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.
Editor-in-Chief Zhu Xianping
Deputy Editor-in-Chief Li Yingwu
Editorial Board 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
Since Putin’s third term, the Russian economy has been in economic crisis. This round of Russian economic crisis is the result of the combination of external and endogenous factors. External factors such as economic sanctions against Russia, international oil price drop and other external factors are important drivers of Russia’s crisis, but the root causes of the economic crisis in Russia are the structural problems of the Russian economy. In the analysis of the economic situation of Russia, this paper compares the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic crisis during the third term of Putin. In Putin’s third term, Russia’s economic development faces a series of challenges, such as growth model, economic structure, innovation enthusiasm, investment and human capital development. This paper starts with the internal linkage mechanism between the increase of energy export income and economic growth, and puts forward the reasons for the failure of traditional economic growth model in Russia. The Russian government has formulated and implemented anti-sanctions and anti-crisis policies to remove the negative effects of western sanctions and the economic crisis as soon as possible. Judging from the current economic situation, it is not difficult for the Russian economy to recover in 2017. But in order to achieve sustained, rapid and stable economic growth, it is important to push structural reforms, develop an innovative economy, constantly improve the business environment, and create a systemic environment conducive to the development of market economy. It is a long-term and arduous task for Russia.
In order to probe into the deep reasons that influence the development of Sino-Russian gas cooperation, it is necessary to pay attention to the game of interest groups within Russia’s natural gas sector in the context of the evolution of global gas market and geopolitical patterns. In particular, the intricate relationship between these energy interest groups and the Kremlin has a direct impact on Russia’s domestic gas sector regulation and export policy. An analysis of the evolution of Sino-Russian gas relations from the perspective of energy interest group game will also help to judge and predict the trend of Russian gas market liberalization and the prospect of Sino-Russian gas cooperation. This is of far-reaching significance in advancing the strategic docking of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Eurasian Economic Union, especially the deepening of the production cooperation between China and Russia in oil and gas fields.
Against the background of slow negotiation process on global climate governance, the international society pays attention to regional-level governance. However, there is no integrated cooperative institution on climate change issue like the EU in East Asia where the current effect of climate change is increasingly severe. The disputes on the territory issues make the relations among East Asian countries more complex, exerting negative effects on regional climate governance. Because of the different development phases among East Asian countries, their different economic modes and energy consumption patterns lead to different concerns and priorities. East Asian countries join the different groups in international negotiations under the framework of UNFCCC, and thus they are more likely to hold different attitudes towards the climate governance action. Meanwhile, the diplomatic traditions and the influence of other actors from outside have further complicated the contradictions among East Asian countries and made the process of regional cooperation on climate change lag behind, which develops into cooperation dilemma. To construct and promote the coordination of climate governance in East Asia area, it is important to take the interest concern into the consideration by the consensus of member states under the leading roles of regional great powers, as well as drawing advanced experiences from other regions, enhancing the connections between regional and international institutions on climate governance.
This paper focuses on South China Sea issue in Sino-Japan Sea power contradiction. Since Japan is not a South China Sea coastal state, why does it conflict with China in the South China Sea issue as an extra-regional state? Through sea power theory of realism in international relations, a conclusion can be drawn about this problem that in post-Cold War period, while Japan has started to seek political power status as a defeated state in the Second World War, China has extricated from northern threat from which it has suffered for long as East Asia geopolitical main plate state, and has started to develop sea power freely. China has surpassed Japan to become the second largest economy in the world in 2010, leading to bipolar geopolitical structure in East Asia for the first time, which has aroused a strong suspicion of Japan. Against this background, Japan regards China’s strategy of building a maritime power as a threat to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. Hence, Japan begins to stir up disputes in maritime field, resulting in emergence and rapid escalation of Sino-Japan Sea power contradiction. Due to increasing disadvantage in the East China Sea issue and no hope of change in the short term, Japan has provoked dispute in the South China Sea issue, attempting to put China into strategic dilemma. In order to contain China at sea, Japan has adopted multiple means to set up obstacles for China in the South China Sea issue, including legal, defense, diplomatic and public opinion. Therefore, it is necessary for China to take corresponding measures in response.
This paper investigates the Japanese anti-Anpo movement in 2015 which has been the largest social movement in Japan since the mid-1970s when a wave of peace movement emerged. The movement in 2015 is triggered by the “legislation for peace and security” and the progress of revising “pacifist constitution” led by Abe administration. Drawing support from the political process theory to analyze the 2015 anti-Anpo movement, we could conclude that Japanese broad political, economic and social processes, public perception and organizations of the social movement lead to the occurrence and failure of the movement. However, the basis of peace movement in Japan still exists. Because the foundation of Japanese economic and social situation, public perception and organizations of the social movement still exist. But the political process of peace movement is difficult to be optimized. It needs the coalition of political parties and the communities who have political enthusiasm, and the solidarity of social movement organizations.
The ocean is an important part of national interests, while the maritime security strategy is the key to safeguard national benefit and expand national influence, occupying the core position of national strategies. Since modern times, Japan, as a maritime state, has made a great difference in the specific strategic content of each historical period in the process of formulating the marine security strategy, and there are some contradictions among them. The core of this paper is the internal logic and historical evolution between the development and adjustment of Japanese maritime security strategy. Therefore, this paper builds a logical analysis framework of “geographical features, national orientation, strategic demand, and strategic pattern” about Japanese maritime security strategy from the perspective of sea power theory.
During the period between the G20 Hangzhou Summit in 2016 and the G20 Hamburg Summit in 2017, the three powers of America, Britain and France elected their head of state respectively. Amidst the winds of the changing international situation, G20 Summit in 2017 has been called “the most difficult summit in the history.” The Trump administration’s “America First” unilateralism policy, the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and the steel tax dispute between the United States and Europe have made the differences among the great powers complex and even difficult to reconcile. How to promote the international pattern of “one superpower and several great powers” orderly evolve? How to promote the benign interaction of G20 members under the new concert of powers? Reviewing Russia’s G8 global governance experience, interpreting relevant countries’ contradictions and historical lessons, and analyzing Russia’s G20 interest appeals and the dynamic mechanism in the post financial crisis era will provide feasibility reference for accurately assessing Russia’s G20 strategy, strengthening the Sino-Russian G20 strategic bilateral cooperation, improving the discourse right of emerging economies in global multilateral governance mechanism and helping China effectively formulate the G20 strategy.
The global trade governance mechanisms play an important role in maintaining the stability of the world economy and the open cooperation of all countries after the Second World War, but they have some deficiencies. Multilateral trading systems lack impartiality, regional trade agreements lead to “fragmentation” of global trade governance and informal institutional arrangements which lack legally binding force and legitimacy are also questioned. The deficiencies of the global trade governance mechanisms lead to many inefficient problems, and the anti-globalization wave is the typical example of the low efficiency. In addition, emerging economies have become increasingly important in the world economy, and the distribution of benefits defined by the existing global trade governance mechanisms is becoming increasingly inappropriate. In this regard, the Belt and Road Initiative will lead to the reform of global trade governance mechanisms, promote them to turn to justice and development orientation, integrate fragmentation of global trade governance mechanisms, and lead the new economic globalization. The Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation provides a new multilateral cooperation platform for global trade governance. Furthermore, new Silk Road order sets a new model for the reform of global trade governance mechanisms.
