http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Multilateral Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia and the Neorealist paradigm
( Jang Ho Kim ) 연세대학교 통일연구소 2004 통일연구 Vol.8 No.1
The new order which is still taking shape in northeast Asia is perplexing the policy makers and the academic community alike. Even well over a decade after the end of the international East-West confrontation, the largely bilateral security arrangements of northeast Asia still remain the lynch pin of security relations in the region, and the global trends of reconciliation and cooperation has yet to bear fruit. An alternative structure which might adequately cope with the interacting interests of the great powers and the greater complexity of the region has yet to emerge. Northeast Asia faces challenges both old and new, including national divisions, resumption of traditional rivalries and an on-going competition for influence in the region. The acute need for a multilateral approach, to mitigate possible conflicts and encourage cooperation, has been voiced by both the political and the academic community. Although the end of the Cold War had a global impact, the net effect on northeast Asia has not been very far reaching. Indeed, it can be argued that national strategies, particularly in the area of defence, are more relevant in the region precisely because of the end of the super power contest there. In the post-Cold War era, therefore, conflicts are diversified in their nature and magnitude. These are significant obstacles to the development of multilateral regional security mechanisms in northeast Asia, given the lack of a common security denominator, divergent perceptions of threat, and deeply ingrained historical legacies. What then are the characteristics of this era? What is the likelihood of security cooperation among the northeast Asian states during this era? How we approach these crucial questions will determine how we may analise and seek to provide a better understanding of the security situation in northeast Asia. More importantly, because how we perceive a situation or a problem often dictates the solutions that may come about, we need to be thorough in our assessments of the approaches that we use. This paper discusses the two major approaches; neorealism and neoliberalism in order to pin point the factors that are inhibiting the creation of a multilateral peace mechanism. Although numerous other approaches have been used to provide explanations for the behaviour of states in northeast Asia, these two major paradigms are the approaches which have withstood the test of time. Recent trends of eclecticism in international relations theory seem only to be confounding the already complex and diverse assessments of the situation in northeast Asia. International relations theories exist precisely to minimise confusion, as well as to simplify what would otherwise be confounding. They are the tools which provide coherent and consistent explanations to the behavior of international actors and this is possible because of the theoretical explicitness and the purity which an international relations theory must entail. Eclecticism sacrifices this theoretical purity for the sake of policy prescriptions designed to fit the needs of the policy makers for a particular time period. This paper will show that although northeast Asia may be analysed from the perspective of both traditional approaches, the neorealist paradigm offers the most fruitful insights. This paper is not a critique of this trend of eclecticism in international relations theory but it hopes to add to the discussion on the debate by reassessing neorealism and its prevalence in the international politics of northeast Asia.
South Korea`s Middle Power Diplomacy: Toward an Agenda-Partner Based Leadership
( Jangho Kim ),( Saeme Kim ) 한국국방연구원 2016 The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis Vol.28 No.2
This paper suggests that South Korea’s middle power identity can take on a more distinctive shape, and fulfill concrete goals, if it adopts a model of agenda-partner based leadership in which it demonstrates agenda-setting capabilities in tandem with strategic partner selection. Its middle power initiatives have been one way for South Korea to promote its national interests amidst a volatile geopolitical environment. However, its present middle power track has often lacked direction and sophistication. This is largely due to poor agenda selection, oftentimes choosing agendas that are too broad in scope or too rigid to coordinate with potential partners. Refining South Korea’s middle power diplomacy by directing resources to specific agendas, and collaborating with selective partners, will not only enable South Korea to secure a niche among myriad agendas, but also make it possible to build strategic, as opposed to tactical, coalitions.