| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
192078
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the South Korean president’s state visit to Australia in December 2021, the Australian Government and in turn the Australian media sustained a narrative that the two countries held ‘common strategic interests’. Over the past ten years, the notion of common strategic interests became a ‘naturalized narrative’ in Australia – a narrative, which through entrenched repetition becomes both natural and inevitable to such an extent that counter-narratives are seen as counterintuitive and open to ridicule.
This study investigates the common strategic interests narrative. It first explores the bilateral relationship and the narrative gap that occurred during the president’s visit. It then turns to the use of language and narrative in bilateral relationships. It looks at how the constituent components supporting the common strategic interests narrative are contextualized and how this impacts the political action of Australia and Korea.
The study finds that the common strategic interests narrative does not cross the linguistic-cultural divide in the Australia-Korea bilateral relationship. The article concludes with policy recommendations. Australia needs to pay more attention to building policy relevance and education links in South Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
153264
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Renewed interest in middle powers since the late 2000s has seen a surge in research. Yet an agreed definition is more elusive than ever. This compromises the ability to pursue meaningful research programs, communicate practical policy advice, and instruct future generations. Why is an agreed definition so elusive and how can this challenge be overcome? The author contends that the definition of the term ‘middle power’ has evolved to be less about discovering either ‘the meaning of a word’ or ‘the nature of a thing’ in the pursuit of knowledge, and more about persuasion, influence, coercion and, ultimately, the exercise of power. An alternative approach to definition offers the best hope to address this challenge. With this objective, the author first looks into the nature and criteria for definition in the social sciences. Second, he looks at the structure of contemporary attempts to redefine the term. Third, he analyses definitional ruptures to shed light on the rhetorical import of contests. Finally, the author turns to rhetorical theory to offer an alternative approach to the definition of the term ‘middle power’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
113874
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Scholars and practitioners have argued convincingly that there exists a distinct South Korean national style in negotiation. However, recent Free Trade Agreement negotiations between the U.S. and ROK confirm that under certain conditions, national style can be less relevant and quite possibly irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
170932
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
South Korea’s diplomatic practice was traditionally marked by a distinct lack of transparency. The early struggle for political legitimacy as one-half of a divided nation and ongoing security threats placed a high premium on secrecy. Even today, diplomatic studies remains an undeveloped field. Despite the establishment of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA) and the opening of a Centre for Diplomatic History, the amount of scholarship on the foreign ministry itself and its diplomats remains remarkably low. However, South Korea is a society undergoing momentous societal transformation. What commenced with economic development in the 1980s, and continued with political development in the 1990s evolved into societal development in the 2000s. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has not been immune to these changes. MOFA is undergoing democratization and becoming more representative of broader South Korean society. It is being called on more often to serve the Korean public and to be more accountable for its actions. Finally, there is growing public recognition of the important role that the foreign ministry plays in securing South Korea’s political, economic, and security interests. This article looks at the underlying conditions which suggest the time is ripe for a practice turn in South Korean international relations, and a turn to diplomatic studies. The article highlights important research questions on the foreign ministry, which could contribute to the broader field of diplomatic studies, and justifySouth Korea as an ideal case study to highlight the benefits of studying states’ foreign services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|