Search results

Abstract
This article is a response to Timo Kivimaki's important article about peace in East Asia. The article focuses on Northeast Asia's structural configurations (i.e., economic interdependence and deterrence systems) contributing to peace in East Asia. This article essentially argues when it comes down to peace in East Asia, two subregions of East Asia, namely Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, must be analyzed to recognize different subregions' structural orders affecting East Asia as a whole.

This article is a response to Timo Kivimaki's important article about peace in East Asia. The article focuses on Northeast Asia's structural configurations (i.e., economic interdependence and deterrence systems) contributing to peace in East Asia. This article essentially argues when it comes down to peace in East Asia, two subregions of East Asia, namely Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, must be analyzed to recognize different subregions' structural orders affecting East Asia as a whole.

AbstractIs the relative long peace of Northeast Asia a result of crisis stability or general stability? The article introduces two stability concepts – crisis and general stability. Crisis stability occurs when both sides in military crisis are secure due to military capability and are able to wait out a surprise attack fully confident of the ability to respond with a punishing counter attack. On the other hand, general stability prevails when two powers greatly prefer peace even to a victorious war whether crisis stability exist or not, simply because war has become inconceivable as a means of solving any political disagreements and conflicts. While crisis stability entails delicate balance of military power from the deterrence literature of security studies, general stability bases its logic of inquiry on constructivism where the idea of war aversion – categorically rejecting war as a means to end conflicts – becomes the prevailing norm. Therefore, this article empirically examines how Northeast Asia has sustained its peace through crisis stability and presents a new trend toward general stability

AbstractIs the relatively long peace of Northeast Asia a result of crisis stability or general stability? The article introduces two stability concepts – crisis and general stability. Crisis stability occurs when both sides in military crisis are so secure due to its military capability and are able to wait out a surprise attack fully confident that it would be able to respond with a punishing counter attack. On the other hand, general stability prevails when two powers greatly prefer peace even to a victorious war whether crisis stability exists or not, simply because war has become inconceivable as a means of solving any political disagreements and conflicts. While crisis stability entails delicate balance of military power from the deterrence literature of security studies, general stability bases its logic of inquiry on constructivism where the idea of war aversion – categorically rejecting war as a means to end conflicts – becomes the prevailing norm. Therefore, this article empirically examines how Northeast Asia has sustained its peace through crisis stability and presents a new trend toward general stability.