Middlepowermanship in Korean Foreign Policy
https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.5
Abstract
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.
About the Authors
A. Vorontsov
Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexandr Vorontsov.
Moscow, 107031
T. Ponka
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatyana Ponka.
Moscow, 117198
E. Varpahovskis
National Research University – Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Eriks Varpahovskis.
Moscow, 101000
References
1. Acharya A. (2003). Will Asia's Past Be Its Future? International Security. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 149–164.
2. Ayhan K. J. (2019). Rethinking Korea's Middle Power Diplomacy as a Nation Branding Project. Korea Observer. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 1–24.
3. Ban K. (2011). The ROK as a Middle Power: Its Role in Counterinsurgency. Asian Politics & Policy. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 225–247.
4. Botero G. (2017). Botero: The Reason of State. Bireley J. (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. 273 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781316493953
5. 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.
6. Choi Y. (2009). South Korea's strategy and Middle Power Activism. The Journal of East Asian Affairs. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 47–67.
7. Chun Ch. (2014a). Middle power policies as international strategy. Seoul National University Dissertation. S-space. P. 1–77.
8. Chun Ch. (2014b). East Asian Security and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 6. P. 1–21.
9. 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.
10. Cooper A., Higgott R., Nossal K. (1993). Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. UBC Press. Vancouver. 232 p.
11. Cooper A. (1997). Middle Powers after the Cold War. Palgrave Macmillan. 221 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Evans G., Grant B. (1991). Australia’s Foreign Relations: in the World of the 1990s. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 389 p.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Holbraad C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. 234 p. DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4.
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.
21. Howe B.M. (2017). Korea’s Role for Peacebuilding and Development in Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 243–266.
22. 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.
23. Kang D.C. (2003). Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks. Quarterly Journal: International Security. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 57–85.
24. Kang D.C. (2004a). Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations. Quarterly Journal: International Security. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 165–180.
25. Kang D.C. (2004b). The theoretical roots of hierarchy in international relations. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 58. No. 3. P. 337–352.
26. Kaveshnikov N.Yu. (2008). Malye i vrednye? [Small and Harmful?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 6. No. 3 (18). P. 84–92.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Kim S. (2014b). Roles of Middle Power in East Asia: A Korean Perspective. EAI MPDI Working Paper. 2014. No. 2. 30 p.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Kim W. (2013) 대한민국의 중견국 공공외교 [Korean middle power diplomacy (In Kor.)]. Political Science and Communication research. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 331–350.
35. Ko S. (2015). The Foreign Policy Goal of South Korea's UN Peacekeeping Operations. International Peacekeeping. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 65–80.
36. 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.
37. Koo M. (2014). East Asian Maritime Disputes and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. EAI MPDI Working Paper. No. 7. P. 1–21.
38. Koo M. (2010). Island disputes and maritime regime building in East Asia: Between a rock and a hard place. Springer. 208 p.
39. Kook K. H., Young C. Y. (2009). International relations studies in Korea: retrospects and prospects. Pacific Focus. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 402–421.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lee S. (2012). South Korea as new middle power-seeking complex diplomacy. EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper. No. 25. P. 1–32.
43. 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.
44. 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).
45. 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).
46. Skriba A.S. (2014). Balansirovanie malykh i srednikh gosudarstv [Balancing of Small and Medium States]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 88–100.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Sohn Y. (2015). Searching for a new identity: South Korea’s middle power diplomacy. Fride Policy Brief. No. 212. P. 1–6.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10034
53. 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.
54. 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.
Review
For citations:
Vorontsov A., Ponka T., Varpahovskis E. Middlepowermanship in Korean Foreign Policy. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2020;18(1):89-105. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.5
Views:
651
Email this article 