Effects of a Threat and Alliance on International Cooperation: Comparison of Inter-Korean and Turkish-Armenian Railway Projects

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

The article examines restricting factors in international cooperation, drawing a comparative analysis of two cases on cross-border infrastructure projects: the Gyeongui railway line that connects North and South Korea and the Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi railway line that links Turkey and Armenia. In both cases, states involved strive for the normalization of diplomatic relations and border openness as well as potential economic opportunities and national security. Nevertheless, neither Seoul and Pyongyang nor Ankara and Yerevan succeeded in building a sustainable cooperation framework. While the outcome is the same, independent variables in both cases are different. Firstly, two Koreas have been in a military confrontation for seven decades, whereas Turkey and Armenia never engaged in a direct conflict. Secondly, the configuration of alliances (South Korea and the United States and Turkey and Azerbaijan) weakens the decision-making on the troublesome infrastructure projects. Consequently, alliances are identified as one the key factors that determine the mode of international cooperation.

Авторлар туралы

Yongsung Cho

Saint Petersburg State University

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: mirinae2929@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4032-9727

Postgraduate of Faculty of International Relations

Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Baik, Chang-Jae. (2003). Hegemony and international political economic order: A critical evaluation of hegemonic stability theory. Review of International and Area Studies, 12(1), 1-20 (In Korean)
  2. Davtyan, V. (2017). Transport and logistic situation in the South Caucasus: Railway wars. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 61(7), 93-100. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-201761-7-93-100
  3. Grigoryan, A., Khachatryan, K., & Ter-Matevosyan, V. (2018). Armenia-Turkey border opening: What determines the attitude of Armenians? Caucasus Survey, 7(1), 25-43. DOI: 10.1080/ 23761199.2018.1499298
  4. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press
  5. Kim, Ung Jin. (1995). Methodology: Research strategies and design in comparative political inquiry. Cross-Cultural Studies, 2, 89-116 (In Korean)
  6. Knutsen, T. J. (2014). Halford J. Mackinder, geopolitics, and the Heartland thesis. The International History Review, 36(5), 835-857. doi: 10.1080/07075332.2014.941904
  7. Przeworski, A. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. NY: John Wiley and Sons
  8. Suh Bo-Hyuk, Lee Moo Chul. (2018). Status of sanctions against North Korea and prospects for mitigation. KINU Policy Study Series, 18(3). (In Korean)
  9. Viner, J. (1948). Power versus plenty as objectives of foreign policy in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries. World Politics, 1(1), 1-29. DOI: 0.2307/2009156 Walt, S. (1987). The Origins of Alliance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).