• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.63-87
• /
• 2020

This article not only theoretically explores the necessity and effect of constructive minilateralism and subregionalism in Northeast Asia, but also delves into a series of practical solutions from viewpoint of seeking common ground while reserving differences in this region. The main contents are as follows: First, the various obstacles that hinder the formation of regionalism, subregionalism and minilateralism in the Northeast Asia are discussed. That is to say, geopolitical realism, My Country First ideology, exclusive nationalism in the socio-historical context, and North Korea's latest provocations, etc. Second, this article explores the philosophy and basic principles of realizing Northeast Asia regionalism and minilateralism. Third, in the 21st century, Northeast Asia becomes the center of the world. It examines the core points, controversial focus and platform for building sub regionalism in the region. Finally, based on the institutional platform such as minilateralism and sub regionalism, the various ideas and practical plans of cross-border cooperation among major countries in Northeast Asia were discussed. Because there are a lot of obstacles, so first of all it is more appropriate to promote economic or functional minilateralism or sub regionalism than multilateral cooperation. In order to promote the formation of regionalism and minilateralism in Northeast Asia, the issues to be considered are as follows: First, for the sake of leading regional solidarity and minilateral economic cooperation, it is advisable for China, as a regional economic power, to implement a stable and responsible diplomacy. Secondly, regional solidarity based on credible politics and security should be promoted for a long time beyond the level of economic cooperation. Third, the primary prerequisite for the realization of Northeast Asian regionalism is that in the process of denuclearization of North Korea, the stability and peace mechanism of the Korean Peninsula should be established. Fourth, with the continued hegemonic competition between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, under the circumstance that countries in the region are pushed into so-called "East Asian Paradox", it is profoundly important for them to consider transition from the hostile relationship as the "Thucydides trap" to the order of "coexistence" in which competition and cooperation run side by side, and the two countries should explore a conversion plan for the foreign policy line. This mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence of the US-China relationship will create a friendly atmosphere for the formation of regionalism in Northeast Asia. In the future, the cooperation of minilateralism in Northeast Asia will break the existing conflict between the maritime forces and the continental forces in order to promote peace. And along with the philosophy that "peace is economy", recent policies of common prosperity as the framework, such as China's "Belt and Road Initiative", North Korea's "Special Zone and Development Zone Policy", Russia's "New Eastern Policy", Japan's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative and South Korea's The "Korean Peninsula New Economy Map" are organically linked and it should promote the so-called "networked regionalism".

• Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.5-19
• /
• 1999

This paper identifies five factors that limited urban network formation in Northeast Asia over the past half millennium, questions the extent to which they are being overcome in the 1990s, and sketches a network of cities that could boost regionalism. It briefly traces the historical evolution of these factors, including comparisons with European integration, while focusing primarily on the policies of the 1990s that have affected their continuing role. First is the factor of closed national markets with weak regional integration. Second is the preeminence of administrative means of integration over commercial ones. Third is the character of localism, shackled by overcentralization and weak cross-border linkages. Fourth is the limited nature of internationalism, dominated by state catch-up policies with one-sided global involvement. Fifth is a lack of regional consciousness. Just as national urban integration was essential for regional networks to form, without regional integration it is difficult to contemplate Northeast Asian cities taking their rightful place in a global urban network. After noting the failures of the 1990s, the paper points to the potential role as dragon's heads for sub-regional urban networks of potential front-line cities: Tumen, Sapporo, Irkutsk, and what I call the Amur triangle. Also of interest are how the capitals of Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, and Tokyo will adjust to a transformed urban network. After all, their current skepticism must be overcome with a program that links the benefits on all sides in order to build trust in regionalism. This requires internationalism and symbols of a balanced approach to each country's needs.

• Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.41-56
• /
• 2014

This research paper advances our understanding of complex interdependence among countries. Existing research has found that total factor productivity (TFP), the residual from the economic growth function, is hindered in the absence of a country's strong political and legal institutions or if a country does not already have a sufficiently high level of TFP. We also know that regional efforts to eliminate pollution are complex. Bridging these two areas while focusing on a high polluting yet high innovating region, the following research questions are posed: Are Northeast Asian countries key collaborators in pursuit of green R&D? Are Northeast Asian countries collaborating extensively with each other? What are the implications for other regions' attempts to establish these kinds of relations? To answer the above questions, biofuels-related technology as defined in the International Patent Classification's "green inventory" of environmentally sound technologies is examined. Patent data is drawn from the USPTO and inventors' country origin as the unit of analysis. For the 1990-2013 period, the Northeast Asian countries are in the core of a small set of collaborating countries. There is evidence that their centrality has increased in recent years. Most importantly, East Asia is becoming a singular research hub in terms of biofuels-related R&D, offering a counter in the foreseeable future to the dominance of the American and European research network hubs.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.39 no.6 s.105
• /
• pp.955-970
• /
• 2004

With the flow of globalization, world aviation markets are showing growing trends toward liberalization, deregulation, and privatization. At the same time, also apparent is a strong trend toward regionalism on aviation markets to realize open skies at the regional level. This research examines the recent trend of regionalism in the world aviation market from a political economic perspective, taking a single European aviation market as an example. The results show that the creation of a single European aviation market is the EU's strategic response against the US to enhance the European aviation industry's competitiveness. More specifically, the results show that the European countries are creating a single European aviation market in order to stand against the US' so-called 'divide and nile policy' and 'encirclement strategy' and to make their airliners to have competitive advantages over the US airliners on the lucrative North-Atlantic air routes. Recently, the single European aviation market is expanding by including the Mediterranean and Balkan states to pursue Pan European aviation cooperation and to develop European Common Aviation Area so that it can continuously enhance its negotiating leverage against external markets. The results imply that it is urgent for the Northeast Asian countries to create their own regional aviation bloc to develop their aviation industry and to increase their negotiating power against external countries.

• Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.21-38
• /
• 1999

This paper is concerned with analyzing the role of Northeast Asia intercity networks in Northeast Asia in creating regional networks. For the purpose of this paper, we have followed Choe's (1996) definition of Northeast Asia which includes the Russian Fat East, the Northeast region of China, South Korea, North Korea and Japan. The central hypothesis of the paper is that the geopolitical conditions of Northeast Asia compared for example with Southeast Asia, favor bilateral rather than multilateral linkages between nation states. In these circumstances, it is our hypothesis that cities will play an important role in developing a "local image" of regio-nalism and intercity networks. In order to analyze this hypothesis, the paper is divided into three parts. Part A analyzes the emerging urban system of the Northeast Asia region using Choe's concept of the BESETO corridor and updating his data from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s just prior to the financial crisis. This analysis is further supported by the analysis of economic and transportation linkages within the urban system of the region with some discussion of emerging urban nodes. Part B looks at the specific case studies of the region including the Bohai Sea region, the Japan Sea and case studies of Sapporo, the Japan Sea and case studies of Sapporo, Pusan and Shandong province cities. Part C summarizes this preceding analysis and that the development of regionalism and servicing urban nodes is move likely to emerge from a myriad of linkages developed between the region's cities than from a supra-regional role of nation states. This finding has important implications for regional policy formation suggesting that there should be considerate national support for international linkages between cities.en cities.