UNIVERSITY OF BABES BOLYAI

FACULTY OF HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
MAJOR: SECURITY STUDIES, ENGLISH LINE
CLUJ NAPOCA

Exploring the theoretical inter-Korean stalemate within the framework of the contemporary Asia
Pacific and global affairs

Knowledge is created by science and it receives constant doubt from the scientists. This process
of constructing arguments, proposing new theories and examining evidence defines the identity
of the International Relations field as an undeniable social science which essentially determines
the way that the world politics is debated, studied and thought. It revolves around one or a set of
theories which are nothing but ideas about how the world works or should work and lays the
conceptual basis for creating the knowledge that can be tested for their validity.

This essay deals with the existing theoretical problems surrounding the inter-Korean both
bilateral relations and within the Asia Pacific framework. I argue that Western IR theories are
deficient in their attempt to explain the clearly different historical developments, culture and
development of the non-Western world and attention should be paid for new theoretical
frameworks that can better encompass the historical and geographical realities of the area in
discussion.

Tracing back the Korean history we can easily observe that it has been hard for the Korean IR
scholars to theoretically reflect on their reality since history moved too fast for them to ponder
upon. Worth mentioning is the opening of ports in 1876 and the treaties signed with Japan where
Korea was recognized as a sovereign state- a notion foreign to the Koreans at that time. Starting
from this moment on, Korea was included in a modern-Western state system which nevertheless
included treaties with Western countries.

140 years have passed since then and during this period of time Korea has been through the
Japanese colonialism, the division of the peninsula, the Korean War, the Cold War, the collapse
of the Cold-War system and the following transitions. If we compare the Western European
transition after the Westphalian treaties with Korea’s opening of ports, the transition that
persisted around 370 years in Europe happened in more than half-the-time in Korea.

Within the changes of the post-Cold War era, a more independent perspective adopted by the
Korean IR scholars raises above the surface, illustrating how a non-Western community has tried
to build up its own academic identity as opposed to the West, which has indeed been the
principal actor in the field. In Jeffrey Herbst words: “Almost the entire study of international
relations is really an extended series of case-studies of Europe.”
In theoretical perspectives, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, competing paradigms of realist,
liberalist, constructivist, and radicalist proliferated all over the field of IR studies. South Korea
established diplomatic relationships with China, Russia, and other former socialist countries in
Eastern Europe.

As of now, numerous IR researchers are getting to be keen on the constructivist worldview. A

constructivist approach stresses identity and ideas as key factors, while realist and liberalist
methodologies center around material interests and power. The value of constructivist exchanges
is their accentuation on the relations among structures and agents. Thoughts, ideas and societies,
regularly overlooked in standard IR theories, are raised to turn into the essential components of
the structures. For constructivists, organization is only collaborations among structures and
operators. This worldview can be connected to Korean issues just as toward the North-East Asia
area. Collaboration could be upgraded through associations among structures and agents or
shared activities among agents. With liberal commands, the constructivist worldview could work
better in the time of globalization. This participation among liberals and constructivists could
diminish antagonistic vibes and clashes between the two Koreas specifically, and East Asia as a
region. "Liberal constructivism," which consolidates the uses of constructivism and liberalism, is
recommended as another option in contrast to the current Western paradigm-based IR theories.

Theoretically speaking, most realists view inter-Korean relations from a security perspective.
They taught South Korean policy makers to seek stability through military strength and to rely
on an alliance with the United States. Even though other theories, such as liberalism and
constructivism, were also utilized to explain security-related issues in inter-Korean relations,
realism became a dominant theory in those issues because it is believed to offer a “manual for
maximizing security in a hostile environment”. As the Northeast Asian region has been
characterized by a balance of power system and security competition, theories about balance of
power, hegemony, security dilemma and power transition have been especially helpful. This
means that the modern dimension of this region has been excavated by insights of Western IR
theories, because the reality those theories deal with corresponds to a certain aspect of the
Northeast Asian reality. However, the long-term modern transition of the Western world and
relatively well-defined and well-demarcated modernity did not apply to Northeast Asia. As
indicated above, what happened for 370 years in the West has been condensed into only 140
years in Korea. In the latter case, the past still lives with the present. Overlapping historical
realities and temporal dimensions complicate the structural configuration of the regional order,
mixing different organizing principles of international relations, and giving multiple identities to
agents.

Regarding the Korean stalemate, a lot of research has been done bearing in mind the changes
brought about by Korean War, the connection among South and North Korea, the Korea–US
partnership, and the security of the North-East Asian area since Korea's freedom from Japanese
colonial rule. Clearly, South Korea, increasing financial clout and military strength, has to
experience a military danger from North Korea even in this post-Cold-War period. There are a
lot of hypotheses and theories, but we need policy instruments in the global, as well as the
national, context.

Looking outside, South Korea has been deeply concerned about the issues of globalization, US
hegemony, human security, and global governance. The range of security has broadened its
domain: human security, economic security, food security, health security, and comprehensive
security are some of them. Globalization and global governance are the key issues of the entire
world. They are not limited to one country or each other. Living in this connected world, we
have to prepare these new global agendas.

International relations in South Korea still relies heavily on Western theories and ideas when
considering non-Western but important issues related to Korea, such as Korea’s incomplete
nationness and stateness, South Korean developmental modernization, the fluctuating inter-
Korean relations, Korea’s place in Northeast Asia and so on. Now, Korea is at a crossroads to
cope with the global opinions of the USA and at the same time to meet issues related to shared
nationhood with North Korea.

For what reason do we need non-Western IR hypotheses to clarify the reality of the non-Western
world? Do we need various speculations for various scholars, distinctive country states or
various areas? If not, what sort of hypothesis can clarify both the Western and non-Western
world? To begin with, IR speculations are prompted from verifiable, historical reality. On the
chance that a specific IR hypothesis mirrors the historical backdrop of a specific region, at that
point it is a spatially restricted theory. In the same opposite manner, if a Western IR hypotheses
are restricted uniquely to the experience of the modern Western world, the reality of the non-
Western world, which has the congruity from the traditional order, would not be appropriately
theorized in the system of the Western IR.

As it is common that Western IR theories mirror the moral worries of Western individuals.
Stable security order, tackling non-conventional or human security issues, dealing with the
global order as per the authority of the Western world and proceeding with the marketization and
democratization of the Third World may be a few models. Then again, non-Western mentality is
focused on other concerns and claims. Political and monetary self-sufficiency from the
domination of cutting edge nations, sovereign balance among states may be instances of the
worries. Various universes appear to various eyes with various values and prospects for what's to
come. Thus, it won't be anything but difficult to have a hypothesis that has a far reaching
dimension, both geographically and historically, to fully manage the explaining of the pressing
context within and surrounding the Korean Peninsula.