Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:1615Hits:19684180Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
ALLIANCE RESTRAINT (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   183165


Military alliances as a stabilising force: U.S. relations with South Korea and Taiwan, 1950s-1960s / Kim, Claudia J   Journal Article
Kim, Claudia J Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract Two broad and seemingly contradictory perspectives exist on U.S. alliances with South Korea and Taiwan. One focuses on how Washington carefully designed the alliances to rein in its overly warlike junior partners, while the other focuses on the surprisingly big influence of Seoul and Taipei that belied the power asymmetry in their relationships with Washington. This paper shows the influence of small allies is not a static feature of asymmetrical alliances designed to restrain them; small allies might exert unduly large influence at the stage of alliance formation, but once the alliance is institutionalised, they may lose much of the initial leverage. The findings lend empirical support to the view of alliances as a stabilising force, rather than a force multiplier, in international politics.
Key Words military alliances  Taiwan  South Korea  Cold War  Alliance Restraint 
        Export Export
2
ID:   186610


Political vulnerability and alliance restraint in foreign policy: South Korea’s territorial issue / Yoo, Hyon Joo   Journal Article
Yoo, Hyon Joo Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract This article focuses on the varying intensity of political clash that South Korea has got involved in with Japan regarding the territorial dispute, Dokdo/Takeshima. Existing works are limited to acknowledging the role of nationalism as a key obstacle to the negotiation or settlement of the territorial dispute. However, democratically elected Korean leaders at times remained low key in the territorial problem and even sought collaboration with Japan despite the existence of nationalism. Specifically, South Korea employed both calm and hardline diplomatic choices in the territorial dispute. Why did South Korea choose disparate territorial policies despite the population’s anti-Japanese sentiments? Under what circumstances did leaders in Korea employ dovish diplomacy that might cause a strong backlash from the public? Introducing the vulnerability-restraint theory, I argue that top decision makers’ political vulnerability in domestic politics and the restraining pressure from the United States have impact on the final choice of foreign policy.
        Export Export