–US alliance weakening.

The conclusion of the Cold War's U.S.‐Soviet superpower rivalry may have ended the threat of a global nuclear military confrontation involving these powers. It did not, however, result in the termination of international regional conflicts or of military threats to U.S. national security. The collapse of a world political and strategic system ostensibly polarized between two ideologically contrasting superpowers has resulted in the emergence of numerous threats to regional and global order.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how China’s approach to a nuclear North Korea has changed and find key variables that explain the changes.

This paper adopts the traditional qualitative method, referring to different types of reliable and authoritative Chinese and English scholars, books and articles.

Although China has accumulated distrust of North Korea and reprimanded the regime for its nuclear program, it has never ignored the strategic value or balance – especially vis-à-vis the USA – the neighboring country provides for it. And for that matter, it has been keen to prevent North Korea from bypassing it and getting closer to the USA. With this strategic calculation in mind, China has mostly made gestures in implementing the UN sanctions against North Korea, though not always.

This paper proves that China’s strategic calculation has been a constant key variable that explains its approach toward a nuclear North Korea since the inception of the issue in the early 1990s.

To better understand the key issues surrounding Global Ecopolitics, it may be beneficial to examine the background to the environmental movement over time. The environmental movement is perhaps the most significant contemporary global movement to have emerged in recent decades. The relationship between humankind and nature has been the subject of much debate and enquiry over time. The environmental movement had its cultural origins in literary accounts of humanity's relationship with nature, beginning from the romantic poets such as William Blake, John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Lord Byron, whose works were concerned with the reconciliation of man and nature. This aesthetic could also be found in subsequent transcendentalist American literature, such as Henry David Thoreau's Walden, published in 1854 (Shabecoff, 2003, pp. 37–71). The transcendentalists were interested in the spiritual connections that connected humankind and nature with God and could be seen as the forefathers of deep green ecologists. Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859, creating further interest in the understanding of nature. George Perkins Marsh wrote of the destructive impact of agriculture in his book Man and Nature in 1864. President Teddy Roosevelt would develop the National Parks with Gifford Pinchot of the Forestry Service in the early 1900s. In the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, concerns about protecting wildlife led to the emergence of a progressive conservation movement, alongside federal regulation of natural habitats and the establishment of national parks. Influential conservation groups included the National Audubon Society, founded in 1886, and the Sierra Club, founded by John Muir in 1892. Muir and Pinchot would become adversaries in the campaign to prevent the building of a dam in Yosemite National Park in the early decade of the nineteenth century (ibid.).

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of international crisis mediation by introducing and examining the nested insider-partial mediator (NIPM) concept, a nuanced perspective on IPM behavior. This study challenges the traditional view of effective mediators as external, unbiased entities by delving into the behavior and contribution of mediators who are deeply embedded in the conflict environment, such as South Korea’s unique position in navigating the US–DPRK crisis in 2017–2018. By analyzing South Korea’s dual role as mediator and negotiator and its employment of both nondirective and directive mediation strategies, the paper demonstrates the potential effectiveness of NIPMs in managing complex biases and contributing to de-escalation in intense crisis scenarios.

This paper uses a focused single-case study approach to analyze South Korea’s role as an NIPM. Using a process-tracing methodology, it examines how contextual factors such as relationships, interests and inherent biases influenced South Korea’s mediation strategies in this complex geopolitical scenario. Empirical evidence was retrieved from public sources, including official statements and press interviews, providing an empirical foundation for understanding NIPM behavior. This approach facilitates a detailed study of South Korea’s unique mediation role within the intricate dynamics of the Korean Peninsula conflict.

The study’s findings illustrate the pivotal role NIPMs can play in complex international conflicts, underlining the significant potential of NIPMs in crisis prevention. The findings highlight South Korea’s adept navigation through intricate geopolitical dynamics, leveraging its unique insider position and established relationships with both the USA and North Korea. This behavior was instrumental in mitigating a potentially explosive situation, steering the crisis toward negotiation and de-escalation. The research underscores the effectiveness of the NIPM framework in understanding the nuanced behavior of mediators who are deeply integrated into multi-level conflicts, influenced by their connections, interests and inherent biases.

This research not only broadens the theoretical framework of insider-partial mediation by introducing the concept of NIPM, but also has practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in leveraging regional mediation strategies for international crisis mitigation. The study underscores the importance of mediators’ deep-rooted connections, biases and vested interests in influencing their mediation tactics, thus offering a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of international mediation in complex geopolitical conflicts.