Korean | English

pISSN : 1976-1481

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.57
Home > Explore Content > All Issues > Article List

2016, Vol., No.19

  • 1.

  • 2.

  • 3.

    The Movement of Korean Residents in Japan during the Korean War, Revisited: Focusing on the Local Organizations

    Kijeong Nam | 2016, (19) | pp.64~101 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    This article aims to reveal a new demension in the movements of Korean residents in Japan, through tracing the trends of the movements developed in local areas of Japan, using the raw materials of GHQ/SCAP documents. The movement oriented to the nation or fatherland, which was propelled by the ‘fatherland faction’ was the way which satisfied the policy of Japanese government which wanted to separate and exclude the Korean residents in Japan. On the contrary, the movement to participate to Japanese politics as an ethnic minority group which was carried out by ‘JCP faction’ was the line which can contribute to transform Japan into a democratic multi-ethnic state which guarantee the equality and coexistence among every ethnic groups. Though it failed as a political line, the latter was the right one in the meaning that it challenged Japanese government's wrong policy which aimed to exclude Koreans from Japan. The main problem was that JCP faction's movement was attempted in a wrong time, with a wrong means, i.e., in a time of the Korean War, with a militarisitic means. Nevertheless, though in a wrong time, the Korean activists in local areas of Japan had left traces in which they tried hard to mend their ways, and to meet the needs of age.
  • 4.

    Re-evaluation of the Stockholm Agreement between Japan and North Korea: Implications on the North Korea Policy of South Korea

    Park Jungjin | 2016, (19) | pp.102~135 | number of Cited : 7
    Abstract PDF
    2014 Stockholm agreement was unusual cases of North Korea and Japan relatio ns. This paper is a critical re-interpretation of previous studies on the Stockholm agreement. Previous studies have been focused on analyzing the question “Why did North Korea and Japan agreed to Stockholm?”, In other words, North Korea and Japan's ‘intent’ of the Stockholm agreement. This paper adds to raise the ques tion of “How Did the Stockholm can be agreed?”, to critically review the analysis performed by the previous studies. Through the analysis of this question, this pap er reveals that the relationship between North Korea and Japan is on the qualitativ e changing. And, Based on this analysis, this paper argue that the South Korea government should try to engagement and comprehensive approach more positive ly to the relationship between the North Korea and Japan.
  • 5.

    How Did the Stockholm Agreement of Japan - North Korea Make Possible? - The Decision - making of the Japanese Foreign Policy toward North Korea with Pluralism Approach -

    미야모토 사토루 | 2016, (19) | pp.136~170 | number of Cited : 3
    Abstract PDF
    Japan and North Korea had an agreement for the investigations of the abductees of Japanese nationals by North Korea in the Intergovernmental Consultations held in Stockholm on May 26-28, 2014. Japan-North Korea had once agreement at the Working-Level Consultations on August 8-11, 2008, however North Korea suddenly cancelled the investigations on September 2. The Stockholm Agreement on 2014 was very first agreement in six years between two governments. We can find the differences between two agreements on 2008 and 2014. North Korea agreed the investigations of the Japanese abductees by North Korea and the missing Japanese probably related to North Korea in the agreement on 2008. However North Korea agreed the investigations of not only the Japanese abductees and the missing Japanese, but also remaining Japanese and Japanese spouses, remains of Japanese. Thus North Korea promised they would conduct comprehensive and full-scale investigations on all Japanese nationals. Why did the range of the investigations broaden in the Stockholm agreement? I would like to analyze the decision-making of the Japanese foreign policy toward North Korea with pluralism approach. Foreign policies are decided by conflictions and reconciliations of many actors’ interests in pluralistic democracy as the studies of Roger Hilsman and TomohikoShinoda. I defined actors in Japan are the Cabinet including the bureaucracy, the cartel of the Diet member, and interest groups related in North Korea issues. Of course North Korea is the actor as negotiating partner of the Ministry of Foreign Affair of Japan(MOFA). The public opinions in Japan has most interested in the abduction issue on past and present. Therefore the interest groups related with abduction and missing issues have strong pressure powers to the Diet members. The Diet members form cartel to absorb the pressure from interest groups, and demand the resolutions to the Cabinet which controlling the MOFA. North Korea accepted the investigation which the MOFA demand on 2008, therefore interest groups related remaining Japanese and Japanese spouses, and remains of Japanese have little powers to the Diet member. However North Korea began to try the negotiations with Japan’s government on the issue of the remaining Japanese and Japanese spouses, and remains of Japanese after 2008. Thus those interest groups began have great pressure powers to the Diet members and the Cabinet. The Japan’s government has no way but to accept the demand of those interest groups, however the Japan’s government also has to pursuit the resolutions of the issue of abductions and missing Japanese to North Korea by the interest groups related with the issue of abductions and missing Japanese which have strong pressure powers. We can say that the reason of broadening the range of the investigations in the Stockholm agreement is that North Korean diplomacy toward Japan make the interest groups in Japan strong.
  • 6.

    After the Cold War, Age-specific Features that Appear in the Relationship between Japan and North Korea: Northeast Asian Affairs, National Goal, Domestic Political Forces

    Jungwha Shin | 2016, (19) | pp.171~195 | number of Cited : 3
    Abstract PDF
    This paper analyzed the main features of the relationship between Japan and North Korea in the background of the changes in the Northeast Asia situation, the national goal of Japan and North Korea and domestic political forces by age. The 1990s, Japan and North Korea have tried to normalize relations in the background of the changes in Northeast Asia affairs that symbolize the normalization of diplomatic relations between Korea and China. Japan determined that the normalization of relations with North Korea would contribute to the security of Japan as well as expansion of influence in East Asia. On the other hand, North Korea has promoted the normalization of relations with Japan in order to overcome the asymmetry of South Korea and to gain the external funding needed to overcome the economic crisis. But, the two countries' attempt has been frustrated due to the North Korean nuclear issue. The 2000s, in the background of strengthening of the US military threats against North Korea after 9/11, Japan and North Korea held the first summit and announced “Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration”, confirming the need for a swift normalization of relations. Japan and North Korea shared the common opinion that U.S. should not take any military action against North Korea. Nevertheless,the normalization of relations was a failure by the Japanese abduction issue. The 2010s, the new Cold War in Northeast Asia has been formed. Japan and North Korea announced “5.28 Stockholm Agreement”. The main content of the agreement was to resolve the abduction issue and normalization of diplomatic relations. Japan has focused on the abduction issue while North Korea has focused on financial assistance from Japan. However the abduction issue has not been resolved and the conflict has been intensified by two countries.
  • 7.

    Inscription of Japan's UNESCO World Heritage and Conflict of Northeast Asian History

    Hwang Sun-Ik | 2016, (19) | pp.196~226 | number of Cited : 9
    Abstract PDF
    Historical conflicts between Korea and Japan was intensified when ‘modern industrial facilities of Japan’(Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining) have been inscripted as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2015. Because many of Japan's major modern industrial facilities were fields of compulsory mobilization by Japanese imperialism. In particular, history conflict surrounding the World Heritage was popularly heighten while ‘Island of Warship(Hashima)’ became the symbolic place of history conflict between Korea and Japan. Excavation and the utilization of modern heritage sought by the Agency for Cultural Affairs in 1990s. And the Ministry of Economy was designed to ‘modernize industrial heritage’ by linking them with ‘industrial heritage’ in 2000s. Eventually, remains of across the country emerged as a historical and cultural heritage for ‘regional revitalization’, which led to the ‘industrial revolution of the Meiji(Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining)’ inscripted as a World Heritage. Memory of the World was been different from World Cultural Heritage, which led the Japanese government. Interest in documentary was rapidly risen through listing of ‘Sakubei Yamamoto Collection’ as a first Japanese Memory of the World which led Fukuoka Dagawa city(田川) in 2011. After that promoting Memory of the World by the Government and ‘heritage excavation’ of each region have led to competitive. Japan's World Heritage became a history issue when modern heritage authorized as a worldwide heritage. However, debates about UNESCO heritage which sparked by Japanese has not only history issue of compulsory mobilization. China has protest against historical provocations. On the other hand, Collection of the ‘Nanjing Massacre’ listed as a ‘Memory of the World(2015)’. The Japanese government has vigorously opposed it. South Korea has promoted to listing record of Japanese military ‘comfort women’ and compulsory mobilization through international coalition. For the modern history of Korea, China and Japan now has a staggered historical consciousness spark East Asia ‘history wars’ surrounding ‘UNESCO heritage’ which is expected to continue for a while. The history of conflict in Northeast Asia is rising now, Korea, China and Japan will look back at the original value of World Heritage.
  • 8.

  • 9.