More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationships between North Korea and the US
Theories of international relations
Theories of international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has enacted policies to isolate and undermine the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. A key development took place in the past several decades where North Korea broke away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop their own nuclear weapons and while lacking launch capabilities, they have been successful in their development. During this process, the United States took active policies to deter the North Koreans in pursuit of their goals. It is easy to assume that the United States took this stance in order to maintain a military edge in the region. But under closer examination, this neo-realist perspective does not explain why the United States pursued this policy. In reality, North Korea to this day does not pose a significant military threat, even with limited nuclear capabilities. A constructivist perspective is more able to explain US policy in this instance because it does not focus on sheer militaristic power. It takes into consideration the state's identities which drives their interests. The identities of the US and North Korea and the interactions between them drove both nations to the point of acquiring and deterring nuclear use.
This conflict began developing in 1994 when North Korea announced its intentions to withdraw from the NPT. This led to the US and North Korea signing the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, North Korea agreed to stop its illicit plutonium production in exchange for increased aid from the United States. While this agreement broke down in 2002, the Six-Party Talks restarted the efforts to stop North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons, involving the aforementioned North Korean, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States. This le...
... middle of paper ...
...ower game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identifies and interests. In this case, it led to more hostility and created the conflict because the states were antithetical in nature to each other. This drove the conflict, not material matters.
Bibliography
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
The arrogance of power is an insightful read for those who wish to put today 's global events in perspective. Although it was originally written in 1966 and may be considered dated, Fulbright’s eloquently written arguments are timeless and are important sources to help us gain a greater comprehension of what makes what Fulbright would consider a wise and strategic foreign policy. This book would be of great assistance in developing an objective view of American foreign policies as seen from abroad.
“International Agreements.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition. 1994: Columbia University Press. Lanouette, William. A. “Why We Dropped the Bomb.”
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Classical realism focuses on the balance of power whereas the neorealist’s theory examines the balance of power as it relates to the structure of an overall system. Realists examine “human nature at the individual level, aggressive states at the domestic level, leaders pursuing domestic and international power at the foreign policy level, and the balance of power at the systemic level” (Nau, 2012, p. 10); and, further argues that polarity between powers...
When George W. Bush became president in 2001, his administration decided to postpone negotiations with North Korea and displayed doubt about Pyongyang sticking to the Agreed Framework (2). In 2002, Bush’s administration claimed that North Korea was secretly improving their uranium, but Pyongyang denied this claim (2). In that same year, the fuel oil shipments that were accepted to while President Clinton was in office were suspended. By the end of 2002, the Agreed Framework had been ended (2). By January 2003, the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea was at its worst point when North Korea’s official removed from the Non Proliferation Treaty (2). Four months later, U.S. officials conveyed that North Korea admitted to having at least one nuclear weapon
Relations between the United States and North Korea have been unstable since the second world war and with each passing decade the relations have become more tense. The U.S has never have formal international relations with North Korea , however the conflict has caused much controversy in U.S foreign policy. North Korea has been the receiver of millions of dollars in U.S aid and the target of many U.S sanctions. This is due to the fact that North Korea is one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, that uses unjust techniques such as murder, torture, and starvation to get their citizens to be obedient. They restrict contact from their citizens to the outside world, through censorship of technology and rarely allowing visitors to the country. The root of the US-North Korea conflict however ,has been on the basis of nuclear weapons and North Korea threatening to use those weapons against the U.S and neighboring South Korea. The U.S and other nations have been working for the last few decades to stop the regime from purchasing and utilizing destructive nuclear weapons.
Smith, Steve (2000), ‘The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in the Last Twenty Years.’ In S. Croft, Terry. A. & Co. Terriff. Critical Reflections on Security and Change, London: Frank CASS. Booth, Ken (1991), ‘Security and Emancipation’. Review of International Studies.
Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or two nuclear bombs. As the most recent standoff with North Korea over nuclear missile-testing approaches the decompression point, the United States needs to own up to a central truth: The region of Northeast Asia will never be fully secure until the communist dictatorship of North Korea passes from the scene. After threatening to test a new, long-range missile, Pyongyang says it is willing to negotiate with "the hostile nations" opposing it. But whether the North will actually forgo its test launch is anyone's guess. North Korea first became embroiled with nuclear politics during the Korean War. Although nuclear weapons were never used in Korea, American political leaders and military commanders threatened to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War on terms favorable to the United States. In 1958, the United States deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time, and the weapons remained there until President George Bush ordered their withdrawal in 1991. North Korean government stateme...
A fascinating new advancement towards the protection of the world from nuclear weapons occurred on February 25, 2016 at the State Department in Washington. According to a news article found on The New York Times Website , China and the United States have come to an agreement to a resolution that would impose strict sanctions on North Korea, a country that has become a nuclear threat over the last couple decades. The sanctions would ban the trade of potentially threatening weapons as well as fuel to North Korea, “The proposed measures, according to a U.S. official, would ban the trade of conventional weapons, luxury goods like jet skis and Rolex watches, and aviation fuel to north Korea, which would effectively ground its airlines” . The resolution is a direct product from the events occurring a few weeks earlier when North Korea’s capital Pyongyang tested a hydrogen bomb, an extremely dangerous weapon.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
Moreover, according to the same theory, relations among states are derived primarily by their level of power, which constitutes basically their military and economic capability, and in pursuit of the national security states strive to attain as many resources as possible. The theoretical model explains thus why the nuclear issue has eventually resulted in identifying with a security one, meaning that North Korea main concern is to assure its survivor, its efforts are in the first place finalized at meeting that target and its only means of pursuing it consists of the posing of the nuclear threat. North Korea finds itself stuck in an economic and, to some extent, diplomatic isolation; even though the financial sanctions leading to the just mentioned critical conditions have been caused by the government inflexible, aggressive and anti-democratic behavior, the regime has no other choice than restate and strengthen its strict and, apparently, definitive positions to ensure its survivor, since at the moment any concession or move toward a more liberal approach breaking the countrys isolation could easily cause a collapse of the whole system.... ... middle of paper ...