Search

This paper addresses the question "what are the similarities and differences between U.S. trade frictions with China, Japan, and South Korea that account for different U.S. retaliation patterns?" This paper develops six independent variables and their relative measurements from U.S.-Japan and U.S.-South Korea cases and the literature, and examines their impact on U.S. retaliation to China. Our results indicate that four out of six independent variables have decreased the probability of U.S. retaliation since 2001. Furthermore, the U.S. has lost the necessary political, economic, and military leverage to retaliate to China, although it has had two of the three "motivations" to do so. This paper suggests that U.S. leverage over China has deteriorated for two major reasons: (1) U.S.' "illusion" of the latter party's ability/willingness for cooperation and of its own capabilities to retaliate; and (2) China's accumulation of relative gains at an unprecedented rate after 2001. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Northeast Asia is often regarded as having an uneasy atmosphere, with tensions between the countries making the region sometimes look unpeaceful. North Korean arms tests and other aggressive gestures also contribute to this view, as well as tensions between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. My study tries to look closer at the development of the relations between the most important states in the region, China, Japan and South Korea, assuming that the above-mentioned conflicts are not dominating the relations between the three countries. The study tries to assess changes in the triadic and dyadic relations which don not get as much attention as the conflicts, but will also have an impact on the future relations in the region.These changes are studied by using the concept of Security Community that has been first developed by Karl W. Deutsch and later been elaborated by Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett. The larger goal of my study is to examine the long term stability of the peace between the three countries. A pluralistic Security Community is defined as a community of states having "dependable expectations of peaceful change". Whilst Deutsch developed the concept of the Security Community with reference to the North Atlantic region, Adler and Barnett and Amitav Acharya expanded the scope of the concept to other regions in the world. They also based it on constructivist ideas, giving it more theoretical rigidity, and added the idea of a development pattern with different stages in building a Security Community from nascent to mature. This now allows to study Security Communities that have not fully developed yet, such as in Northeast Asia. Following this concept, the key factors in the development of a Security Community are transactions, norms and institutions. In my work I study the changing relations of the three countries by looking at changes in these factors in different issue areas, with special focus on the development in the maritime domain, which seems to display a case of change towards closer co-operation. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]