Earticle

This paper examines the role of governing ideology and its impact on policies under the Kim Jong-eun regime in North Korea. The so-called Juche Ideology directs the society and its people and often provides guidelines for government policies. Under the new and young leadership, the Kim Jong-eun regime has no choice but to inherit the long-standing ideology, because it serves the rationale for him to come to power and legitimizes his political authority. Although slightly liberal changes in domestic and foreign policies are possible, we are not likely to observe radical changes in governing policies in a near future. Rather, the new regime is likely to take oppressive and aggressive domestic and foreign policies in many aspects.

Northeast Asian countries have no multilateral security and cooperation regime such as OSCE in Europe and ARF in Southeast Asia. Over the last decade, Korea, Japan, and Chinese cooperation aimed at economic integration has gradually increased in this region. However, antagonism and distrust, which resulted from territorial conflicts, historical animosity, and North Korea’s provocations, have prevented them from building a security regime or organization. The European countries founded OSCE through the Helsinki Accord in 1975. ASEAN also held the first ARF for official consultations on peace and security issues in 1994. After North Korea’s missile launch and nuclear test, China initiated the Six-Way Talks to resolve the nuclear-missile program of the North, and to relieve the tension in Northeast Asia in 2003. The Six-Way Talks was expected to turn its role into a security regime after successfully resolving the issue. But, they seem to have come to nothing since North Korea refuse give up their nuclear-missile program. On the other way, as an irreversible trend, scholars and experts emphasize the evolution of institutional arrangements for a regime for multilateralism in Northeast Asia. Those suggestions and obstacles to building a security and cooperation organization will be examined in this article. Also, the leadership of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat is expected as an important role for a mini-multilateralism in Northeast Asia.

This paper examines the relevance and utility of Lipset and Rokkan’s party-cleavage thesis as it relates to party politics in Southeast Asia’s new democracies. I argue that, in contrast to Lipset and Rokkan’s approach to party system formation, the notion of cleavage in Southeast Asia’s party systems depends on political agency, which can create social identities, polarize or diffuse potential social conflicts, and even alter the nature of social conflicts through the adoption of specific government policies. The structure of the party system is deeply affected by specific political legacies of the authoritarian period. Southeast Asian societies still have a powerful democratic-authoritarian cleavage that resulted from previous non-democratic regimes.

The English School values shared identities, values, interests, and puts importance on institutions and rules in international relations. The school holds that these elements can establish international society, and that order and peace can be maintained in international society. In addition, the school lays more stress on change and common culture than constructivism which draws attention in studies of international relations in these days. Such arguments of the English School have significant implications for the building of the peace regime on the Korea peninsula. First of all, the Machiavellian tradition of the current North Korean relations needs to be transformed into a Grotian tradition – which is appreciated by the English School - to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula. In the process of building the Korean peace regime, mutual recognition, interactions and cooperation – which are argued for as basic elements of international society by the English School – can function as fundamental steps for tension reduction and confidence building between the two Koreas. Changes in interests and values in the two Koreas are needed to reach a peace treaty, and institutions such as international law and diplomacy are important, in particular, to provide a guarantee for the treaty by the great powers. As assumptions and arguments of the English School encompass the requirements of the Korean peace regime, it could be argued that the school can act as a kind of standard for establishing the regime.

This article examines the reasons “why Cross-Strait exchanges have expanded between the Republic of China(Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China whereas similar developments have not occurred between the two Koreas.” There are three variables that are of special importance, interactions between the Taipei and Beijing compared with Seoul and Pyongyang, domestic political factors, and the role/attitude of United States. The growth of South Korean democracy dating back to 2000, and the development of a separate Taiwanese ‘identity’ are both significant political factors. In the international sphere, the United States is similarly important in both Cross-strait exchanges and inter-Korean relations, albeit its role has been markedly different in each case. First, the Chinese and Korean case there has been a general trend in the direction of increased exchanges. Second, domestically, both Taiwan and South Korea have begun to become post-ideological societies, with a far more practical and realistic attitude to their respective ‘rivals.’ Third, Domestic political conflicts that surround Cross-Strait policy in Taiwan and North-related policy in South Korea have been intensified as a result of changes in governments following elections. Fourth, while the United States remains a crucial partner of both South Korea and Taiwan, its influence in the region is less and less diminishing. On the other hand, the differences between the inter-Korean and the Cross-Strait are also numerous. First of all, security issues between the two Koreas have taken precedence over other competing political and economic issues. As Cross-Strait relations advanced as a result of non-political interactions between Taiwan and the mainland, the role of security or political concerns take a back seat. Another factor that has led to instability in North-South relations is a lack of institutionalization of those relations, the two Koreas do not recognize one another diplomatically, and therefore do not maintain formal or stable links. Such issues are added to by the fact that there are two competing and antagonistic methods of dealing with the issues related to North Korea in South Korean politics; the internationalist approach that seeks to build an international consensus to deal with North Korea, and the nationalist approach that seeks to deal with North Korean related issues through North-South dialogue. Similarly in Taiwan, there are two major approaches to dealing with the mainland, the first in the ‘One China’ approach – i.e. Chinese nationalism –the second is the ‘Taiwanese identity’ approach – i.e. Taiwanese nationalism, or separatism. International relations and the role of the United States also cannot be ignored. Whereas in inter-Korean relations, the United States continues to play an important role because of North Korea’s nuclear program, it has become a more peripheral player in Cross-Strait relations.

1982 marked the culmination of 14 years of negotiations via the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which involved over 150 member states. UNCLOS provides dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve maritime disputes peacefully. While South Korea and China ratified parts of UNCLOS, the two states avoid UNCLOS dispute resolution mechanisms. The Ieodo issue is a maritime dispute between South Korea and China. It is not a territorial dispute, but an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) delimitation dispute. EEZs refer to areas that states consider vital sea resources of an economic nature. From a technical standpoint, Ieodo is not the object of a territorial dispute, but jurisdiction over it has to be decided through negotiations between South Korea and China. China's expanded economic strength has raised suspicions and concerns among neighboring countries. Maritime issues are rising to the forefront of China's security concerns. EEZ has started to become linked with wider strategic issues relating to China’s naval strategy. China has never disputed Japan's sovereignty over Okinotorishima, but rejects its claim to the 400,000 square kilometers marine footprint, which is larger than Japan's entire land area. With China emerging as a major power, China wants to deny American access to its nearby waters so it can have its way with its neighbors. China’s intensified effort to keep America’s military out of its EEZ. Ieodo Issue and Okinotorishima Issue imply to deny China access to their nearby waters. This article explores how the UNCLOS regime affects maritime boundary delimitation, and its implications for international relations focusing on Ieodo and Okinotorishima.

North Korea had shown its nuclear capability through three nuclear tests. This threatens peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. When North Korea increases nuclear warheads with its miniaturization and has transportation measure, it is to intimidate neighboring countries directly, being under situation to be received nuclear horror and menace. If a nuclear-armed DPRK is not tolerable to Japan, a nuclear-armed Japan would be not likewise tolerable to its neighboring countries. The neighboring countries, which possess nuclear science and technology, under the logic of deterrence and mutual action may make progress nuclear armament in opposition to North Korean nuclear threat. It is neither desired nor happened. In order not to realize that possibility, international society should make efforts. Even though the US and PRC have been playing for the positive role with patience for North Korean nuclear nonproliferation, they have to contribute for North Korean nuclear abandonment. This is to keep the Non-Proliferation Treaty system and contribute to stop the nuclear domino in Northeast Asia.