intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.5intertrends-205Research ArticleАНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИЗМЫANALYTICAL PRISMSКонцепция «средней силы» (middle power) во внешней политике Республики Корея: теория и практикаMiddlepowermanship in Korean Foreign PolicyВоронцовА.VorontsovA.

Воронцов Александр.

Москва

Alexandr Vorontsov.

Moscow, 107031

vorontsovav@yandex.ruПонькаТ.PonkaT.

Понька Татьяна.

Москва

Tatyana Ponka.

Moscow, 117198

ponka-rudn@mail.ruВарпаховскисЭ.VarpahovskisE.

Варпаховскис Эрикс.

Москва

Eriks Varpahovskis.

Moscow, 101000

erix.vars@gmail.comИнститут востоковедения РАНРоссияInstitute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian FederationРоссийский университет дружбы народовРоссияPeoples’ Friendship University of RussiaRussian FederationНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияNational Research University – Higher School of EconomicsRussian Federation20203003202018189105Copyright © Воронцов А., Понька Т., Варпаховскис Э., 20202020Воронцов А., Понька Т., Варпаховскис Э.Vorontsov A., Ponka T., Varpahovskis E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/205

Актуальность изучения академических дискуссий в незападных странах обусловлена тем, что созданные западными исследователями теории международных отношений, обосновывавшие интересы и ведущую роль Запада в мире, не в состоянии объяснить и спрогнозировать характер и направленность развития нарождающейся системы. Отличительной чертой современных международных отношений стала возросшая роль развивающихся азиатских стран, что оказывает влияние на динамику структуры  мироустройства. Возникает потребность теоретически определить роль и место незападных стран в ней. В настоящей статье авторы анализируют Сеульскую школу международных отношений. Целью анализа стал разбор южнокорейской версии концепции «держав среднего уровня». Авторы показывают, что за основу южнокорейские специалисты взяли понятие, разработанное западными исследователями, но придали ему новую интерпретацию, учитывающую региональный контекст. Среди южнокорейских специалистов сложился консенсус в отношении оценки места и роли их страны в регионе и мире. Они обращают внимание на то, что Республика Корея окружена четырьмя ядерными державами, три из которых являются постоянными членами Совета Безопасности ООН. Подобное  положение  существенно ограничивает возможности и ресурсы влияния Сеула на региональную и мировую политику. Тем не менее достигнутые экономическая и финансовая мощь позволяют Республике Корея вести нишевую дипломатию, направленную на предотвращение столкновений между великими державами в борьбе за гегемонию, содействие мирному разрешению споров между странами региона, установлению норм  международного права, более доверительным отношениям между США и Китаем, что способствует поддержанию глобальной и региональной безопасности. Одна из ключевых задач держав среднего уровня, к которым относит себя и Республика Корея, – быть мостом между великими державами.

As a result of the Post­Cold War development, the international relations have shifted from bipolarism to a multipolarism. Once relevant Western­born IR  theories lack explanatory  power. Current IR witness the  growing role of the  non­Western states both in regional and  international domains. Consequently, there is a growing need for appropriate IR theories that  could explain the changing world structure, describe the role of new powers in international politics and define future development. Thus, it is essential to study non­Western research that  focuses on conceptualization of ongoing processes from its perspective.

The authors analyze the IR theories developed by South Korean scholars. The purpose of this article is to analyze South Korean interpretations of the middlepowermanship that considers the Republic of Korea’s unique regional and global context. South Korean scholars agree on a particular geostrategic location of the state. The geopolitical location, absence of natural resources and limited military power hinder South Korea’s ability to use hard power in regional and international politics. However, South Korea’s economic development and creative approach in foreign policy translate into  middle power diplomacy, which includes niche diplomacy, moderating role in relations between  greater powers, regional cooperation promotion, and development of the international legal system.

The authors conclude that the South Korean version of the middle power theory is continuously being (re) interpreted and adapted to the country’s foreign policy and South Korea should be a bridge between the great powers in the region.

Республика Кореямеждународный порядокдержава среднего уровнятеория международных отношенийвнешняя политика КореиRepublic of KoreaMiddle PowerSeoul school of IRKorean Foreign AffairsReferencesВершинина В.В. «Державы среднего уровня» в международных отношениях: сравнительный анализ концептуальных подходов // Сравнительная политика. 2020. Т. 11. № 3. С. 25–40. https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10034Acharya A. (2003). Will Asia's Past Be Its Future? International Security. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 149–164.Ефремова К.А. Неравновесные державы: Мьянма в стратегическом треугольнике «Китай – Индия – АСЕАН». М.: МГИМО-Университет, 2016. 269 с.Ayhan K. J. (2019). Rethinking Korea's Middle Power Diplomacy as a Nation Branding Project. Korea Observer. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 1–24.Кавешников Н.Ю. Малые и вредные? // Международные процессы. 2008. Т. 6. № 3 (18). С. 84–92.Ban K. (2011). The ROK as a Middle Power: Its Role in Counterinsurgency. Asian Politics & Policy. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 225–247.Королёв А.С. Стратегии средних стран в отношении великих держав: опыт Малайзии // Между- народные процессы. 2018. Т. 16. № 1. С. 90–104.Botero G. (2017). Botero: The Reason of State. Bireley J. (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. 273 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781316493953Колдунова Е.В. Дефицит лидерства в Восточной Азии: шансы для малых и средних стран // Между- народные процессы. 2016. Т. 9. № 2 (26). С. 70–81.Cho Y. C. (2011). Recent discourses on constructing a Korean National School of IR: A reality check. Re-examination of Non-Western International Relations Theories. Kyoto Working Paper on Area Studies. Vol. 118. P. 66–94.Кудряшова И.В. Легко ли быть средневеликим // Международные процессы. Т. 6. № 3 (18). С. 78–83.Choi Y. (2009). South Korea's strategy and Middle Power Activism. The Journal of East Asian Affairs. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 47–67.Скриба А.С. Балансирование малых и средних государств // Международные процессы. 2014. Т. 12. № 4. С. 88–100.Chun Ch. (2014a). Middle power policies as international strategy. Seoul National University Dissertation. S-space. P. 1–77.Acharya A. Will Asia's Past Be Its Future? // International Security. 2003. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 149–164.Chun Ch. (2014b). East Asian Security and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 6. P. 1–21.Ayhan K.J. Rethinking Korea's Middle Power Diplomacy as a Nation Branding Project // Korea Observer. 2019. Vol. 50 No. 1. P. 1–24.Chun Ch. (2010). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? Reflections on and from Korea. In Acharya A., Buzan B. (Eds.) Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. Routledge. London. UK. 248 p.Ban K. The ROK as a Middle Power: Its Role in Counterinsurgency // Asian Politics & Policy. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 225–247.Cooper A., Higgott R., Nossal K. (1993). Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. UBC Press. Vancouver. 232 p.Botero G. Botero: The Reason of State / ed. by J. Bireley. Cambridge University Press. 2017. 273 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781316493953Cooper A. (1997). Middle Powers after the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. 221 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Cho Y.C. Recent discourses on constructing a Korean National School of IR: A reality check. Re-examination of Non-Western International Relations Theories. Kyoto Working Paper on Area Studies. 2011. Vol. 118. P. 66–94.Easley L. E., Park K. (2018). South Korea’s mismatched diplomacy in Asia: middle power identity, interests, and foreign policy. International Politics. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 242–263.Choi Y. South Korea’s strategy and Middle Power Activism // The Journal of East Asian Affairs. 2009. Vol. 23. No.1. P. 47–67.Efremova K.A. (2016). Neravnovesnye derzhavy: Myanma v strategicheskom treugol’nike “Kitaj – Indiya – ASEAN” [Unbalanced Powers: Myanmar in the Strategic Triangle “China – India – ASEAN”]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet. 269 p.Chun Ch. Middle power policies as international strategy. Seoul National University. Dissertation. S-space. 2014a. 77 p.Evans G., Grant B. (1991). Australia’s Foreign Relations: in the World of the 1990s. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 389 p.Chun Ch. East Asian Security and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy // EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014b. No. 6. 21 p.Green M. J. (2019). Is the Era of Korean Middle Power Diplomacy Over? A Realist Perspective. Korean journal of defense analysis. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 1–20.Cooper A., Higgott R. and Nossal K. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. UBC Press. Vancouver. 1993. 232 p.Hart J. (1976). Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 289-305. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300018282.Cooper A. Middle Powers after the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. 1997. 221 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Henrikson A. K. (1997). Middle Powers as Managers: International Mediation within, across, and outside Institutions. In Cooper A. (Ed.) Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. P. 46–73. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Easley L.E., Park K. South Korea’s mismatched diplomacy in Asia: middle power identity, interests, and foreign policy // International Politics. 2018. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 242–263.Higgott R. A. (1997). Issues, Institutions and Middle-Power Diplomacy: Action and Agendas in the Post- Cold War Era. In Cooper A. (Ed.) Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. P. 25–45. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Evans G., Grant B. Australia’s Foreign Relations: in the World of the 1990s, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1991. 389 p.Holbraad C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. 234 p. DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4.Green M.J. Is the Era of Korean Middle Power Diplomacy Over? A Realist Perspective // Korean journal of defense analysis. 2019. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 1–20.Hong K. (2009). South Korean approaches to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding, lessons learned and challenges ahead. The Journal of East Asian Affairs. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 23–45.Hart J. Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations // International Organization. 1976. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 289–305. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300018282.Howe B.M. (2017). Korea’s Role for Peacebuilding and Development in Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 243–266.Henrikson A.K. Middle Powers as Managers: International Mediation within, across, and outside Institutions // Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War / ed. by A. Cooper. (ed.) Palgrave Macmillan. 1997. 221 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Jordaan E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon – South African Journal of Political Studies. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 165–181. DOI: 10.1080/0258934032000147282.Higgott R.A. Issues, Institutions and Middle-Power Diplomacy: Action and Agendas in the Post-Cold War Era // Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War / Cooper A. (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan. 1997. 221 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.Kang D.C. (2003). Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks. Quarterly Journal: International Security. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 57–85.Holbraad C. Middle powers in international politics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. 1984. 234 p. DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4.Kang D.C. (2004a). Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations. Quarterly Journal: International Security. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 165–180.Hong K. South Korean approaches to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding, lessons learned and challenges ahead // The Journal of East Asian Affairs. 2009. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 23–45.Kang D.C. (2004b). The theoretical roots of hierarchy in international relations. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 58. No. 3. P. 337–352.Howe B.M. Korea’s Role for Peacebuilding and Development in Asia // Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 243–266.Kaveshnikov N.Yu. (2008). Malye i vrednye? [Small and Harmful?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 6. No. 3 (18). P. 84–92.Jordaan E. The concept of a middle power in international relations: distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers // Politikon – South African Journal of Political Studies. 2003. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 165–181. DOI: 10.1080/0258934032000147282.Kim E. (2015). Korea's Middle-Power Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Pacific Focus. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 1–9. DOI: 10.1111/pafo.12044.Kang D.C. Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks // Quarterly Journal: International Security. 2003. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 57–85.Kim J., Kim S. (2016). South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Toward an Agenda-Partner Based Leadership. Korean journal of defense analysis. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 317–333.Kang D.C. Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations // Quarterly Journal: International Security. 2004a. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 165–180.Kim S. (2011). 한국의 네트워크 외교전략 – 행위자-네트워크 이론의 원용 [Strategies of Korean Network Diplomacy – Perspective of Actor-Network Theory (In Kor.)]. KAIS International Conference.Kang D.C. The theoretical roots of hierarchy in international relations // Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2004b. Vol. 58. No. 3. P. 337–352.Kim S. (2014a). Cyber Security and Middle Power Diplomacy: A Network Perspective. The Korean Journal of International Studies. Vol.12. No. 2. Р. 323–352. DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2014.12.12.2.323.Kim E. Korea's Middle-Power Diplomacy in the 21st Century // Pacific Focus. 2015. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 1–9. DOI: 10.1111/pafo.12044.Kim S. (2014b). Roles of Middle Power in East Asia: A Korean Perspective. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014. No. 2. 30 p.Kim J., Kim S. South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Toward an Agenda-Partner Based Leadership // Korean journal of defense analysis. 2016. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 317–333.Kim S. (2014c). South Korea’s Climate Change Diplomacy: Analysis Based on the Perspective of ‘Middle Power Diplomacy’. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 5. P. 1–39.Kim S. Cyber Security and Middle Power Diplomacy: A Network Perspective // The Korean Journal of International Studies. 2014a. Vol.12. No. 2. P. 323–352. DOI: 10.14731/kjis.2014.12.12.2.323.Kim S. (2016). South Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges. Research Paper, Asia Programme. Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs. P. 1–16.Kim S. Roles of Middle Power in East Asia: A Korean Perspective. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014b. No. 2. 30 p.Kim W. (2013) 대한민국의 중견국 공공외교 [Korean middle power diplomacy (In Kor.)]. Political Science and Communication research. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 331–350.Kim S. South Korea’s Climate Change Diplomacy: Analysis Based on the Perspective of ‘Middle Power Diplomacy’. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014c. No. 5. 39 p.Ko S. (2015). The Foreign Policy Goal of South Korea's UN Peacekeeping Operations. International Peacekeeping. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 65–80.Kim S. South Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges. Research Paper, Asia Programme. Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs. 2016. 16 p.Koldunova E.V. (2016). Defitsit liderstva v Vostochnoj Azii: shansy dlya malykh i srednikh stran [Deficit of Leadership in East Asia: a Chance for Small and Middle Countries]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 9. No. 2 (26). P. 70–81.Kim S. 한국의 네트워크 외교전략 – 행위자-네트워크 이론의 원용 [Strategies of Korean Network Diplomacy – Perspective of Actor-Network Theory (In Kor.)]. KAIS International Conference 2011.Koo M. (2014). East Asian Maritime Disputes and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 7. P. 1–21.Kim T. South Korea’s Middle Power Response to the Rise of China.// Middle powers and the rise of China/ Gilley B., O'Neil A. (ed.). Georgetown University Press, 2014. 84 p.Koo M. (2010). Island disputes and maritime regime building in East Asia: Between a rock and a hard place. Springer. 208 p.Kim W. 대한민국의 중견국 공공외교 [Korean middle power diplomacy (In Kor.)] // Political Science and Communication research. 2013. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 331–350.Kook K. H., Young C. Y. (2009). International relations studies in Korea: retrospects and prospects. Pacific Focus. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 402–421.Koo M. East Asian Maritime Disputes and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014. No. 7. 21 p.Korolyev A.S. (2018). Strategii srednikh stran v otnoshenii velikikh derzhav: opyt Malajzii [Strategies of Middle States towards Great Powers: the Record of Malaysia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 90–104.Koo M. Island disputes and maritime regime building in East Asia: Between a rock and a hard place. Springer: 2010. 208 p.Kudryashova I.V. (2008). Legko li byt’ srednevelikim [Is it Easy to be Averagely Great]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 6. No. 3 (18). P. 78–83.Ko S. The Foreign Policy Goal of South Korea's UN Peacekeeping Operations // International Peacekeeping. 2015. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 65–80.Lee S. (2012). South Korea as new middle power-seeking complex diplomacy. EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper. No. 25. P. 1–32.Kook K.H., Young C.Y. International relations studies in Korea: retrospects and prospects // Pacific Focus. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 402–421.Lee S. (2014). South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Multilayered World Order and The Case of Development Cooperation Policy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 6. 28 p.Lee S. South Korea as new middle power-seeking complex diplomacy. EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper. 2012. No. 25. 32 p.Park E. (2017). Public Diplomacy of the Republic of Korea: Soft Power and the Future. Challenges & Innovations: South Korea's Soft Power. CPD Conversations in Public Diplomacy. University of South California. Los Angeles. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7jfF1C7yyE (accessed: 21.10.2019).Lee S. South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Multilayered World Order and The Case of Development Cooperation Policy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014. No. 6. 28 p.Robertson J. (2019). South Korea’s missing middle power diplomacy. East Asia Forum. URL: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/16/south-koreas-missing-middle-power-diplomacy/ (accessed: 21.10.2019).Park E. Public Diplomacy of the Republic of Korea: Soft Power and the Future. Challenges & Innovations: South Korea's Soft Power. CPD Conversations in Public Diplomacy. 10 October University of South California. Los Angeles. 2017. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7jfF1C7yyE (дата обращения: 21.10.2019).Skriba A.S. (2014). Balansirovanie malykh i srednikh gosudarstv [Balancing of Small and Medium States]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 88–100.Ping J.H. Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Asia-Pacific. Ashgate Publishing. 2005. 270 p.Sohn Y. (2012). Middle Powers’ Like South Korea Can’t Do Without Soft Power And Network Power. Global Asia. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 30–34.Robertson J. South Korea’s missing middle power diplomacy. East Asia Forum. 16 March 2019. URL: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/16/south-koreas-missing-middle-power-diplomacy/ (дата обращения: 21.10.2019).Sohn Y. (2014). The Role of South Korea in the Making of a Regional Trade Architecture: Convening, Bridging, and Designing FTA Networks. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 8. 23 p.Sohn Y. Middle Powers’ Like South Korea Can’t Do Without Soft Power and Network Power // Global Asia. 2012. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 30–34.Sohn Y. (2015). Searching for a new identity: South Korea’s middle power diplomacy. Fride Policy Brief. No. 212. P. 1–6.Sohn Y. Searching for a new identity: South Korea’s middle power diplomacy. Fride Policy Brief. 2015. No. 212. P. 1–6.Sohn Y., Koo M. (2011). Securitizing trade: the case of the Korea–US free trade agreement. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. Vol. 11. No. 3. P.433–460.Sohn Y. The Role of South Korea in the Making of a Regional Trade Architecture: Convening, Bridging, and Designing FTA Networks. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014. No. 8. 23 p.Varpahovskis E. (2020). Generating Soft Power Through Education: How South Korea approaches Central Asia with its Education Diplomacy. In Erendor M., Öztarsu, M. (Eds.) Contemporary Issues of International Relations: The Problems of International Community. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 421 p.Sohn Y., Koo M. Securitizing trade: the case of the Korea–US free trade agreement. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2011. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 433–460.Vershinina V.V. (2020). “Derzhavy srednego urovnya” v mezhdunardonykh otnosheniyakh: sravnitel’nyj analiz kontseptual’nykh podkhodov [“Middle Range Powers” in the International Relations: Comparative Analysis of the Conceptual Approaches]. Sravnitel’naya politika. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 25–40. https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10034Varpahovskis E. Generating Soft Power Through Education: How South Korea approaches Central Asia with its Education Diplomacy // Contemporary Issues of International Relations: The Problems of International Community / Erendor M., Öztarsu M. (eds.). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2020. 421 p.Watson I., Pandey C. L. (2014). Environmental security and new middle powers: The case of South Korea. Asian Security. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 70–95.Watson I., Pandey C.L. Environmental security and new middle powers: The case of South Korea // Asian Security. 2014. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 70–95.Ye M., Heo U., Li Q. (2018). Economic Development and South Korea’s UN PKO Participation. Journal of Asian and African Studies. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 666–684.Ye M., Heo U., Li Q. Economic Development and South Korea’s UN PKO Participation // Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2018. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 666–684.Ye M., Heo U., Li Q. Economic Development and South Korea’s UN PKO Participation // Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2018. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 666–684.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.