Competing Notions of Regionalism in South Korean Politics

Hundt, David; Kim, Jaechun

doi:10.1017/s1468109911000065

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…43 As examined below, a similar vacillation exists in South Korea between Asianism and Pacifism in dealing with China. 44 A second factor shaping the domestic politics of regionalism is the degree of political contestation. Regionalism initiatives can enhance or reduce the legitimacy of leaders depending on how much politicisation and opposition it generates.…”

Section: The Argument: Domestic Legitimacy Politics and Region-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to further the development of regional cooperation, a group of government officials, the East Asia Study Group (EASG), were assembled to discuss the EAVG's recommendations. 60 The EASG final report made 17 short-term recommendations and nine medium-to long-term recommendations, including the establishment of an East Asian Free Trade Area, further trade liberalisation for developing economies, the establishment of a regional financial cooperation mechanism, and the creation of an East Asia Summit. 61 Kim's vision of East Asian regionalism received support from other Asian countries.…”

Section: Case Studies Of East Asian Regionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…61 Kim's vision of East Asian regionalism received support from other Asian countries. 62 Kim offered support to Japan's AMF proposal and agreed to discuss a free trade area (FTA) with Japan. 63 China also supported this South Korean-led regional initiative as a way to gain leverage in relations with the US and to restore relations with Japan.…”

Section: Case Studies Of East Asian Regionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Domestic legitimacy politics and varieties of regionalism in East Asia

Cho¹,

Park²

2013

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What drives East Asian regionalism? The rise of China and the perceived decline in the influence of the United States have sparked debates about the future of the regional order, including the yet-unresolved question of whose leadership is likely to be more stable and accepted as legitimate by other regional actors. What is puzzling, however, is that persistent demands for the formation of a coherent and uniquely East Asian regional institution have come not from China or the US, as is the focus of existing studies, but rather Japan and South Korea. In this article, we propose an alternative framework that conceptualises the varieties of East Asian regionalism, emphasising the multiple pivots and variegated levels of politics involved in efforts toward regional cooperation. We find that competing proposals for East Asian regionalism since the 1990s are not determined by structural pressures or the convergence of interests but rather result from domestic legitimacy politics. Japanese and Korean leaders have, at different time periods, proposed their own alternative region-making initiatives appealing to domestically contested views on how best to seek autonomy from the region's Great Powers as a way to enhance their political standing domestically and regionally.

show abstract

Section: The Argument: Domestic Legitimacy Politics and Region-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case Studies Of East Asian Regionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case Studies Of East Asian Regionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Domestic legitimacy politics and varieties of regionalism in East Asia

Cho¹,

Park²

2013

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 1980s and 1990s, Mahathir's EAEC offered an Asian version of the regional the awkwardness of australian engagement with asia 275 project, excluding the United States (Hook, 1996). In 1997, Kim Dae-jung proposed and established the East Asia Version Group and built a foundation for the ASEAN plus Three (Hundt and Kim, 2011). Hatoyama's proposal of an East Asian Community in 2009 was geographically narrowed to include Japan, China, South Korea, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.…”

Section: The Dilemma Of Pacificismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism

He¹

2011

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia has experienced difficulties engaging with Asia-Pacific regional integration. Despite Australian attempts to punch above its weight in regional forums and to be a regional leader, it is still not regarded as a full member or as quite fitting into the region. It is an 'awkward partner' in the Asian context, and has experienced the 'liminality' of being neither here nor there. The former Rudd government's proposal for an 'Asia Pacific Community' (APC) by the year 2020 was a substantive initiative in Australia's ongoing engagement with Asia. It has, however, attracted a high level of criticism both at home and abroad. The main critical analysis of the proposal has focused on institutional building or architecture, or its relationship with existing regional institutions, but overlooks a host of often fraught questions about culture, norms, identities, and international power relations. The APC concept needs to be scrutinized in terms of these questions with a critical eye. This paper examines the cultural, cognitive, and normative dimensions of Rudd's proposal. It analyses four dilemmas or awkward problems that the APC faces.

show abstract

“…David Hundt and Jaechun Kim, “Competing Notions of Regionalism in South Korean Politics,” Japanese Journal of Political Science , 12‐2 (2011), p. 257.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rising South Korea: A Minor Player or a Regional Power?

Shim

Flamm

2013

Pacific Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

South Korea's rising status in regional and global affairs has received much attention in recent years. But in academic, media and policy debates South Korea is usually regarded as a mere middle power that, due to its geopolitical situation, has only limited leeway in its foreign policy. Accordingly, it must constantly maneuver between its larger neighbors:China, Japan and Russia. However, this perspective neglects the fact that the same geopolitical constraint also applies to other states in the region. No country can easily project its power over others. We use the concept of "regional power" as a template to discuss South Korea's rising stature in regional and global politics. We argue that Seoul seems quite capable of keeping up with other assumed regional powers. Hence, we not only provide a novel account of South Korea's foreign policy options but also go beyond current approaches by asking about the (undetermined) possibilities for Seoul's regional relations.

show abstract

Competing Notions of Regionalism in South Korean Politics

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Domestic legitimacy politics and varieties of regionalism in East Asia

Domestic legitimacy politics and varieties of regionalism in East Asia

The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism

Rising South Korea: A Minor Player or a Regional Power?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About