The Structural Sources of Security Tension in Northeast Asia : Reconciliation Dynamics and the Effects of the Security-Status Dilemma

IF 0.1 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Korean Journal of International Studies Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.14731/kjis.2017.12.15.3.449
Bumjoon Kwon, K. Lee
{"title":"The Structural Sources of Security Tension in Northeast Asia : Reconciliation Dynamics and the Effects of the Security-Status Dilemma","authors":"Bumjoon Kwon, K. Lee","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2017.12.15.3.449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historical reconciliation has been an enduring problem in Northeast Asia and an oft-cited source of the “Asian paradox.” This article examines the varying degrees of reconciliation dynamics observed in the U.S.-Japan, China-Japan, ROK-Japan, and ROK-China dyads in order to provide a more systematic understanding of the “Asian paradox.” Contrary to the conventional wisdom that interstate reconciliation hinges upon a certain set of domestic and/or individual variables, this study posits that the process and outcome of reconciliation are determined by a particular set of structural tendencies exhibited in a dyadic relationship. More specifically, this article contends that the interaction of security and status dilemmas in the post-conflict stage can either foment or forestall reconciliation between former adversary states. Strategic incentives for reconciliation remain low when a dyad experiences a heightened sense of both security and status dilemmas; and the absence of both security and status dilemmas presents structural conditions ripe for meaningful reconciliation. Introducing a simple two-by-two model using the security-status dilemmas hypothesis, this article offers a parsimonious and generalizable theory on international reconciliation from a systemic perspective. Ranging from deep reconciliation (U.S-Japan) to no reconciliation (China-Japan), and shallow reconciliation (ROK-Japan) to latent reconciliation (ROK-China), the case studies illustrate the saliency of the security-status dilemmas model. The findings also suggest that the attendant “Asian paradox” can be construed as a byproduct of the divergent reconciliation dynamics observed in the region.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"449-482"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2017.12.15.3.449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historical reconciliation has been an enduring problem in Northeast Asia and an oft-cited source of the “Asian paradox.” This article examines the varying degrees of reconciliation dynamics observed in the U.S.-Japan, China-Japan, ROK-Japan, and ROK-China dyads in order to provide a more systematic understanding of the “Asian paradox.” Contrary to the conventional wisdom that interstate reconciliation hinges upon a certain set of domestic and/or individual variables, this study posits that the process and outcome of reconciliation are determined by a particular set of structural tendencies exhibited in a dyadic relationship. More specifically, this article contends that the interaction of security and status dilemmas in the post-conflict stage can either foment or forestall reconciliation between former adversary states. Strategic incentives for reconciliation remain low when a dyad experiences a heightened sense of both security and status dilemmas; and the absence of both security and status dilemmas presents structural conditions ripe for meaningful reconciliation. Introducing a simple two-by-two model using the security-status dilemmas hypothesis, this article offers a parsimonious and generalizable theory on international reconciliation from a systemic perspective. Ranging from deep reconciliation (U.S-Japan) to no reconciliation (China-Japan), and shallow reconciliation (ROK-Japan) to latent reconciliation (ROK-China), the case studies illustrate the saliency of the security-status dilemmas model. The findings also suggest that the attendant “Asian paradox” can be construed as a byproduct of the divergent reconciliation dynamics observed in the region.
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
东北亚安全紧张的结构性根源:和解动力与安全地位困境的影响
历史和解一直是东北亚的一个长期问题,也是“亚洲悖论”的一个经常被引用的来源。本文考察了在美日、中日、韩日和韩中二人组中观察到的不同程度的和解动态,以期对“亚洲悖论”有一个更系统的理解。“与传统观点相反,即州际和解取决于一组特定的国内和/或个人变量,这项研究认为,和解的过程和结果是由二元关系中表现出的一组特定结构趋势决定的。更具体地说,这篇文章认为,冲突后阶段安全和地位困境的相互作用可能会煽动或阻止前敌对国家之间的和解。当二人组感到安全感和地位困境加剧时,和解的战略激励仍然很低;安全和地位困境的缺失为实现有意义的和解提供了成熟的结构条件。本文引入了一个简单的二乘二模型,利用安全地位困境假说,从系统的角度提供了一个关于国际和解的简约和可推广的理论。从深度和解(美日)到不和解(中日),从浅和解(韩日)到潜在和解(韩中),案例研究都说明了安全地位困境模型的显著性。研究结果还表明,随之而来的“亚洲悖论”可以被解释为该地区观察到的不同和解动态的副产品。
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
Korean Journal of International Studies
Korean Journal of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
CRUDE POWER: How Oil Affects Military Capacity and Institutions The Moderating Effects of Official Development Assistance on the Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and Human Development The Nord Stream pipe dream: How an outdated Ostpolitik misguided Germany’s foreign policy toward Russia Why Restrict Emigration: Autocrats’ Economic Ideas in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan Supply Chain Security in the Age of Techno-Geopolitics: ‘Fab 4’ Case in the Semiconductor Industry
×
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