Jeju Peace Institute

Since 2017, the “Brexit” and the “America first” slogans have raised concerns that liberal internationalism that has prevailed as the international order since the end of the Cold War faces a crisis. In the context of this uncertainty, this research suggests that “inter-regionalism” is a new alternative to overcome the crisis of liberal nternationalism, while examining theoretical discussions on this new concept. Inter-regionalism has been studied by European scholars, focusing on cooperation between Asia and Europe, Europe and Africa, and Europe and the South, but it has not been explored theoretically and empirically in Korea. So, this study assumes that Northeast Asia is in the initial stages of regionalism and investigates the possibility of inter-regionalism in the region based on this assumption. This research insists that the initiatives for regional cooperation such as the northeast Asia Plus Responsible Community, the New Southern Policy, and the New Northern Policy, which the incumbent government is pursuing, should be based on inter-regional political, economic, social, and cultural commonality and interests, instead of inter-governmental relations. On the other hand, Northeast Asia should consider inter-regionalism as a next step of the region to take to overcome the limitations of regional cooperation confined to security and national interest issues.

The relationship between Korea and the U. S. is one of the key axes in security issues in the Korean Peninsula, and the regional order in East Asia. In spite of the importance of research on the relationship between South Korea and the U.S., their methodology remained centered just on traditional case studies mainly confined to the government transition period. This study, based on empirical methodology, keeps track of the changes in bilateral relations and predicts their future course by applying the ARIMA model based on the GDELT time series data accumulated by the big data echnique. The ARIMA model, used in various social science disciplines, explains the rise and decline of cooperation and disputes between the U.S. and South Korea by utilizing the time series data on the changes in bilateral relations. Despite the criticism that the result of the time-series research might end up just with a post-diction about the relationship between Korea and the U. S.,this study can have academic implications for future research on bilateral relationships. It points out the feasibility of the time series analysis method for future research on international relations. In the analysis of the time series of ROK-US disputes, for example, this study shows that South Korea was required to actively cooperate with the U.S. in such case as the proposed return of wartime operational control. The U.S. sought to expand its national interest in East Asia through its active engagement on the Korean Peninsula. Against the backof this kind of security situation, the study explains the reason why the possibility of disputes between the U.S. and South Korea is much lower than that of cooperation in their bilateral relations.

In promoting cooperation between South Korea and ASEAN under its New Southern Policy, it is important for South Korea to understand how ASEAN countries cooperate with one another and apply that knowledge to South Korea-ASEAN relations. To be specific, the ASEAN Way and track 2 diplomacy facilitate cooperation among ASEAN countries. For South Korea to improve its relations with these countries, it needs to follow the ASEAN Way and promote and utilize track 2 diplomacy. Since there is no equivalent of ASEAN ISIS in South Korea-ASEAN relations, this essay proposes an ASEAN-ROK ISIS, a network composed of think tanks in South Korea and ASEAN countries.

It is necessary for a researcher to analyze the relationships between North and South Korea with objective data including information concerning actors, targets, time, and places since the interactions between two Koreas have happened on a daily basis. On top of that, it is unclear to delineate the cause and effect of the dynamics of inter-Korean relations. Previous researches concerning North-South Korean relations have concentrated on specific events which are related to the policy implications rather than tracing down the chronologic trend. Lack of information is attributable as the biggest barrier for objective understanding of North Korean behavior. Therefore, this research employs the big data forms of North-South Korean interaction, GDELT. With the support of big data, I build the peace index between North-South Korean relations and used the time-series analyses in order to provide the policy suggestions. According to the test results, North Korea tried to avoid strengthening mutual cooperaton in order to prevent any possibility of regime collapse. In a sense that, the hostile interdependence refers to the basic trend of inter-Korean relationship. In terms of degree in reciprocity between North and South Korea, South Korea’s cooperative reciprocity is stronger that North Korea’s cooperative reciprocity. When it comes to the presidential variance of reciprocity, Chun Doo-hwan, Kim Young-sam, and Roh Moo-hyun administrations were cooperative, while Roh Taw-woo, Kim Dae-jung, Lee Myung-bak, Park Geun-hye administrations were conflictual to North Korea. Among North Korean leaders, Under the Kim Il-sung regime, North Korea’s response was more cooperative compare to South Korea response. On the other hand, South Korea’s response tunrned out to be more cooperative compare to North Korea’s response during the Kim Jong-il regime. Contents I. Introduction II. Methodology: Concerning GDELT and Previous Researches III. Descriptive Statistics: Impact of Major Military Event in Inter-Korean Relationship IV. The Time-Series Analyses: Impact of Political Leaders in Inter-Korean Relationship V. Conclusion​

In order to protect Korean citizens and firms from terrorist attacks at home and abroad, we need a systemic understanding of terrorism and also effective strategies to deal with them. Besides, as a global middle power, we cannot ignore terrorism in other countries and regions. We must understand and respond proactively to terrorism. As a first step, we need to gather information on terrorism and analyze its patterns and trends. Based on the Global Terrorism Database, this study has analyzed patterns and trends in terrorism across countries and regions. The results show that risk of terrorism varies significantly from year to year, from country to country, and from region to region. Similarly, patterns and targets of terrorism also vary greatly. Terrorist attacks have increased in recent years in most cases, and are concentrated in a small number of countries and regions. National and regional variations in terrorism are persistent over time. Contents I. Introduction II. Global Patterns and Trends in Terrorism III. Regional Patterns and Trends in Terrorism IV. The Ten countries most impacted by terrorism V. Conclusion​

In the dictionary, ‘a partnership’ is defined as the relationship between the concerned actors and the parties who agree to cooperate for their mutual benefit. A partnership, however, is hard to identify, and it is difficult to build common criteria or principles that can be referred to for all possible events because “a partnership” is often considered as linguistic rhetoric alleged by some politicians. This research aims to draw out the general meaning of ‘a partnership’ by reviewing conclusions of the summit and the agenda that was adopted under the bilateral relationships between Korea-EU, Korea- Russia, and Korea-China. This work is examined on the basis of ‘the Grounded Theory’, one of the qualitative research methods, and the text is interpreted through CAQDAS(Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software) for the sake of efficiency to increase the reliability of the research results. This research also provides a stepping stone for developing an account of a more systemic and data-centered approach regarding ‘a partnership’, and will contribute to building a theoretical framework for partnership strategy of South Korea. Contents I. Introduction II. Research Methodology III. ‘A partnership’ in Diplomatic Documents IV. Conclusion

Concerning territorial disputes in East Asia, Japan and China tend to rely on the roles played by local governments and civil societies. Although a territorial dispute is related to sovereignty and diplomacy of a central government, there are new non-governmental actors such as journalists, civil societies, and local governments. This research will provide policy suggestions for the sovereignty of Dok-Do and Ieo-Do with Pursiainen’s model for the local government as an instrument of a rational state. This research will provide policy suggestions for the sovereignty of Dok-Do and Ieo-Do with Pursiainen’s model for the local government as an instrument of a rational state.​ Contents Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. Theoretical Perspectives Ⅲ. Complexity of Territorial Disputes in East Asia Ⅳ. Alternative Paradigm of Territorial Disputes: Role of Local Government Ⅴ. Conclusion​

Fighting maritime environmental pollution requires international cooperation. While working together for maritime environmental protection, countries can also build confidence and the habit of cooperation. Do confidence-building and the habit of cooperation from maritime environmental cooperation also contribute to multilateral cooperation in security issues, as argued by the proponents of the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI)? This research answers the above question by examining three maritime environmental protection projects: the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), the East Asian Seas Action Plan (EASAP), and the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP). While dialogue and cooperation among countries have increased through these projects, it is difficult to conclude that these projects have also promoted multilateral cooperation in ‘hard’ security issues. The initial momentum for MAP came not from a middle power but from a hegemonic power, setting MAP apart from NAPCI. There is little evidence that the success of MAP contributed to international cooperation in hard security issues. Counter-intuitively, NOWPAP is more successful, not less successful, than EASAP, because ASEAN, the regional cooperative body, competed against EASAP, rather than reinforcing or complementing EASAP. One conclusion that follows from this finding is that the relationship between maritime environmental cooperation and multilateral security cooperation may be more contradictory than complementary. Contents I. The Need for a New Peace and Security Mechanism II. Why Study Marine Environment Cooperation? III. Mediterranean Action Plan: MAP IV. EASAP & NOWPAP V. Implications VI. Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative: Assumption and Reality​

Since the end of the Cold war, it seemed that international politics would be explained as an extension of regionalism based on the universalism of Western democracy. From the 2000s, however, it has appeared to be entangled in a series of geopolitics and regionalism even though it is not just like direct struggles or immediate cooperation and compromise but in view point of a preoccupation with influence, indirect conflicts or disguised reconciliation and coordination. This article first examines the development of regionalism and geopolitics in East Asia through the conception of influence, and then shows that all of the actors around the Korean Peninsula manage the affairs of influence to maximize their own interests by exploiting the extension of regionalism or even geopolitical tensions. Inconclusion, this paper discusses how South Korea pursues an unification diplomacy in the doble-layered conditions of regionalism or geopolitics and how South Korea endeavors to reduce regional tensions between the powers in East Asia, and then proposes a strategy for the future. Contents Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. Influencialization: Interface between Geopolitics and Regionalism Ⅲ. Return of Geopolitics Ⅳ. Expansion of Regionalism Ⅴ. Circumstances of the Korean Peninsula Ⅵ. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations