Explaining the Korean War through the Lens of the Bargaining Model of War
The Korean War was the first military clash of the Cold War, and the first international conflict where the UN Security Council intervened, the war waged for political objectives, the civil conflict — the Korean War marked to be distinctive in a variety of ways. Overall, the Korean was a bifurcation point that shaped the contours of the bipolar rivalry, with regional conflicts treated as cases to demonstrate supremacy by the two superpowers [Robert Jervis, pp. 563–592]. The disclosure of the Soviet (and partially Chinese) archives in the 1990s encouraged new wave of research on the causality of the war [Alexandre Y. Mansourov, 1996]. High-level documents on the Korean War were presented by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin to President Kim Young Sam of the Republic of Korea in 1994. However, the Korean War despite its pivotal importance has not received sufficiently ample attention from scholars of international relations that would have produced a broad theoretically informed scholarship. A valuable contribution to the mainstream theories of International Relations, the bargaining theory offers useful theoretical explanations on the outbreak of the war, the course of combat, and the war termination.
The book undertakes to assess whether political realism as an International Relations theory still helps us to understand the foreign policies of key European actors. The contributors ask whether foreign policy actors in Europe understand the international system and behave as realists. They ask what drives their behaviour, how they construct material capabilities and to what extent they see material power as the means to ensure survival in a post-Cold War context apparently marked by growing instability. The contributors use or contest realism in its different forms in order identify continuity or change in the foreign policy of key European actors.
According to the current concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation, soft power should take an important place in the foreign policy strategy of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, at the present stage, thinking, both Russian political circles that adopt foreign policy decisions, and the Russian expert-scientific community's views on the soft influence in international relations, contain a number of conceptual flaws. These flaws do not allow an objective and relevant analysis of the possibility and prospects for the soft influence of the Russian Federation on the international arena. Proceeding from this, the article offers a genealogical analysis of the two most successful forms of soft influence - "soft power", which is a significant tool for pursuing US foreign policy and the "normative force of Europe," in which most of the foreign policy directions of the European Union are implemented. The analysis proposed in the article allows, firstly, identify the conceptual structure of both studied forms of soft power, and secondly, to compare these structures, which allows us to affirm the fundamental, quality genealogical uniqueness of each of the two forms of soft power in contemporary international relations. In addition, the analysis allows for a more conceptual approach to the problem of the possibility of Russia's soft influence, as well as to abandon the popular research focus on financing the soft influence of one or another participant in international relations.
This book is the first study that analyses bilateral commercial treaties as instruments of peace and trade comparatively and over time. The work focuses on commercial treaties as an index of the challenges of eighteenth-century European politics, shaping a new understanding of these challenges and of how they were confronted at the time in theory and diplomatic practice. From the middle of the seventeenth century to the time of the Napoleonic wars bilateral commercial treaties were concluded not only at the end of large-scale wars accompanying peace settlements, but also independently with the aim to prevent or contain war through controlling the balance of trade between states. Commercial treaties were also understood by major political writers across Europe as practical manifestations of the wider intellectual problem of devising a system of interstate trade in which the principles of reciprocity and equality were combined to produce sustainable peaceful economic development.
The collective memory as the system of notions of a society about its history is of great interest to researchers. M. Halbwachs, P. Nora, J&A. Assmann and others emphasize that group consciousness not only plays an important role in self-identification of group members, but also strongly influences an individuals’ understanding of the past, even makes direct witnesses of the events reevaluate and adjust their memories as time passes.
The Korean War (1950-1953), which fixed the separation of the peninsula into two parts, is one of the most important pages of contemporary Korean history. Now when the reunification of the country is often discussed, it would be interesting to analyze literary texts (including fiction and memoirs as well) by South Korean and North Korean authors aiming 1) to disclose and compare the structure, the essence and sore points of the collective memory of South and North Koreans about the War, 2) to figure out the correlation between collective and individual memory about what happened.
Adversaries in a war surely offer conflicting explanations for the developments, but in case of a civil war or a war between parts of the same country, the forming of an unfavorable image of the adversary inevitably goes along with rewriting of the common history and changing of the society consciousness.
It is worth noting that in North Korean texts the war is presented as something well-organized, as a chain of planned and thought-out military operations against the enemy clearly identified, whereas South Koreans are not very enthusiastic about blaming the adversary or praising their army, they present the war as a chaos, pay more attention to the evil nature of war as well as to physical and moral traumas caused by it. It gives us a reason to consider that in case of hypothetical reunification South Korean discourse could stay quite viable in spite of some lack of the logic, which, in terms of psychology, can be explained by suppression of the most unwanted information.
The conflict in Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea has undoubtedly been a pivotal moment for policy makers and military planners in Europe and beyond. Many analysts see an unexpected character in the conflict and expect negative reverberations and a long-lasting period of turbulence and uncertainty, the de-legitimation of international institutions and a declining role for global norms and rules. Did these events bring substantial correctives and modifications to the extant conceptualization of International Relations? Does the conflict significantly alter previous assumptions and foster a new academic vocabulary, or, does it confirm the validity of well-established schools of thought in international relations? Has the crisis in Ukraine confirmed the vitality and academic vigour of conventional concepts?
The article analyzes the Italian Republic foreign policy stance on the Syrian civil war. The internal and external factors affecting the official Rome foreign policy decision-making process examined. Particular attention in this context is paid to the effects of the global financial-economic crisis which converted Italy into one of the «sick counties» of the European Union.
The article is devoted to the problems of the development of modern
relations of Russia, China and the Pacific states of Latin America. Author focuses
on potential of cooperation of these states in multilateral formats and dialogues and
the reform of the economic and institutional order in the Asia-Pacific. The relevance
of such cooperation is increasing due to the crisis of the international order that has
emerged in the Asia-Pacific region. This crisis manifests itself in two aspects. First,
we may observe a certain lack of institutions of regulation of economic relations
and ideas for their further development. Such a complex agenda is shaped by Russia
and China in relation to Eurasia (the concept of “Greater Eurasia”), but the promotion
of a similar agenda in the APEC faces many contradictions. Second, the Asia-Pacific
region is becoming an area of confrontation between the United States and China,
which is also manifested in the struggle for the future configuration of the regional
order in the region. The Pacific countries of Latin America were
not affected by either the Russian or Chinese mega-initiatives of recent years, which
are aimed precisely at creating a new international order. Meanwhile, these countries
are APEC members and participants in many regional initiatives, as well as potentially
significant economic partners for both Russia and China. Moreover, the author believes
that a similar level of economic development and similar needs objectively bring together
the views and approaches of the leading Eurasian powers and the Pacific states of Lat-
in America to the development of multilateral institutions of the regional order. However,
the historically established institutional and political linkage of these countries to
the United States currently determines their support for American initiatives. This provision,
however, is not a given, and some irregularity of the American regional policy under
the Trump administration makes the development of dialogue with these countries on
the broad problems of multilateral cooperation in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region
even more in demand. The author considers the proposed analysis
and some conclusions as an opportunity for academic and expert discussion on the