Logic of Choice: China’s Binding Strategies toward North Korea, 1965–1970

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Studies Pub Date : 2022-05-27 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2022.2097891
Chengzhi Yin
{"title":"Logic of Choice: China’s Binding Strategies toward North Korea, 1965–1970","authors":"Chengzhi Yin","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2022.2097891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union tried to induce North Korea to drift away from China. This challenged China’s security, given escalated tension between China and the Soviet Union in this period. To counter the Soviet policies, China used binding strategies, which are a state’s attempt to maintain or enhance its alignment with its security partners. I argue that China chose coercive binding as its primary strategy because it had strong leverage over North Korea. Meanwhile, China deployed accommodative binding to complement its primary strategy. In this article, I first develop a theoretical framework to explain how a state chooses its binding strategies. I then apply this theory to the Chinese-North Korean-Soviet triangle in the late 1960s. I conclude by discussing broader theoretical and policy implications, such as the importance of examining how states mix different types of binding strategies.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"483 - 509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2097891","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union tried to induce North Korea to drift away from China. This challenged China’s security, given escalated tension between China and the Soviet Union in this period. To counter the Soviet policies, China used binding strategies, which are a state’s attempt to maintain or enhance its alignment with its security partners. I argue that China chose coercive binding as its primary strategy because it had strong leverage over North Korea. Meanwhile, China deployed accommodative binding to complement its primary strategy. In this article, I first develop a theoretical framework to explain how a state chooses its binding strategies. I then apply this theory to the Chinese-North Korean-Soviet triangle in the late 1960s. I conclude by discussing broader theoretical and policy implications, such as the importance of examining how states mix different types of binding strategies.
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
选择的逻辑:中国对朝鲜的约束性战略,1965–1970
上世纪60年代末,苏联试图诱使朝鲜脱离中国。这对中国的安全构成了挑战,因为这一时期中苏之间的紧张局势不断升级。为了对抗苏联的政策,中国使用了约束性战略,这是一个国家试图维持或加强与安全伙伴的结盟。我认为,中国之所以选择强制约束作为其主要战略,是因为它对朝鲜拥有强大的影响力。与此同时,中国部署了宽松约束,以补充其主要战略。在本文中,我首先开发了一个理论框架来解释国家如何选择其绑定策略。然后,我将这一理论应用于20世纪60年代末的中国-朝鲜-苏联三角关系。最后,我将讨论更广泛的理论和政策含义,例如检查国家如何混合不同类型的绑定策略的重要性。
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
Security Studies
Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.
期刊最新文献
Buying Survival: Why Do Leaders Hire Mercenaries? The Market for Foreign Bases Is multi-method research more convincing than single-method research? An analysis of International Relations journal articles, 1980–2018 International Security and Black Politics: A Biographical Note Toward an Institutional Critique How Central is Race to International Relations?
×
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:604180095
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