Regional Security Order Transition and the ROK’s Order Management: Critique and Suggestions
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Republic of Korea (ROK) is one of the non-major powers most closely interested in the nature of the hierarchical security order in East Asia and its transition, but little academic attention has been drawn to examining its diplomatic positions or policy directions as it responds to and shapes the regional security order. Drawing on realist insights into order transition and their implications for security relations between major and non-major powers, this paper examines the nature of the security order in East Asia and critically discusses how the ROK’s approach to order management has been of only limited success in addressing the structural risks growing out of the changing natures of the regional order. It also discusses the collective order management of its Southeast Asian neighbors as a comparable case that tackles similar risks differently. The paper concludes with a discussion of how a stronger partnership with Southeast Asia could complement the limitations of the ROK’s approach to regional security order management, particularly in this time of a rapid transition to a bipolar East Asia.
Abstract
The Republic of Korea (ROK) is one of the non-major powers most closely interested in the nature of the hierarchical security order in East Asia and its transition, but little academic attention has been drawn to examining its diplomatic positions or policy directions as it responds to and shapes the regional security order. Drawing on realist insights into order transition and their implications for security relations between major and non-major powers, this paper examines the nature of the security order in East Asia and critically discusses how the ROK’s approach to order management has been of only limited success in addressing the structural risks growing out of the changing natures of the regional order. It also discusses the collective order management of its Southeast Asian neighbors as a comparable case that tackles similar risks differently. The paper concludes with a discussion of how a stronger partnership with Southeast Asia could complement the limitations of the ROK’s approach to regional security order management, particularly in this time of a rapid transition to a bipolar East Asia.
참고문헌 (43)
- Evelyn Goh, "The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Transition in Post–Cold War East Asia" (2013), Oxford University Press
- 박재적, "인도⋅태평양 지역 소다자 안보협력 -과거, 현재, 미래-", 통일연구, 23(1), pp.125~154 (2019), 통일연구원
- 이신화, "미·중 패권경쟁시대 인태 지역의 자유주의 국제질서: 도전과 전망", 국제지역연구, 25(2), pp.219~250 (2021), 국제지역연구센터
- Hedley Bull, "The Anarchical Society", pp.16~ (1977), Palgrave
- Shaun Narine, "The English School and ASEAN", The Pacific Review, 19(2), pp.199~218 (2006)
- Muthiah Alagappa, "Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features", pp.39~43 (2003), Stanford University Press
- John Mearsheimer, "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order", International Security, 43(4), pp.9~ (2019)
- John Ikenberry, "After Victory" (2001), Princeton University Press
- Xiaoting Li, "Applying offensive realism to the rise of China: structural incentives and Chinese diplomacy toward the neighboring states", International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 16(2), pp.241~271 (2015), Oxford University Press (OUP)[DOI]
- Aaron Friedberg, "A Contest for Supremacy: China, the United States, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia" (2011), Norton
- Christopher Johnson, "Decoding China’s Emerging"Great Power"Strategy in Asia" (2014), Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Ja Ian Chong, "The Collective Influence of Smaller States in the U.S.–China Security Dilemma", Asia Pacific Bulletin, 193 (2012), East–West Center
- Andrew Cooper, "Niche Diplomacy : Middle Powers after the Cold War" (1997), Palgrave
- Middle Power in Action: The Evolving Nature of Diplomacy in the Age of Multilateralism, East Asia Institute (EAI) Special Report, "Sook-Jong Lee", EAI, ~ (2015)
- Sook-Jong Lee, "Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century" (2016), Palgrave
- Eduard Jordaan, "The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers", Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 30(1), pp.4~6 (2003)
- Ralf Emmers, "Regional Security Strategies of Middle Powers in the Asia–Pacific", International Relations of the Asia–Pacific, 15, pp.190~192 (2015)
- Nick Bisley, "Australia and Asia’s Trilateral Dilemmas: Between Beijing and Washington", Asian Survey, 54(2), pp.297~318 (2014)
- "Korea between the United States and China: How Does Hedging Work?" (2016)[URL]
- Van Jackson, "Power, Trust, and Network Complexity: Three Logics of Hedging in Asian Security", International Relations of the Asia–Pacific, 14(3), pp.331~356 (2014)
- Chaesung Chun, "Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century", pp.23~ (2016), Palgrave
- Lee Dong Ryul, "Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century", pp.63~ (2016), Palgrave
- "China Steps up Retaliation on THAAD, S. Korea Stuck with Few Options: Experts" (2017)[URL]
- Evelyn Goh, "Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies", International Security, 32(3), pp.113~157 (2007)
- Kai He, "Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia", European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), pp.489~518 (2008)
- Alice Ba, "(Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia" (2009), Stanford University Press
- Jürgen Rüland, "Southeast Asian Regionalism and Global Governance:‘Multilateral Utility’ or ‘Hedging Utility’?", Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(1), pp.83~112 (2011)
- Richard Stubbs, "The ASEAN Alternative? Ideas, Institutions and the Challenge to ‘Global’ Governance", The Pacific Review, 21(4), pp.451~468 (2008)
- Jochen Prantl, "Taming Hegemony: Informal Institutions and the Challenges to Western Liberal Order", The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7(4), pp.451~453 (2014)
- David Lake, "Hierarchy in International Relations" (2009), Cornell University Press
- Ian Hurd, "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics", International Organization, 53(2), pp.379~408 (1999)
- Alice Ba, "Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, Contestation and World Order", pp.190~212 (2005), Routledge
- Alastair Ian Johnston, "Social States: China in International Relations, 1980–2000" (2008), Princeton University Press
- Amitav Acharya, "International Organization and Global Governance" (2013), Routledge
- 배기현, "Divergent Ideas, Distant Friendship: Assessing Korea's 30 Years of Political-Security Diplomacy with ASEAN", Korea Observer, 51(4), pp.523~550 (2020), 한국학술연구원[DOI]
- Evelyn Goh, "Advancing East Asian Regionalism", pp.97~101 (2006), Routledge
- 배기현, "동남아시아의 분절적 다자주의: 위기인가 기회인가?", 국가안보와 전략, 21(1), pp.89~119 (2021), 국가안보전략연구원[DOI]
- Scott Snyder, "Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century", pp.43~ (2016), Palgrave
- Barbara Koremenos, "The Rational Design of International Institutions", International Organization, 55(4), pp.761~799 (2001)
- "Why Australia Joining ASEAN Is a Good Idea" (2018)[URL]
- "Australia Will ‘Seriously’ Consider Any Invitation to Join ASEAN; Indonesia’s President Backs Idea" (2018)[URL]
- Matteo Dian, "Networking Hegemony: Alliance Dynamics in East Asia", International Politics, 57(2), pp.131~149 (2020)
- Rosemary Foot, "China’s Rise and U.S. Hegemony: Renegotiating Hegemonic Order in East Asia?", International Politics, 57(2), pp.150~165 (2020)
