2018, Vol.2, No.1

Analyses & Alternatives 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.46

pISSN : 2508-822X / eISSN : 2508-8238
https://journal.kci.go.kr/aanda

Models of South-North Korean economic integration have the problem of circular reasoning. While many studies argue that South-North Korean economic integration would contribute to alleviate security risks in the Korean peninsular, they emphasize the success of any economic model of inter-Korean economic integration is subject to favorable geo-political and security environment. It is a failure in distinguishing between goals and constraints. After identifying three major goals of South-North Korean economic cooperation, this study shows the trilemma among the goals; they are 1) formation of a complete economic community, 2) maintaining independent sovereignty of the two Koreas, 3) promotion of mutual economic interests. The trilemma suggests that it is theoretically impossible to achieve the above three goals at the same time. Only two goals are achievable simultaneously. This study argues that the most practical option is to pursue the combination of goals 2) and 3) considering the complex political and security environment around the Korean peninsular. Recognizing that North Korea is the least developed country in the Northeast Asia region, South Korea’s initiatives for inter-Korean economic cooperation should focus on assisting industrialization and integration of the North Korea economy into the Northeast Asian regional production sharing structure. In view of the ‘flying geese model’ of the sequential industrialization in the region, the least developed economic status of North Korea can partially be explained by its failure to participate in the production network in the region as well as lack of effective implementation of appropriate industrial policy. Therefore, promotion of industrialization of North Korea should be the immediate goal of economic cooperation between North and South Korea. It is an interesting fact that North Korea has rapidly expanded its apparel exports in recent years. It could mean that the North Korean economy is actively responding to the dynamics of international comparative advantage structure, although the production activities are limited to exports to China since the closure of the Gaesung Industrial Complex. The recent increase in apparel export is a starting point for incorporating the Easy Import Substitution fulfilling both domestic and neighboring regional demand of North Korea. It could help integrate North Korea’s industry into the production network of Northeast Asia. An immediate policy implication is that the economic cooperation between the two Koreas should focus on facilitating this process and supporting North Korea’s industrial policy through South Korea’s contribution of capital, technology, and service intermediary inputs.

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel’s unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan’s fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.

The 19th CPC National Congress has a key historical significance in the development of China’s constitution. It will also play a decisive role in the history of the seventy years’constitutional change in New China. XiJinping’s new socialist thought with Chinese characteristics established in the report of 19th CPC National Congress will be written in the preface of the March 2018 National People’s Congress’s constitutional amendment. The fifth revision of 1982 Constitution will touch on many issues such as the leadership of the CPC into the constitution, the abolition of the tenure of the president, the constitutional oath system, and the reform of the national supervisory system. In addition, the constitutionality review system, the establishment of the National Security Council, the constitutional status of socialist public property and private property and the adjustment of major economic system has become a hot topic in the theory field. In the history node towards a socialist country ruled by law, the theory and practice of the China indeed have the academic ideas, value position and path model differences, which will delay the Chinese constitutional development, but also is the necessary pain in the process of moving towards the rule of law in China. Indeed, how to the development and where to go in the future of Chinese constitutionalism itself has sample value, which deserves rational attention and in-depth inquiry from Chinese and Western academics.