Sponsored by Jilin University
ISSN 1003-7411 CN 22-1180/C
6 issues per year
Discipline(s): Politics, Law & Military
Current Issue: Issue 05, 2018
Northeast Asia Forum is supervised by Ministry of Education of PRC, and sponsored by Jilin University. It is an authoritative academic journal, aiming to promote international cooperation, economic and trade, friendly exchanges, especially emphasizing on the strategic issues among Northeast Asian countries. Its scope covers studies in political, economic, historical, cultural, regional cooperation and international relations of Northeast Asia, and also lays stress on the development and new trends in all industries in Northeast Asian and Asia-Pacific areas. The journal is included in CSSCI.
Lowell Dittmer (U.S.); Lee Il-houng (ROK); Mikhail Titarenko (RUS); Davydov Andrey (RUS); Ogawa Yuhei(JAP); Wang Jisi; Zhu Xianping; Liu Jiangyong; Liu Debin; Li Junjiang; Li Yingwu; Xing Guangcheng; Zhang Yunling; Wu Hao; Gao Hong; Suisheng (Sam) Zhao(U.S.); Lee Heeok (ROK); Vladimir Portyakov (RUS); Zheng Yongnian(SIN); Wang Shengjin; Feng Shaolei; Zhu Feng; Liu Qingcai; Liu Bai; Li Xiao; Li Yongquan; Zhang Zhihui; Jin Canrong; Xu Bu
Li Yingwu (Director); Zhao Dongpo; Sun Jieli; Xu Jia
A study on the docking of “New Northern Policy” and “New Southern Policy” with South Korea and the “Belt and Road” Initiative
Vol 27,No. 05
In order to strengthen the DPRK-South Korea economic cooperation in Korean Peninsula, to develop the Far East in Russia and to dock with China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative, Moon Jae-in government proposed the “New Economic Map of the Korean Peninsula,” the “New Northern Policy” and the “New Southern Policy.” From a macro perspective, differences between the “New Northern Policy” and the “Belt and Road” Initiative are more than common grounds. It is Russia, not China that serves as the primary partner for the “New Northern Policy.” From a micro perspective, China’s Northeast and Russia’s Far East are overlapping areas for the two policies. The “New Southern Policy” and the “Belt and Road” Initiative only overlap in the third countries. The connectivity only happens when DPRK and the United States make an agreement on the DPRK's denuclearization. In order to develop the northeast region in China and to implement the “Belt and Road” Initiative in Northeast Asia, China needs to make further research on “docking,” to propel the “docking” stably, to help DPRK’s denuclearization, economic development, and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula.
Reconstruction of global trade governance system under the background of the Belt and Road Initiative
Vol 27,No. 05
The traditional global trade governance mechanism is controlled by developed countries such as the US. It is affected by hegemony and unilateral actions, and it is difficult to deal with the problems of economic globalization. The willingness of the US and other developed countries to participate in global trade governance has declined for a weaker economy and defects of democratic system and development models. At present, global trade governance is in serious situations of governance dilemma and governance deficit, and the global trade problems are increasingly prominent. However, the Belt and Road” initiative is committed to building a more balanced and universal global trade governance model, and its core is co-governance to ensure equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal rules for all countries. The idea of co-governance and practice of co-construction will solve the failure, imbalance, and disorder of global trade governance.
Vol 27,No. 05
In many research fields of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations, there is no research on negotiation analysis framework and bargaining power. What is worse is that China can be easily put into a passive and unfavorable position by one-sidedness and narrowness of the current negotiation theory. In view of the complexity, variability and interaction of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations, this paper proposed that bargaining power structure is an important factor affecting the transformation of U.S. trade policy, and interpreted the overall situation of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations based on the three-tier game analysis framework. It further pointed out that Sino-U.S. trade negotiations are a process involving the interaction of the three-tier international-domestic-decision-makers game. The negotiation result is the product of the interaction of international power structure, the domestic winning set and the decision makers’ cognition. By constructing the Sino-U.S. trade negotiation model, it is concluded that the overall power is not the power source of the negotiators, and the power on specific issues is the key factor affecting the negotiation results. The change of the power structure will be caused by the change of the domestic winning set and the cognition of the decision makers, and trust is more likely to dominate the negotiation process and results. In view of the remarkable influence of bargaining power on negotiation behavior and result, this paper suggested that China’s bargaining power can be enhanced by insistence strategy, issue linking and changing the winning set of the other party.
Vol 27,No. 05
Quite different from the orientation of “green” nation in the Obama Era, the climate policy in US in the Trump Era presents the characteristic of “industrial renaissance.” The Trump administration issued a large number of “grey” climate laws, paying much attention to domestic economic development while ignoring the international cooperation of coping with climate change, and having announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. As a product of the policy of “America First,” those actions from Trump administration have not only led to the failure of the model of interest interaction of Sino-US climate diplomacy, which makes the existing cooperative achievements of Sino-US climate diplomacy in danger of being overturned, but also seriously hindered the realization of the significant expected goal of Sino-US climate diplomacy. In this regard, China should be cautious to seek outlets of Sino-US climate diplomacy. China should consider four aspects: firstly, to establish the guiding ideology of “community of shared future for mankind,” and hold fast to the basic principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities”; secondly, to adopt the climate diplomatic strategy of “cooperation and mutual progress,” improve China’s voice in climate governance, and bring forward a “China approach”; thirdly, to grab the opportunity of the “Belt and Road” Initiative, strengthen the exchanges and cooperation of sub-state actors and non-state actors between China and the US, and then force the cooperation at the state level; fourthly, to take Sino-US low-carbon economic cooperation as the main force, and use the cooperation in clean coal technology as an auxiliary, so as to leverage the climate cooperation and talks between China and the US.