Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:35:57.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of US Foreign Policy on the Relationship Between South and North Korea: Time Series Analysis of the Post-Cold War Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Jong-Han Yoon
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this study, I examine the effect of US foreign policy on the relationship between South Korea and North Korea. In particular, I analyze whether two different foreign policy approaches—the hard-line approach and the soft-line approach—have played a role in advancing or slowing steps toward peace in the Korean peninsula. I use the Integrated Data for Events Analysis dataset for the period 1990–2004. By employing a Vector Autoregression model, which analyzes the behavioral patterns of South and North Korea and the United States, I find that US foreign policy affects the relationship between the two Koreas by affecting North Korea's behavior toward South Korea. The triangular relationship among the United States, North Korea, and South Korea shows a reciprocal behavior pattern. This finding suggests that a soft-line and reciprocal US foreign policy toward North Korea is critical to maintaining peace in the Korean peninsula.

Keywords

hard-linereciprocitytriangular relationshipSouth KoreaNorth KoreaChinaUS foreign policypeaceKorean peninsulabehavioral patterns
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , August 2011 , pp. 255 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

References

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bond, Doug, Bond, Joe, Oh, Churl, Craig Jenkins, J., and Taylor, Charles Lewis. 2003. “Integrated Data for Events Analysis (IDEA): An Event Typology for Automated Events Data Development.” Journal of Peace Research 40, 6: 733–745.Google Scholar
Boyle, Elizabeth Heger, and Lawler, Edward J.. 1991. “Resolving Conflict Through Explicit Bargaining.” Social Forces 69, 4: 1183–1204.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T., and Williams, John T.. 2007. Multiple Time Series Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Ted, and Bandow, Doug. 2004. The Korean Connundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cha, V. D., and Kang, D. C.. 2003. Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Graeme A. M. 2007. “Coercion or Engagement? A Quantitative Test of the Effect of Regional Actors on North Korean Behaviour 1990–2000.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, 3: 477–493.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Freeman, John R.. 1991. “U.S.-Soviet-Chinese Relations: Routine, Reciprocity, or Rational Expectations?” American Political Science Review 85, 1: 17–35.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 1997. “Reciprocity, Bullying, and International Cooperation: Time Series Analysis of the Bosnia Conflict.” American Political Science Review 91, 3: 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua S., Pevehouse, Jon C., Gerner, Deborah J., and Telhami, Shibley. 2001. “Reciprocity, Triangularity, and Cooperation in the Middle East, 1979–97.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45, 5: 594–620.Google Scholar
Goodby, James E. 2006. “Creating a Peace Regime in Korea.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available at www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0530northkorea_goodby.aspx (accessed February 7, 2011).Google Scholar
Greffenius, Steven, and Gill, Jungil. 1992. “Pure Coercion vs. Carrot-and-Stick Offers in Crisis Bargaining.” Journal of Peace Research 29, 1: 39–52.Google Scholar
Harrison, Selig. 2003. Turning Point in Korea: New Dangers and New Opportunities for the United States. Washington, DC: Center for International Policy.Google Scholar
Harrison, Selig. 2005. “Did North Korea Cheat?” Foreign Affairs , January-February.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul, and Russett, Bruce. 1990. “Testing Deterrence Theory: Rigor Makes a Difference.” World Politics 42, 4: 496–526.Google Scholar
Kil, Byung-Ok. 2006. “Hanbando Pyunghwacheje Goochookgwa Nambook hyubryuk Baljunbangan” [Establishment of the Korean peace system and development plans for South-North cooperation]. Hankookgwa Gookjejungchi [Korean and international politics] 22 (Summer): 63–86.Google Scholar
Kolodziej, Edward A., and William Zartman, I.. 1996. “Coping with Conflict: A Global Approach.” In Coping with Conflict After the Cold War , ed. Kolodziej, Edward A. and Kanet, Roger E., 3–34. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch. 1988. “The Psychology of Reciprocity in International Relations.” Negotiation Journal 4 (July): 281–301.Google Scholar
Leng, Russell. 1984. “Reagan and the Russians: Crisis Bargaining Beliefs and the Historical Record.” American Political Science Review 78, 2: 338–355.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J., and Wheeler, H. G.. 1979. “Influence Strategies, Success, and War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 23: 655–684.Google Scholar
Moon, Chung-in. 2004. “North Korea's Foreign Policy in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective.” In North Korea and the World: Explaining Pyongyang's Foreign Policy , ed. Koh, B. C., 355–368. Seoul: Kyungnam University Press.Google Scholar
Moon, Chung-in. 2008. “Managing the North Korean Nuclear Quagmire: Capability, Impacts, and Prospects.” In The United States and Northeast Asia: Debate, Issues, and New Order , ed. John Ikenberry, G. and Moon, Chung-in, 231–260. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Moore, William H. 1998. “Repression and Dissent: Substitution, Context, and Timing.” American Journal of Political Science 42, 2: 851–873.Google Scholar
O'Hanlon, Michael, and Mochizuki, Mike. 2003. Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles. 1962. An Alternative to War or Surrender. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Park, Han S. 2002. North Korea: The Politics of Unconventional Wisdom. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Patchen, Martin. 1987. “Strategies for Eliciting Cooperation from an Adversary: Laboratory and International Findings.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 31: 164–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Jeffery Z., and Brown, Bert R.. 1975. The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1983. The Prisoners of Insecurity: Nuclear Deterrence, the Arms Race, and Arms Control. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Shellman, Steven M., Reeves, Andrew, and Stewart, Brandon. 2007. Fair and Balanced or Fit to Print? The Effects of Media Sources on Statistical Inferences. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Sigal, Leon. V. 1998. Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sims, C. A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48, 1: 1–48.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn, and Diesing, Paul. 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in the International Crisis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, Scott. 1999. Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean Negotiating Behavior. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Phillip E. 1998. “Social Psychology and World Politics.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology , vol. 2., ed. Gilbert, Daniel T., Fiske, Susan T., and Lindzey, Gardner, 868–912. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zartman, I. William. 1997. The Structuralist Dilemma in Negotiation. Research on Negotiation in Organizations 6: 227–245.Google Scholar