China, Japan, and Korea

Author(s):  
Vanessa L. Fong

Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have focused on diversity, inequality, and historical transformations in childhood and education in East Asian societies, while psychologists have focused on how the cultures, policies, and practices of East Asian societies have resulted in educational outcomes and patterns of child development that differ from those of societies outside East Asia, especially the United States. Prior to the 1980s, scholarship about childhood and education in East Asian societies was sparse, as social science scholarship infrastructures in East Asian societies were weak owing to political and economic limitations that resulted from the chaos left by the wars and revolutions that ravaged East Asian societies during the first half of the 20th century. In addition, the social sciences were dominated by Anglophone scholars whose interest in East Asian societies focused mostly on non–child-related aspects of those societies’ cultures, social structures, histories, politics, and literatures, while Anglophone psychologists and education researchers concentrated primarily on childhood and education in their own societies, paying little attention to these issues in East Asia. Scholarly interest in childhood and education in East Asia flourished after the 1980s, though,as a result of the increasing cultural, political, and economic power of East Asian societies; their tendency to do as well as, or even better than, Anglophone societies in international academic competitions; the rising numbers of emigrants from East Asia who brought interest and expertise in their home societies to the Anglophone societies to which they migrated; and globalizing forces that made East Asian societies more interesting to Anglophone social scientists, including psychologists and education researchers who had previously paid little attention to international comparisons. The amount of scholarly attention each country has attracted has been proportionate to its population, emigration patterns, and cultural, political, and economic influence on the rest of the world; thus, mainland China has attracted the bulk of scholarly attention paid to East Asian societies, with Japan coming in second, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) coming in third, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) not represented at all because it has been inaccessible to social scientists outside its borders.

Author(s):  
I. Korgun ◽  
S. Sutyrin

This article discusses the measures of the government of the Republic of Korea to overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It shows what programs are being adopted to stabilize the social situation, normalize business activity and create conditions for the development of new sectors of the economy. An attempt is also made to suggest how relations with foreign economic partners may change in the post-tandem period.


2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Steven Hugh Lee

AbstractSince December 1997, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States have met in a series of talks aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region. According to a November 1998 U.S. Department of Defense report, the discussions have created a “diplomatic venue for reducing tensions and ultimately replacing the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace settlement.”1 Amidst the tragic human suffering which has occurred in North Korea, there have been some encouraging developments on the peninsula. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea placed international controls on North Korea’s atomic energy program and cautiously anticipated the normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. Since assuming power in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has vigorously pursued a policy of engagement with P’yo¨ngyang, known as the “sunshine policy.” Over the past decade, North Korea has also reoriented its foreign policy. In the early 1990s, the regime’s social and economic crisis led to a rethinking of its autarkic economic system. By early 1994, the state had created new free trade zones and relatively open foreign investment laws.2 By complying with the Agreed Framework, the DPRK has also shown a willingness to work with the international community on sensitive issues affecting its internal sovereignty and ability to project power beyond its borders.


Author(s):  
Alexander Zhebin

The article analyzes the prospects for US-North Korean and inter-Korean relations, taking into account the completed policy review of the new US administration towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), as well as the results of the President of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in’s trip to Washington in May 2021 and his talks with US President Joe Biden. It is concluded that the “new" course proposed by the United States in relation to the DPRK will not lead to a solution to the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula and will interfere with the normalization of inter-Korean relations. During his visit to the US President Moon failed to obtain the US consent on ROK more “independent policy” toward North Korea. In spite of lavish investments into US economy and other concessions, Seoul was forced to promise to coordinate his approaches to the DPRK with US and Japan and support US position on Taiwan straits and South China Sea. The author argues that in the current conditions, the introduction of a regime of arms limitation and arms control in Korea should be a necessary stage on the way to complete denuclearization of the peninsula. The transition to a such method of the settlement of the nuclear problem could lead to the resumption of the negotiation process, mutual concessions, including reductions in the level of military-political confrontation, partial or large-scale lifting of economic sanctions in exchange for North Korea's restrictions of its nuclear weapon and missile systems.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyuan Zou ◽  
Lei Zhang

In 1972, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) was negotiated. It is a global treaty, for the first time, to regulate dumping of waste at sea worldwide. Following this global endeavor, the Protocol to the London Convention (London Protocol) was later agreed to further modernize the London Convention so as to reinforce the management of dumping of waste at sea. While in East Asia, only China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Philippines have acceded to the Convention and its Protocol, other countries do not show their willingness to sign them. Against this background, this article will address the responses of these East Asian states to the implementation of the London Convention, and analyze and assess their relevant laws and regulations with particular reference to China’s practice. In addition, it will focus on new challenges, such as offshore carbon storage, to the London Convention.


1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (x) ◽  
pp. 251-261
Author(s):  
Richard C. Rockwell

This essay sets forth the thesis that social reporting in the United States has suffered from an excess of modesty among social scientists. This modesty might be traceable to an incomplete model of scientific advance. one that has an aversion to engagement with the real world. The prospects for social reporting in the United States would be brighter if reasonable allowances were to be made for the probable scientific yield of the social reporting enterprise itself. This yield could support and improve not only social reporting but also many unrelated aspects of the social sciences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document