CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
existing body of literature on middle powers and their foreign policies, and contribute to a more thorough understanding of the nature middle powers, especially in bilateral disputes.
Finally, my research could shed some light on the logic behind Korea’s behavior toward Japan. Were it not for the two nations being united under the American security umbrella, troubles plaguing their relationship might be even greater. This is unfortunate because, from the rise of China and the ever present threat posed by North Korea, to the shared democratic ideology and socio-cultural traits, South Korea and Japan clearly have many overlapping interests. It would be to their own mutual benefit for them to work together in promoting liberal democratic values, balancing against Chinese hegemony, and pressuring North Korea to be a more responsible member of the international community. Together, Korea and Japan have vast potential to promote peace, stability and democracy across Asia and the world. The logic appears to suggest that they ought to be obvious partners working together in these areas of shared concern. This is especially true if Korea is in fact following the foreign policy of a middle power, as it claims to be.
Providing some clarity on Korea’s behavior toward Japan may also be able to help other researchers construct policy proposals to better guide the United States in managing its relationship with its two most important security partners in the Asia-Pacific.
1.3 Research Design
The behavioral theory holds that middle powers share a specific pattern of foreign policy actions, collectively termed ‘middlepowermanship:’ “[the] tendency to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems, [the] tendency to embrace compromise positions in international disputes, and [the] tendency to embrace notions of ‘good international citizenship’
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to guide...diplomacy” (Cooper et al. 1993). Middle power diplomacy, as it is referred to by Neack (2000), can be further identified by a commitment toward coalition-building and performing international conflict management and resolution activities, e.g., UN peacekeeping and mediating between two or more unfriendly countries. Finally, it is important to note that middle power diplomacy uses these sorts of multilateral and cooperative initiatives as a means of bringing stability and legitimacy to the global order (Jordaan 2003).
Theoretically middle powers are expected to handle international disputes in the above-mentioned specific ways. In practice, nevertheless, individual country’s approach to bilateral disputes may vary and even deviate from the middle power image. This study is thus to test South Korea’s image as a middle power by examining her approaches to bilateral disputes with Japan.
Therefore the behavioral perspective will be used as the analytical framework of this thesis research. To test Korea’s image, this perspective will be applied to three different cases of bilateral disputes. Case one is about Comfort Women, case two is about Dokdo dispute and case three is about the East Sea dispute. In each of the three test cases, the extent to which Korea’s actions conform to the behavioral framework will be analyzed.
To summarize, the analytical framework of this thesis relies on three essential attributes of middle power foreign policy: multilateralism, compromise and exercising leadership towards peaceful outcomes.
1. MULTILATERALISM: Middle powers see themselves as good international citizens. They want to be model states who uphold the global order and follow international norms. As a result, they will tend to bring problems to multilateral
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
arbitration, rather than trying to settle them bilaterally. In each of the three disputes with Japan, does Korea favor bilateral or multilateral solutions?
2. COMPROMISE: Middle powers embrace compromise positions in international disputes to demonstrate their good international citizenship, and as a way of fostering peaceful relations. When there’s a chance to make a deal in each of their disputes with Japan, does Korea offer to negotiate, or show willingness to accept negotiations from the Japanese side? Or do they shun compromise when the opportunities arise?
3. LEADERSHIP: Middle powers place regional stability as their end goal. Disputes can sometimes lead to armed conflict. But for middle powers, war is not an option, so they should prevent conflicts from arising in the first place. In each of the three disputes, does Korea take initiatives to move the conflicts in the direction of peace and stability, or do they tend to take provocative actions that aggravate problems even further?
Qualitative research serves as the methodological basis of this thesis. Qualitative research is a systematic method of inquiry that social scientists use to form theories that explain the world of human relations. While there are many definitions of qualitative research, most basic definition is that “it uses words as data . . . collected and analyzed in all sorts of ways.
Quantitative research, in contrast, uses numbers as data, and analyzes them according to statistical techniques.”3 With regard to international relations in particular, qualitative analysis
3 Merriam, Sharan. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass; 3 edition. 2009. p.
6.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
tries to understand and explain various social and political phenomena, such as current events, as well as the formation of world regions and the behavior of countries and individuals.
This study focuses on the foreign policy of South Korea and its relationship to Japan, so although some statistical data may be included, qualitative, rather than quantitative research, is the main methodology. The research is informed primarily through past and current literature, historical documents and official government statements regarding the policies and implementation of Korean foreign policy and overall national strategy.
The time period necessary to cover for researching these cases will range from the beginning of Korea’s use of the middle power concept - which took place in the early 1990s - to the Park Geun-hye administration.