Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T03:39:24.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Relations Studies in South Korea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Chung-in Moon  and
Taehwan Kim
Chung-in Moon
Affiliation:
Yonsei University
Taehwan Kim
Affiliation:
Yonsei University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we review and summarize recent trends of international relations studies in South Korea on three distinct dimensions and, on the basis of this, suggest future directions of research in the field. Our focus throughout the paper is on the constraints and opportunities for the development of indigenous international relations theories and models. Although the confrontational Cold War legacy on the Korean Peninsula sustains the validity of the powerful realist paradigm, we argue that critical challenges are breathing a new life into the academic field of international relations in a time of great change when a new global and regional order has been taking shape since the end of the Cold War. In order to accommodate these new changes and call attention to epistemological pluralism, we posit liberal constructivism, which combines liberalism with constructivism, as a new epistemological alternative to the existing lines of international relations theories. Given the opportunities and intellectual resources, we conclude, the future of the discipline of international relations in South Korea is quite promising.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 45 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, Emanuel, and Barnett, Michael. 1998. Security Communities. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cashman, Greg. 1993. What Causes War? New York: Lexington Books, 1993.Google Scholar
Cruz, Consuelo. 2000. Identity and Persuasion: How Nations Remember Their Pasts and Make Futures. World Politics 52 (April).Google Scholar
Deutsch, Karl. 1959. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1997. Ways of Peace and Ways of War. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 1990. American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. Democracy's Third Wave. Journal of Democracy 2(2): 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppeerson, Ronald L., Wendt, Alexander, and Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security. In The Culture of National Security, edited by Katzenstein, Peter. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Dalchoong, and Moon, Chung-in, eds. 1997. History, Cognition, and Peace in East Asia. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Wang-shik, and Kim, Yong-jik. 1995. Educational System of International Relations and Its Failure. Korean Journal of International Studies 35(1) (in Korean).Google Scholar
Koehane, Robert. 1989. International Liberalism Reconsidered. In The Economic Limits of Politics, edited by Dunn, John, 165–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koehane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Koehane, Robert. ed. 1983. Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Koehane, Robert. and Martin, Lisa L. 1995. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security 20(1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994/95. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19(3): 5–49.Google Scholar
Moon, Chung-in. 2000. Changing Regional Order and Peace-Building in East Asia: A South Korean Perspective. Paper presented at an international conference on “Post-Cold War and Peace: Experiences, Conditions, and Choices,” Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University, Seoul, December 19, 2000.Google Scholar
Moon, Chung-in, and Steinberg, David, eds. 1999. The Kim Dae Jung Government and Sunshine Policy: Promises and Challenges. Seoul and Washington, D.C.: Yonsei University Press and Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Morse, Edward. 1976. Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Park, Sang-sup, and Ha, Young-sun. 1995. Trends of International Relations in the United States and Present Status of International Studies in South Korea. Korean Journal of International Studies 35(1) (in Korean).Google Scholar
Russet, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security 25(1).Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. The Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1995. Constructing International Politics. International Security 20(1): 71–81.Google Scholar
Yoon, Hyun-keun, and Choi, Jong-cheol. 1995. Self-Perception and Self-Evaluation of International Relations Studies in South Korea. Korean Journal of International Studies 35(1) (in Korean).Google Scholar