|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
111216
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is there legitimate authority in international relations? Or, can we reduce most important behaviors to being motivated only by material interests, such as wealth or power? Are state interests the same, and self-evident, across time and space?
The debate about authority in international relations has generally either been purely theoretical, or focused on the contemporary international system.1 This article takes a different approach. Exploring international relations in eras other than in the Westphalian international system is one way in which scholars may obtain a different view on questions of authority and power. Although a wealth of fascinating research can occur if we take for granted the institutional environment and the type and nature of the actors involved, exploring the source and origin of varied international systems and actors within diverse systems may provide a different lens on fundamental theoretical issues such as authority and legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
055416
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
086133
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why has South Korea accommodated China, instead of fearing its growth and balancing against it? This article makes two central arguments. First, concepts of balancing and bandwagoning are fundamentally difficult to test, and to the extent that the theory can be tested, it appears to be wrong in the case of South Korea. In fact, we observe many cases in which rising powers are neither balanced nor "bandwagoned" but are simply accommodated with no fundamental change either way in military stance or alignment posture. Second, the factors that explain South Korean foreign policy orientation toward China are as much about interests as they are about material power. South Korea sees substantially more economic opportunity than military threat associated with China's rise; but even more importantly, South Korea evaluates China's goals as not directly threatening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
052428
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2004.
|
| Description |
p89-107
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Discussion of North Korea's nuclear programme and what to do about it has become ideological and emotionally charged. Convinced that good policy serving American and allied interests is unlikely to emerge from such a debate, Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang decided to step back from the histrionics and engage in a reasoned, rational and logical exchange on the nature of the North Korean regime and the policy that should be followed by the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Their debate was published in book form as Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003). Survival invited Cha and Kang to continue their debate in these pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
081126
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Columbia University Press, 2008.
|
| Description |
xiii, 274p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780231141888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 053238 | 327.5105/KAN 053238 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
055722
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
101278
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The East Asian "tribute system" from 1368 to 1841 comprised an enduring, stable, and hierarchic system, with China clearly the hegemon, in which cultural achievement was as important as economic or military prowess. Most significant is the recognition that the Chinese tributary order was in fact a viable and recognized international system with military, cultural, and economic dimensions that all intersected to create a very interesting and stable security system. Recently it has become fashionable in historical circles to question the viability of the tributary system in part because scholars have become increasingly aware of the realties behind Chinese rhetoric. However, more nuanced studies and new interpretations only serve to underscore the centrality of the system for its participants. This paper demonstrates that there is a hierarchical relationship-generated by a common culture defined by a Confucian worldview-in place in the context of China and the East Asian states and helps clarify the distinction between an international system based on polarity and an international society based on culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
060806
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
171166
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
IR theorizing about international order has been profoundly, perhaps exclusively, shaped by the Western experiences of the Westphalian order and often assumes that the Western experience can be generalized to all orders. Recent scholarship on historical East Asian orders challenges these notions. The fundamental organizing principle in historical East Asia was hierarchy, not sovereign equality. The region was characterized by hegemony, not balance of power. This emerging research program has direct implications for enduring questions about the relative importance of cultural and material factors in both international orders and their influence on behavior—for describing and explaining patterns of war and peace across time and space, for understanding East Asia as a region made up of more than just China, and for more usefully comparing East Asia, Europe, and other regions of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
121726
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Long understudied by mainstream international relations (IR) scholars, the East Asian historical experience provides an enormous wealth of patterns and findings, which promise to enrich our IR theoretical literature largely derived from and knowledgeable about the Western experience. The intellectual contributions of this emerging scholarship have the potential to influence some of the most central questions in international relations: the nature of the state, the formation of state preferences, and the interplay between material and ideational factors. Researching historical East Asia provides an opportunity to seek out genuine comparisons of international systems and their foundational components. This introduction surveys the field and sets out to frame debate and the intellectual terms of inquiry to assess progress and guide future research. Theoretically, the essays in this issue provide insights on the emerging literature on hierarchy in international relations, and move beyond simplistic assertions that power "matters" to explore the interplay of material and ideational causal factors. Methodologically, scholars are no longer treating all East Asian history as simply one case, while also becoming more careful to avoid selection bias by avoiding choosing selective evidence from the rich historical record. Collectively, the empirical cases discussed in this volume span centuries of history, include a wide variety of political actors across East Asia, and represent an exciting wave of new scholarship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
055975
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
065212
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
159269
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
166007
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the media attention to North Korean missile launches and American shows of force in 2017, war was never a realistic possibility. Deterrence and the costs of war are far too high for either side to seriously contemplate using force to resolve the Korean Peninsula standoff. Deterrence will also continue to hold into the future, barring some unforeseen circumstance. In this case, when war is not an option, what do countries do? What role does soft power play in diplomacy? States resort to hard power rarely and with great caution, precisely because the stakes are so high.
But just because countries are not going to war over an issue does not mean it is unimportant. In this sense, exploring how countries compete or engage in the push and pull of diplomacy below the threshold of hard and military power is a relatively understudied phenomenon. For North Korea, it is clear that a long-term strategy of focusing on diplomacy abroad and economic reforms at home is following a push to nuclearize. Only by understanding this emerging North Korean strategy can the United States and South Korea craft appropriate strategies for dealing with this intractable problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
083021
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The scope of Lee's foreign policy, and the type of change he achieves, will depend as much on the factors constraining him as on his own ideas about how best to govern."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
183773
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
State formation occurred in Korea and Japan 1,000 years before it did in Europe, and it occurred for reasons of emulation and learning, not bellicist competition. State formation in historical East Asia occurred under a hegemonic system in which war was relatively rare, not under a balance-of-power system with regular existential threats. Korea and Japan emerged as states between the fifth and ninth centuries CE and existed for centuries thereafter with centralized bureaucratic control defined over territory and administrative capacity to tax their populations, field large militaries, and provide extensive public goods. They created these institutions not to wage war or suppress revolt: the longevity of dynasties in these countries is evidence of both the peacefulness of their region and their internal stability. Rather, Korea and Japan developed state institutions through emulation and learning from China. The elites of both copied Chinese civilization for reasons of prestige and domestic legitimacy in the competition between the court and the nobility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
101777
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines both South and North Korea's search for status in international relations. By exploring how these countries seek status for themselves, how states define status for themselves and others, and also what status they are willing to grant other regional states, this paper concludes that crafting a stable regional status hierarchy will be as important to future stability on the Korean peninsula as will be the crafting of a stable balance of power or deepening economic interdependence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
190366
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is there an incipient East Asian containment coalition against China? Evidence leads to the conclusion that there is not. Yet for almost three decades, scholars have been claiming that the rapid growth of Chinese power is, will or should cause East Asian countries to balance against it and join a US-led containment coalition. Those claiming that East Asian states are already containing China include political scientist Michael Beckley, who writes that “China’s neighbors are arming themselves and aligning with outside powers to secure their territory and sea-lanes. Many of the world’s largest economies are collectively developing new trade, investment, and technology standards that implicitly discriminate against China.”Footnote1 In 2014, scholars Adam Liff and John Ikenberry claimed that “there is already some evidence of security dilemma-driven military competition in the Asia Pacific, which could worsen significantly in the near future … [S]ecurity dilemma dynamics appear to be important drivers of states enhancing military capabilities in the increasingly volatile Asia Pacific region.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
053165
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
108845
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011-12.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A wave of recent scholarship, built on rich empirical research, provides new perspectives on enduring questions about North Korea. Three books, in particular-Patrick McEachern's Inside the Red Box, Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland's Famine in North Korea, and Suk-Young Kim's Illusive Utopia-present a comprehensive and panoramic vision of North Korea today. This essay reviews these books and makes two overarching arguments. First, North Korea is more "normal" than is often thought, and its domestic politics, economy, and society function in ways familiar to other countries around the world. When viewed from the inside out, North Korea's institutions, economic life, and its people act in ways that are not only similar to those of others around the world, but that differ only in their level of intensity. Second, North Korea's continuing nuclear and military challenge is only one aspect of its overall relations with the world, and policies designed to minimize its threatening military behavior may work at cross-purposes with policies designed to improve its economy and the lives of its people. The complexities that arise in dealing with North Korea create a number of contradictory policy choices, and making progress on one issue has often meant overlooking another, or even allowing it to become worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|