Conceptions of a rogue state in a comparative perspective: the United States and European Union vis-à-vis North Korea

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Contemporary Politics Pub Date : 2023-10-06 DOI:10.1080/13569775.2023.2265289
Sofia Ribeiro-Lemos, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira
{"title":"Conceptions of a rogue state in a comparative perspective: the United States and European Union vis-à-vis North Korea","authors":"Sofia Ribeiro-Lemos, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2265289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article seeks to understand how the conception of North Korea as a rogue state influenced the relations of Washington and Brussels with this eastern Asian country between 9/11 terrorist attacks (2001) and the outbreak of the pandemic crisis (2020). This is done by drawing on the analytical framework offered by Miskimmon, O’Loughlin, and Roselle that allows one to compare the US and EU strategic narratives vis-à-vis North Korea. Besides adding a novel comparative perspective to the available studies focused on rogue states, this work concludes that although the US and the EU utilised sanctions to coerce North Korea, they exhibited different conceptions of rogueness. While the US’ system narrative characterised North Korea as a rogue, the EU’s characterisation focused on its violations of international law. Yet, the two actors’ identity and issue narratives highlighted their role and responsibility to bring the country back to the path of denuclearisation.KEYWORDS: European UnionNorth Korearogue statestrategic narrativesUnited States of America AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 This date draws upon WHO’s declaration: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-20202 The tweets analysed range from January 2017 until June 2018. For an archive of the President’s tweets, see: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ (last accessed January 2023).3 The Agreed Framework (1994) was an agreement between the US and North Korea, in which both parties would work in a step-by-step manner to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program. It collapsed with the October Revelations (2002) with violations from both sides. Nevertheless, scholars argue that it was ‘to date the most successful effort to cap North Korea’s development of a nuclear capability, and the longest verified freeze on North Korea’s nuclear fuel production’ (Panda, Citation2020, p. 47).4 The Six-Party Talks were multilateral discussions between China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the US held from 2003 until 2009 with the purpose of negotiating the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program.5 In the September Agreement (2005) the six actors agreed to reach the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula ‘in a phased manner in line with the principle of commitment for commitment, action for action’ (NCNK 2005). Its importance lies on what Panda argues to be the most ‘wide-ranging expression of a North Korean commitment on denuclearisation and disarmament’ (2020, 57).6 For a more extensive list, see: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/northkoreaprofile (last accessed January 2023).7 According to the Country Report on Terrorism of 2019. Available at: https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea/ (last accessed March 2023).8 After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 2009, the ESDP was renamed Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).9 The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was founded by Japan, South Korea, and the US, in 1995 in support of the Agreed Framework. Within the members and contributors, it is worth highlight the presence of the EU, Poland, and Czech Republic. It followed the same fate of the Agreed Framework, seeing its termination in 2006.Additional informationFundingThe authors acknowledge that this study was conducted at the Research Center in Political Science at University of Minho/University of Évora and was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds under the grant number UIDB/CPO/ 00758/2020, and under the grant number UI/BD/152792/2022.Notes on contributorsSofia Ribeiro-LemosSofia Ribeiro-Lemos is a Ph.D. student of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho (Portugal) and a collaborative member of Research Center in Political Science (CICP). Her Ph.D. project is financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, UI/BD/152792/2022).Laura C. Ferreira-PereiraLaura C. Ferreira-Pereira received her Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Kent at Canterbury (UK). She is Full Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho and Visiting Professor of the University of São Paulo. Laura Ferreira-Pereira is the editor of Portugal in the European Union: Assessing Twenty-Five Years of Integration Experience (Routledge, 2014) and the co-editor of The European Union's Strategic Partnerships: Global Diplomacy in a Contested World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021). She has acted as the leading guest editor of Special Issues published by European Security (2012), Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2016) and Journal of Contemporary European Studies (forthcoming in 2023). She has published extensively on EU's foreign policy (CFSP/CSDP), Portuguese foreign and security policy and contemporary foreign policy of Brazil in other leading journals such as International Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, Cooperation and Conflict, Global Society, European Politics and Society, and Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, among others; and in several edited volumes. She is a member of the editorial boards of the journals Contemporary Politics, Global Society and Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. She is a founding member of the European International Studies Association.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2265289","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article seeks to understand how the conception of North Korea as a rogue state influenced the relations of Washington and Brussels with this eastern Asian country between 9/11 terrorist attacks (2001) and the outbreak of the pandemic crisis (2020). This is done by drawing on the analytical framework offered by Miskimmon, O’Loughlin, and Roselle that allows one to compare the US and EU strategic narratives vis-à-vis North Korea. Besides adding a novel comparative perspective to the available studies focused on rogue states, this work concludes that although the US and the EU utilised sanctions to coerce North Korea, they exhibited different conceptions of rogueness. While the US’ system narrative characterised North Korea as a rogue, the EU’s characterisation focused on its violations of international law. Yet, the two actors’ identity and issue narratives highlighted their role and responsibility to bring the country back to the path of denuclearisation.KEYWORDS: European UnionNorth Korearogue statestrategic narrativesUnited States of America AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 This date draws upon WHO’s declaration: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-20202 The tweets analysed range from January 2017 until June 2018. For an archive of the President’s tweets, see: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ (last accessed January 2023).3 The Agreed Framework (1994) was an agreement between the US and North Korea, in which both parties would work in a step-by-step manner to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program. It collapsed with the October Revelations (2002) with violations from both sides. Nevertheless, scholars argue that it was ‘to date the most successful effort to cap North Korea’s development of a nuclear capability, and the longest verified freeze on North Korea’s nuclear fuel production’ (Panda, Citation2020, p. 47).4 The Six-Party Talks were multilateral discussions between China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the US held from 2003 until 2009 with the purpose of negotiating the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program.5 In the September Agreement (2005) the six actors agreed to reach the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula ‘in a phased manner in line with the principle of commitment for commitment, action for action’ (NCNK 2005). Its importance lies on what Panda argues to be the most ‘wide-ranging expression of a North Korean commitment on denuclearisation and disarmament’ (2020, 57).6 For a more extensive list, see: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/northkoreaprofile (last accessed January 2023).7 According to the Country Report on Terrorism of 2019. Available at: https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea/ (last accessed March 2023).8 After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 2009, the ESDP was renamed Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).9 The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was founded by Japan, South Korea, and the US, in 1995 in support of the Agreed Framework. Within the members and contributors, it is worth highlight the presence of the EU, Poland, and Czech Republic. It followed the same fate of the Agreed Framework, seeing its termination in 2006.Additional informationFundingThe authors acknowledge that this study was conducted at the Research Center in Political Science at University of Minho/University of Évora and was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds under the grant number UIDB/CPO/ 00758/2020, and under the grant number UI/BD/152792/2022.Notes on contributorsSofia Ribeiro-LemosSofia Ribeiro-Lemos is a Ph.D. student of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho (Portugal) and a collaborative member of Research Center in Political Science (CICP). Her Ph.D. project is financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, UI/BD/152792/2022).Laura C. Ferreira-PereiraLaura C. Ferreira-Pereira received her Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Kent at Canterbury (UK). She is Full Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho and Visiting Professor of the University of São Paulo. Laura Ferreira-Pereira is the editor of Portugal in the European Union: Assessing Twenty-Five Years of Integration Experience (Routledge, 2014) and the co-editor of The European Union's Strategic Partnerships: Global Diplomacy in a Contested World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021). She has acted as the leading guest editor of Special Issues published by European Security (2012), Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2016) and Journal of Contemporary European Studies (forthcoming in 2023). She has published extensively on EU's foreign policy (CFSP/CSDP), Portuguese foreign and security policy and contemporary foreign policy of Brazil in other leading journals such as International Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, Cooperation and Conflict, Global Society, European Politics and Society, and Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, among others; and in several edited volumes. She is a member of the editorial boards of the journals Contemporary Politics, Global Society and Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. She is a founding member of the European International Studies Association.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流氓国家的概念比较:美国和欧盟对-à-vis朝鲜
她曾担任《欧洲安全》(2012)、《剑桥国际事务评论》(2016)和《当代欧洲研究杂志》(即将于2023年出版)特刊的首席客座编辑。她在《国际政治》、《共同市场研究杂志》、《欧洲一体化、合作与冲突杂志》、《全球社会》、《欧洲政治与社会》和《巴西国际评论》等主要期刊上发表了大量关于欧盟外交政策(CFSP/CSDP)、葡萄牙外交与安全政策和巴西当代外交政策的文章;在几卷编辑过的书中。她是《当代政治》、《全球社会》和《巴西国际评论》(revsta Brasileira de Política international)等杂志编委会成员。她是欧洲国际研究协会的创始成员之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Politics
Contemporary Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Are Latin American populists more likely to introduce direct democracy? Populism and democracy: a reassessment Big ideas, little detail: how populist parties talk about referendums in Europe Do populists want direct democracy? Examining how thick and thin populist attitudes are associated with the Finnish Citizens’ Initiative Neither Islamic, nor a republic and not Iranian: the legitimacy crisis of the clerical regime
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1