Search

Purpose: Scholars have been debating the geopolitical importance of the strengthening China-Russia relationship for some time, noting that the relationship does not constitute a full alliance, but still might have great significance for world politics. This paper aims to improve on this scholarship by examining the evolution of China-Russia cooperation as it relates to the future of North Korea, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Design, Methodology, Approach: This scholarship represents a methodological advance over most previous discussions of the China-Russia relationship. It embraces the historical development of this relationship, probes structural arrangements in relationship to regional stability, and also draws upon extensive Russian and Chinese language data sets which constitute the material for a “discourse analysis,” to achieve a deeper understanding of this relationship as it pertains to the Korean Peninsula. Findings: Overall, this study documents substantial cooperation between Beijing and Moscow with respect to Korean affairs. While some disagreements between China and Russia do exist in this sphere, the main implication of these developments is the trend toward a hardening of the bipolar structure in Northeast Asia, informed by the growing influence of patriotic and nationalistic elite groups within both China and Russia. However, the study points out a paradox in that this hardening of bipolarity could actually help to stabilize the spiraling tensions that have surrounded North Korea in recent decades. Practical Implications: This paper may help students and policymakers alike in Northeast Asia evaluate the significance of the China-Russia quasi-alliance. Overall, this paper supports the conclusion that the dangers of the China-Russia quasi-alliance need not be exaggerated. Originality Value: This paper is innovative insofar as it gives balanced attention to both China’s and Russia’s discourses and policies toward North Korea and evaluates the influence of Moscow-Beijing’s growing cooperation in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, as it may impact the future of North Korea and the wider region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is one of the most significant instruments dealing with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, its main objectives include promoting cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and further achieving nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmament. The three major objectives of the NPT are, namely, nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful use of nuclear energy, and nuclear disarmament. The treaty was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. Twenty-five years later, the state parties of the NPT met in May 1995 and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely. More countries have adhered to the NPT than to any other similar arms limitation and disarmament agreement. As of June 2019, 191 states have come to participate in the treaty. North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came into full compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following the detonation of nuclear devices in violation of core provisions of the treaty. Since then North Korea has continued developing nuclear weapons against all odds and against all sanctions from the international community. North Korea's repeated violations of the duties of non-proliferation stipulated in the NPT imply a bleak future for peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula. Also, nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia will potentially become a serious threat to the stability and security of the international community. Taking into account this context, this essay addresses the legal and political aspects of the NPT regime with special reference to the interrelationship between international law and international relations. Specifically, it examines several issues, including the process of the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea, a review of the NPT regime, the law and politics of nuclear weapons, and South Korea's policy choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the international relations between North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK) and Iran in the context of their shared perception of a threat from the United States. We discuss the conventional idea of the international relationship--the enemy of my enemy is my ally--to explain Pyongyang--Tehran relations, evaluate its past and current relations, and offer policy suggestions for the recent denuclearization approach toward North Korea and Iran. Using newly discovered archival resources and political records, we challenge the conventional idea that the two states share the same threat perception in a consistent manner and suggest the level of their military cooperation changes depending on the approach from Washington and the international community. This research provides a more exact picture of the international relations North Korea and Iran since the 1980s and of the link between their shared threat perception and denuclearization debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are diverging assessments of China's role in resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. China's role has been characterised variously as a bystander, arbiter, catalyst and mediator over the years. This paper aims to clarify where China stands on North Korea and assesses the different phases of the Chinese approach to conflict resolution during the North Korean nuclear crisis. The main argument is that China wishes to maintain the regional status quo while appearing to adjust its position in line with the international community. China's current duplicity stems from its different priorities and concerns to the remainder of the world, and can best be explained using a role theory analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In tackling the current nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, President Donald Trump has invested - especially before the dramatic turn of events since early 2018 - a great deal of political capital in President Xi Jinping in the hopes that he might rein in North Korea, China's traditional ally. However, expecting Beijing to 'solve' the problem is unrealistic. Chinese thinking on North Korea - as reflected in policy positions and domestic debates - has been marred by inconsistencies and overcaution and it is now further complicated by the intensifying geopolitical competition with the United States, which also embroils, to a varying degree, South Korea and Taiwan. Beijing has been strenuously walking a fine line between pressing Pyongyang and averting a war, all the while watching its back, particularly with regard to Taiwan and the South China Sea. Beijing's risk aversion over North Korea and its security competition with the US has led it into a geopolitical conundrum from which there is no clear exit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on value frames frequently used in the current political discourse on North Korean nuclear aspirations, this study investigates how value framing affects people's policy preference. News stories were manipulated by highlighting either the ethical or material dangers of the North's nuclear armament. Findings indicate that value framing did not directly shape opinion about government policy on North Korea. However, news framing produced a more subtle set of effects on the way people make decisions. Participants' opinions about how to respond to the nuclear crisis were closely aligned with their general political attitudes. As hypothesized, this pattern was more pronounced when participants were exposed to the ethical frame. Implications for understanding of value framing and public opinion are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the democratic setbacks in dealing with the issue of denuclearization in the Korean peninsula. The U.S. policy over the nuclear programme of North Korea has been changed since the 1994 agreement under the administration of then-U.S. president Bill Clinton and the declaration of North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" by the administration of then-president George W. Bush in 2003. It notes that the policy of the Bush administration toward North Korea demonstrates the example of a democratic setback.

Ever since North Korea's admission in October 2002 of the existence of a highly-enriched uranium program, the North Korean nuclear problem has gone from bad to worse. Prospects for a peaceful resolution seem dim. North Korea has undertaken a series of brinkmanship measures in response to the staunch American attitude. Both actors are now locked in a dangerous game of chicken without a dear route to a compromise. Why this collision course? Most critical to the issue has been the advent of the Bush Doctrine, which signals a major paradigmatic change in American foreign and defense policy. Its moral absolutism, hegemonic unilateralism, offensive realism, and focus on weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism have radically changed the terms of American engagement with North Korea. This article examines the impact of the Bush Doctrine on the North Korean nuclear problem by showing how it has affected the rise and evolution of the problem, delineates future scenarios of the crisis, and draws some implications for its peaceful resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]