Based on the appropriate archival collections, official documents, and various published materials, this dissertation is an investigation of American diplomacy in Korea from 1945 to 1953. Between the end of World War II and the close of the Korean fighting, the United States moved from a limited interest in Korea to a substantial involvement in that nation's affairs.

No description available.

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.

This assessment of European Union foreign policy towards the South Caucasus shows that while the EU has developed a coherent transport policy since 1992, paradoxically, it has had no corresponding coherent conflict resolution policy for this region. The fact that the EU deepened transport cooperation without a mediation policy in an area with a multiplicity of protracted conflicts is a puzzle. Although the EU eventually added mediation to its policy during the Russia-Georgia armed conflict in 2008, it was unable to facilitate a political solution. The research examines what has been the nature of EU foreign policy towards the South Caucasus. The dissertation argues that incoherence in conflict resolution policy has been consequent upon two causal factors: (i) preferences of the EU member states conditioned by their historical experience with Russia, and (ii) institutional framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). By contrast, with functional approach, the three dominant factors that have enabled coherence in transport cooperation are (i) legislative alignment, (ii) common transport area, including technical assistance for transit development, and (iii) restrictive measures. Examination of these two areas of EU foreign policy, shows a discrepancy, demonstrating its inconsistent nature. The theoretical framework of realism and liberal intergovernmentalism, is applied to empirically grounded EU foreign policy analysis. Adopting a case study methodology, this work examines the EU's policy towards Armenia and Azerbaijan, with special focus on Georgia between 1992 and 2014. The research combines social science methods of literature review, document analysis and expert interviews.