Securitizing high-technology industries: South Korea–Japan dispute over materials–parts–equipment products

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Business and Politics Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1017/bap.2024.3
Min Gyo Koo
{"title":"Securitizing high-technology industries: South Korea–Japan dispute over materials–parts–equipment products","authors":"Min Gyo Koo","doi":"10.1017/bap.2024.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Japan–Korea whitelist dispute (2019–2023) embodies key features of interstate disputes related to economic statecraft ideas. Against the backdrop of the legal dispute over Japan’s “essential security interests” claim based on GATT Article 21 (Security Exceptions), this study analyzes South Korea’s response to the whitelist dispute, with a focus on its materials–parts–equipment localization policy. The findings indicate that the policy process and outcomes align with very few of the criteria suggested by the new industrial policy literature. Notably, the policy’s goals and tools were driven by ideology rather than by science, and the implementing agency—The Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy—while competent, was politically captured. In conclusion, this study suggests that policymakers should purposefully and consciously connect security with trade or implement industrial policies within a well-defined strategic framework.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2024.3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Japan–Korea whitelist dispute (2019–2023) embodies key features of interstate disputes related to economic statecraft ideas. Against the backdrop of the legal dispute over Japan’s “essential security interests” claim based on GATT Article 21 (Security Exceptions), this study analyzes South Korea’s response to the whitelist dispute, with a focus on its materials–parts–equipment localization policy. The findings indicate that the policy process and outcomes align with very few of the criteria suggested by the new industrial policy literature. Notably, the policy’s goals and tools were driven by ideology rather than by science, and the implementing agency—The Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy—while competent, was politically captured. In conclusion, this study suggests that policymakers should purposefully and consciously connect security with trade or implement industrial policies within a well-defined strategic framework.
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
高科技产业的安全化:韩日关于材料-零部件-设备产品的争端
日韩白名单争端(2019-2023 年)体现了与经济国策思想相关的国家间争端的主要特征。在日本根据关贸总协定第 21 条(安全例外)提出 "基本安全利益 "主张的法律争端背景下,本研究分析了韩国对白名单争端的回应,重点关注其材料-零部件-设备本地化政策。研究结果表明,该政策的过程和结果很少符合新产业政策文献提出的标准。值得注意的是,该政策的目标和工具是由意识形态而非科学驱动的,而执行机构--贸易、工业和能源部--虽然有能力,但却被政治所俘虏。总之,本研究建议政策制定者有目的、有意识地将安全与贸易联系起来,或在明确的战略框架内实施产业政策。
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
Business and Politics
Business and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Business and Politics solicits articles within the broad area of the interaction between firms and political actors. Two specific areas are of particular interest to the journal. The first concerns the use of non-market corporate strategy. These efforts include internal organizational design decisions as well as external strategies. Internal organizational design refers to management structure, sourcing decisions, and transnational organization with respect to the firm"s non-market environment. External strategies include legal tactics, testimony, lobbying and other means to influence policy makers at all levels of government and international institutions as an adjunct to market strategies of the firm.
期刊最新文献
Housebuilding, land, and structural power: the case of mortgage market support schemes in England Blue versus red: partisan firm leaders and corporate culture The Paradox of Algorithms and Blame on Public Decision-makers Tycoon candidates, electoral strategies, and voter support: a survey experiment in South Africa Why is there no investor-state dispute settlement in RCEP? bargaining and contestation in the investment 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