The overall purpose of this dissertation is to provide an empirical study of the post-Cold War EastAsian security setting, with the aim of understanding why there is an East Asian peace. The EastAsian peace exists in a region with a history of militarised conflicts, home to many of the world'slongest ongoing militarised problems and a number of unresolved critical flashpoints. Thus, thepost-Cold War East Asian inter-state peace is a paradox. Despite being a region predicted to be ripefor conflict, there have not only been less wars than expected, but the region also shows severalsigns of a development towards a more durable peace. The dominant research paradigm –neorealism – has painted a gloomy picture of post-Cold War East Asia, with perpetual conflictsdominating the predictions. Other mainstream international relations theories, too, fail to accountfully for the relative peace. One of the greatest problems for mainstream theories, is accounting forpeace given East Asia's lack of security organisations or other formalised conflict managementmechanisms. Given this paradox/problem, this dissertation sets out to ask "Why is there a relativepeace in the East Asian security setting despite an absence of security organisations or otherformalised mechanisms to prevent existing conflicts from escalating into violence?" In order to answer this question, the case of East Asian peace is approached by comparingthree embedded case studies within the region: the Taiwan issue, the South China Sea, and theKorean nuclear conflict. It explores the full range of informal and formal processes plus the ConflictPrevention and Peacebuilding Mechanisms (CPPBMs) that have been important for the creation ofa continuing relative peace in East Asia between 1990 and 2008. The study furthermore focuses onChina's role in the three cases, on an empirical basis consisting of interviews conducted with keypersons during more than 1.5 years fieldwork in China. The three cases show that informal processes exist, and that they have furthermore beenimportant for peace, both by preventing conflicts from escalating into war, and by buildingconditions for a stable longer-term peace. Their impact on the persistence of peace has been tracedto a range of different CPPBMs. Returning to the level of the East Asian case, a common feature ofmany of the identified processes is that they can be understood as aspects or manifestations of theEast Asian regionalisation process. Specifically, elite interactions (personal networks, track twodiplomacy), back-channel negotiations, economic interdependence and integration, and functionalcooperation have together with (China's acceptance of) multilateralism and institutionalisation (ofpeaceful relations) been of high importance for the relative peace. Whereas formalised conflictmanagement mechanisms and the U.S. presence have also contributed to peace, this dissertationshows their contribution to be much more limited.

在歐洲、北美、東南亞等地區皆有定期、頻繁的區域對話，對話內容廣泛，不再是過去國家安全、區域安全傳統定義下的「安全對話」。然而區域對話風氣的盛行，在東北亞地區卻嗅不到一絲絲這樣的氣息。東北亞地區由於本身的歷史特殊性與地緣政治的特性，在國際關係上始終是各國利益的錯綜複雜的區域。 東北亞地區國際政治衝突點主要為：領土糾紛、北韓核武危機、中日關係、日人綁架事件。北韓核武危機背後的動機主要是冷戰為結束之前，美國在南韓部署戰術核武瞄準北韓，北韓基於安全考量，於是發展核武計畫，另一原因則是針對日本，北韓視日本為安全威脅，基於歷史因素，北韓將其核武計畫背後目標對準日本。 冷戰結束後的新安全環境，應該要以區域安全考量為核心，東北亞地區主要的安全形勢是美國仍是東北亞地區重要的安全主導者，同時美日聯盟是區域內重要的安全安排，隨者中國的經濟持續發展，中國將在東北亞地區扮演重要角色。多邊協商與合作是解決東北亞地區安全問題最有效的辦法，定期舉多邊對話更可增加行為者之間的了解與互信，多邊主義可以解決區域內危機。東北亞地區多邊合作經驗豐富，雖然多半是非正式的二軌多邊對話經驗，不過非正式的對話多邊機制剛好符合亞太地區的特色，差異性大的亞太國家，或者是在冷戰痕跡深刻的東北亞地區，都以應養成對話習慣，針對區域內的危機熱點例如北韓問題、中日歷史爭議、中美關係、中日東海油源紛爭、日俄領土爭議等問題，都可以藉著多邊對話機制建立信心措施。 目前正在進行中的六邊會談正好替東北亞國家提供一個良好的基礎，雖然目前六邊會談是以解決北韓核武危機為主要，不過在六邊會談裡參與成員對等，並且六邊會談也沒有抹煞美國雙邊同盟的功能，日後東北亞國家應可以以六邊會談為基礎，討論更多區域內安全議題，促進東北亞地區的對話。東北亞地區多邊對話機制的發展可以融入冷戰結束後的新興安全觀念。如此一來反而有利既存的六邊會談進一步發展。 / There is EU as a multilateral forum in Europe. There is ASEAN in Southeast Asia for Asia countries to understand policies of each country and get better transparency. The international relations between Northeast Asia countries have always been complicated and uncertain. However, there is no multilateral dialogue in Northeast Asia. To study the multilateral dialogue mechanism, we must pay attention to Multilateralism. And because of the unique security situation in Northeast Asia after Cold War, we have also to take the cooperative security, common security and comprehensive security into consideration. Thus, we can discuss the possibility of developing a multilateral dialogue mechanism in Northeast Asia. A multilateral dialogue mechanism is a dialoguing forum that three or more countries cooperate with each other under some principles, with habits of practicing, without agenda limits, no participation limit, in order to solve security problems and reduce confrontations. The second North Korea nuclear crisis happened in 2002. The first Six-Party Talks began in 2003 and has hold for four times until now. Six-Party Talks can be viewed as a foundation of multilateral mechanism in Northeast Asia, despite there are still some shortcomings. As long as Six-Party Talks keeps meeting, it is an achievement of dialogue for Northeast Asia countries. Six-Party Talks makes it possible that solving the crisis in a peaceful way and taking the diplomatic way to engage with DPRK. The Japan-US Alliance is the key factor to influence the international politics in Northeast Asia. Basically, the bilateral relations between US and Asia Pacific countries have become a “wheel”. The hub of USA is a key factor of developing a multilateral mechanism or not. To develop a multilateral mechanism in Northeast Asia must cooperate with US and not against its interests in Pacific Asia. Also, Northeast Asia countries have to build their mutual confidence and interests dependence.

中、美關係一直以來都是國際的焦點問題且持續發展變化。自1972年中、美關係開始正常化以來，兩國的關係經常是在進展與停滯、合作與對抗中來回折衝，中、美之間在許多方面存在著矛盾，又在眾多領域裡有著共同利益。冷戰結束後，美國對中國的政策進行了大幅度的調整，新的矛盾與利益也逐漸凸顯出來。諸如人權問題、貿易不平衡問題和臺灣問題等等，皆是當前中、美鬥爭的焦點，但在安全、經濟貿易與科技文化教育和非傳統安全領域等方面又都有著共同的利益。在這種利益與矛盾交織的狀態下決定了雙邊以合作取代對抗的政策基調，也是中、美間在現今國際趨勢下必須的戰略選擇。 朝鮮半島位處陸權國家的心臟地帶與海權國家的邊緣地帶，對陸權國家而言，是連接海洋建立海權的重要跳板，對海權國家來說，則是向陸地擴張勢力的戰略捷徑，而此區域更是中國、俄羅斯、日本、南韓、北韓等權力競逐的主戰場，再加上美國在此經營布局已久，複雜的國際關係在此合縱連橫，時而欣欣向榮充滿希望，時又戰雲密布一觸即發。自朝鮮半島爆發第一、二次朝核危機後朝鮮半島的局勢更加詭譎多變，而朝核議題便如同一顆未爆彈時刻牽動中、美間最敏感的神經，金正日去世後，更增朝鮮半島的不確定性；在此嚴峻的挑戰下，中、美兩國的態度更是動輒得咎。 本文的主要目的於分析中美兩國自冷戰後迄今對朝鮮半島的政策比較，並針對外交、經貿、戰略佈署等方面作一全面探討，並以權力平衡角度分析在中、美共管亞洲的戰略結構下對南、北韓的影響，期能為未來欲從事相關研究的人提供參考。 / Relationship between the U.S. and China has always been one of the most focused issues internationally and it continues to develop and changes its shape as time goes by. Since 1972 both countries normalize their relationships, the U.S. and China had been going back and forth of deciding whether being collaboration or opposition, fits their benefits in a dynamic field. While the cold war ends, United States had made an adjustment by a wide margin on its policy to China, for instance, the Human Rights, Trade Imbalance, and Taiwan are the causes explain how China and the U.S. are constantly in conflict. However, correlates with Security, Economical trading, Technology, Culture, Education and Non-Traditional Land Security, the U.S. and China are aware of the importance of each other. All of the consequences, contradiction, and benefits led China and the U.S. to work together instead of being in battles which can be described “the strategic choices” 2 giants have made in the current international trend. The Korea peninsula locates in the heart of continental countries and at the edge of sea countries. For continentals, the peninsula can be the elevator of establishing its sea-power; and for the ocean authorities, owning the peninsula is one of the fastest strategic shortcut of expanding its power to the land. For decades, the area had been the battlefield for China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea, and adding the glimpse of the U.S, which makes the peninsula one of the most comprehensive international involvements in the world. Since the 1st and the 2nd North Korean nuclear crisis occurred, the discussion of nuclear weapons in North Korea tangles the sensitive nerves between the U.S and China. As Kim Chong Il dies and leaving all the questions left to rest of the world, the uncertainty of the peninsula had increased; under rigorous challenges in the international community, the attitudes of China and the U.S. can entirely influence the globe. The essay mainly focuses on the analysis of the comparative policies to the Korean Peninsula in between China and the U.S after the Cold War, as well as the probing into Diplomacy, Trade, Deployment for a entire scan, in order to understand the angel of power of balance to mutually manage Asia’s strategic structures and how it can be effective to North and South Korea. The article hopes can provide critical information for scholars in future to attempt related research on sphere in such matter.

雖則蘇聯已經解體，世界進入了後冷戰時代。在冷戰時期相互抗衡的美蘇關係，仍是學界研究的熱點之一。自1990年冷戰終結之後，蘇聯、原本在舊蘇聯中的國家及中國大陸檔案資料的陸續開放，對韓戰研究可說有了新的突破。以美國學者John Lewis Gaddis為首的冷戰國際史學派補充或批判了前面包括傳統學派、修正學派等研究的不足之處。 本文引用檔案和韓戰研究學者的論點與分析，重新梳理在韓戰前後蘇中的國家安全政策考量，並深入析論有關下列幾項當今學者尚未分析或深入研究的種種問題。 本研究嘗試結合國際關係與冷戰國際史(Cold War International History Project)兩學門之跨領域研究，藉以澄清韓戰時期國際體系成員的互動及其造成的影響。另外，也試著使用理性決策模式來分析中蘇兩國領導人的國家安全決策。 研究結果顯示中蘇兩國領導人都是以理性判斷認為自己的決策是正確的，然而事實結果卻並非如此。莫斯科對平壤所提之韓戰計畫錯誤地開放了「綠燈」，北京在多次以外交方式警告華盛頓無效之後，認為美國可能進攻中國東北，並對其新興政權造成威脅，以致最後出兵介入韓戰。戰爭的結果最後還是在38度線附近簽署了停戰協定，但南北韓仍舊尚未統一，無數人員卻因此喪失寶貴的生命。 本文結論提出在美軍進逼鴨綠江和蘇聯的雙重壓力下，中共最後決定出兵介入韓戰，主因是國家安全利益。中共軍事戰略因戰局轉變而改變其戰略：前期是「間接路線」與「殲滅戰」，後期則是「消耗戰」。不論是在軍事戰略或是外交戰略上，莫斯科扮演之角色是在背後指揮協調北京和平壤。蘇聯使中共成為「責任承擔者」(buck-catcher)，本國則扮演「離岸平衡者」(offshore balancer)的角色。中共和北韓事事都要通報莫斯科，由莫斯科做出最後決定─即使北京和平壤兩方都想停戰，莫斯科仍堅持不停戰。戰爭後期蘇聯為削弱美國和中共實力，支持中共續戰。 韓戰停戰協議之簽署是因史達林去世之後。莫斯科認為戰爭再繼續有損蘇聯國家利益，乃通知平壤和北京有關停戰的解決方針的策略。韓戰協議的簽署基本上是在莫斯科新政府的領導與調停之下，北京和平壤最後遵循了莫斯科的指示才停戰。 中蘇兩造在共同利益驅使之下為追求個別利益，在利益衝突之間尋求合作利益。兩國且於韓戰之中各自為該國的國家利益著想，盟友關係只是暫時的而非永久的。 / In this study, an attempt is made to clarify the interactions between the members of the international system during the Korean War in an interdisciplinary approach combining the International Relations and the Cold War International History. Based on the materials from opened archives in the former Soviet Union and Communist China, the considerations, objectives and national security strategies of the leaders are analyzed in the light of the rational decision-making model. The results show that although the leaders made their own judgments based on rational thinking, the outcome of the war is the armistice agreement demarcating the 38th parallel as the borderline between the two Koreas with minor changes; North and South Korea are still yet to be reunified, despite numerous soldiers and civilians losing their precious lives. The conclusion is as follows. China decided to send troops to intervene in the Korean War mainly due to national security interest to cope with the threat of the approaching US forces and the Soviet Union pressure. To cope with the varying war situation, China’s military strategy changed from the “war of annihilation” and the “indirect approach strategy” in the former phase, to the “strategy of exhaustion” in the later phase. Whether in the military or diplomatic field, Moscow played a commanding role and coordinated of Beijing and Pyongyang behind. Soviet Union made China the “buck-catcher”, meanwhile played the role as the “offshore balancer”. Soviet Union pushed for the continuation of the war to weaken the strength of United States, in spite of the reluctance of China and North Korea. It was after Joseph V. Stalin’s death than the Armistice Agreement was finally signed. The signing of the agreement was essentially under the lead of the new leadership in Moscow. Both Soviet Union and China sought their own national interest during the Korean war. The Sino- Soviet alliance was only temporary rather than permanent.

The purpose of this comparative and historical study is to consider a reconceptualization of the notion of educational policy transfer, based on an analysis of how the reforms made during the Soviet and US military occupation in the two Koreas influenced the educational development of North and South Korea from 1945 to 1959. The conceptual framework for the research drew on a definition of 'policy' as a comprehensive concept comprising of policy process and practice 'on the ground,' and going beyond a rigid definition of it as a formally recorded and proclaimed statement by a government. This concept of policy enabled me to analyze the process and practice of the educational reforms from a multi-dimensional perspective, incorporating the beliefs of local actors and the bureaucracy of domestic institutions. For this purpose, historical sources including South Korean, North Korean and US government documents, magazines, newpapers, teachers' resumés and guides and the memoires and diaries of important policy-makers were analyzed; historical documentation was complemented by expert interviews with eleven South and North Korean policy-makers and academics. In South Korea, educational reforms were implemented to promote liberal democratic ideals in the education system. Curricular and systemic changes were made to teach democratic procedures and concepts, such as the introduction of the subject social studies, the establishment of a single-track school system, and the introduction of a student-centered pedagogy to primary schools. In North Korea, a socialist-communist ideology, along with an attraction to the Soviet Union as a model state to follow, was extensively promoted through a series of educational reforms as political indoctrination intensified in the adult education and school curricula. In both contexts, the localization of the reforms was affected by cultural and social factors unique to Korea: the authoritarian legacy of Confucianism and Japanese colonization, and the nationalism that had been fostered for the purpose of state-formation. The Korean case indicates that the state-centric, linear and static view of educational policy transfer should be replaced by a new conceptualization which includes the complex web of decision-making and implementation processes that involve negotiations and compromises among various politicians and administrators who are driven by national as well as personal interests and goals. For example, although the educational reforms in the two Koreas were developed by Soviet and US military in order to maximize their long-term security interests in the Korean peninsula, the key actors who implemented the reforms were Korean policy-makers, who had been appointed to key positions of the educational administrations through the bureaucratic politics between the military authorities and the Korean polity. Although the overall objective of the educational reforms was to extend the ideological influences of the Soviet Union and the USA in the Korean peninsula, specific programs and policies for the reforms depended on the Korean policy-makers' understanding and interpretations of different ideologies.

No description available.

At the time that this thesis is printed, we are reminded of the tumultuous relationship between North Korea and the United States every day. If we follow the mainstream news regularly, it seems like we are on a steady path to war. Ultimately, this paper is centered around the question: what is the best foreign policy strategy for both countries to achieve respective goals, without descending into armed conflict? Specifically, I evaluated the failures of the last three U.S. Presidents and used their shortcomings to explain limitations in current foreign policy strategy. I also attempted to show North Korean concerns and perspectives regarding these issues, as our cultural and national biases often prevent us from seeing this issue with true clarity. For some background, I combined personal experience with a primary source interview. I then used scholarly articles from a variety of ideological lenses to analyze events from multiple viewpoints. Throughout the paper, I try to force readers to think critically about these events, rather than consume them through short headlines on the evening news. I learned that there is major potential for diplomatic alternatives to armed conflict in this relationship. I also learned that the current foreign policy strategies both countries are engaging in do not serve their best interests, or help to achieve foreign policy goals. These ideas are crucial to understand, as the likelihood for war between North Korea and the United States becomes greater each day. Furthermore, this war would result in immense loss of life and the displacement of millions of innocent people.

This diploma thesis analyses the security dimension of South Korea's foreign policy. This analysis is lead by the tools of realism theory: security dilemma, arms races and definition of the state as the main security actor. These tools are considered to be more suitable for the explication of this topic than the tools of social constructivism represented by the so called Copenhagen school and above all its security complex theory. The aim of this thesis is to prove that in the security area of South Korea's foreign policy, security is still viewed in the traditional realistic sense of a one-dimensional military-political security rather than the multi dimensional view of security prevailing in the international relations area since the Cold War end. In this thesis, South Korea's role in the international system is depicted with the emphasis on the security field from the beginning of the 20th century to the contemporary era. Furthermore, the close security area (East Asian region) and direct security area (North Korea) of South Korea are examined. The last chapter consists of an analysis of official government documents concerning the security dimension of current South Korea's foreign policy.

North Korea is one of the most isolated countries in the world. The media therefore play an important role in shaping the image of this country abroad. The aim of this diploma thesis was to find out how Czech online media represented the DPRK between 2010 and 2012, when the power was transferred from Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un. In the first part of the thesis, I qualitatively analysed 48 articles from five Czech online media: lidovky.cz, novinky.cz, iHNed.cz, respekt.cz and reflex.cz. I chose grounded theory as a research technique. However, the aim of the research was not to build the theory itself, but to conceptualize and describe the relations among the individual media representations of the DPRK. The analysis revealed that the online media reported on the DPRK mainly in connection with country's poor economic situation and with related deep inequalities between the ruling class and people. The transfer of power in North Korea was reported by Czech media in connection with Kim Jong-il's poor health. After his death, the media focused on uncertainty about the country's future. At the end of the period the media represented Kim Jong-un as the new North Korean leader, who was seeking for his own ruling style, which was based on the cult of personality.

Les États-Unis et la Chine sont en relations dans différents contextes et il est admis que les États-Unis soient la première puissance mondiale, alors que la Chine est une grande puissance montante. Cette réalité fait en sorte que Washington doit évaluer les intentions de la Chine, afin de bien définir si cette dernière sera une force coopératrice, ou au contraire, si elle sera compétitrice des intérêts américains. Dans ce travail de mémoire, deux contextes sont à l’étude, soit le contexte général de la dynamique de grandes puissances entre les États-Unis et la Chine, et le contexte nordcoréen, où les deux acteurs sont présents. Ainsi, ce travail propose d’étudier différents cas dans le contexte nord-coréen, afin de voir comment ceux-ci ont influencé la perception des États-Unis envers une Chine montante dans le contexte général de grandes puissances. Suite à un chapitre méthodologique et théorique, les chapitres analytiques sont construits par présidence américaine. Ces derniers ont la même structure, où un épisode de coopération et de compétition sont analysés. Un chapitre porte donc sur la présidence de George W. Bush, l’autre sur celle de Barack Obama. L’objectif est de voir si la perception américaine a changé ou est restée la même avant et après les épisodes, et de voir s’ils ont eu une influence sur la perception générale des États-Unis. Le mémoire a aussi une dimension explicative. Avec l’utilisation de différentes composantes du réalisme défensif, il sera possible d’expliquer pourquoi il y a eu changement de perception américaine, ou non. Le mémoire tire des conclusions différentes pour les deux présidents. Pour George W. Bush, la perception envers la Chine a été influencée par les épisodes. Pour Barack Obama, les perceptions initiales ont été consolidées. / The United States and China relate in different contexts and it is accepted that the United States is the leading world power, while China is a great rising power. This reality means that Washington must assess China's intentions, in order to clearly define whether the latter will be a cooperative force, or on the contrary, whether it will be a competitor to American interests. In this work, two contexts are studied, namely the general context of the dynamics of great powers between the United States and China, and the North Korean context, where the two actors are present. Thus, this work proposes to study different cases in the North Korean context, in order to see how these influenced the perception of the United States towards a rising China in the general context of great powers. Following a methodological and theoretical chapter, the analytical chapters are built by American presidency. These have the same structure, where an episode of cooperation and competition are analyzed. One chapter therefore deals with the presidency of George W. Bush, the other with that of Barack Obama. The objective is to see if the American perception of China changed or remained the same before and after the episodes, and to see if they had an influence on the general perception of the United States. The work also has an explanatory dimension. With the use of different components of defensive realism, it will be possible to explain why there has been a change in American perception, or not. The work draws different conclusions for the two presidents. For George W. Bush, the perception of China was influenced by the episodes. For Barack Obama, the initial perceptions have been consolidated.