Min Gyo Koo

Asia’s New Institutional Architecture: Evolving Structures for Managing Trade, Financial, and Security Relations

During the Cold War, the Asian region consisted of three distinct subregions—Northeast, Southeast, and South Asia. Aside from the geographical constraints of the region itself, this subdivision of Asia was a product of culture, economics, history, and superpower rivalry. From one perspective, Asia remains too heterogeneous to permit the invocation of a distinct Asian identity. Southeast Asia is divided deeply along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines. In Northeast Asia, the effects of Japanese colonialism and imperialism have left sharply diverging historical memories and interpretations. And conventional analysis has separated South Asia from its “East Asian” counterpart. Such divisions and heterogeneity have inhibited the emergence of a common Asian identity let alone broad-based, effective Asian institutions.2

The Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Sino-Japanese political-economic relations: cold politics and hot economics?

Abstract Can economic interdependence reduce conflicts among states in East Asia? The so-called ‘cold politics and hot economics’ has become a defining feature of Sino-Japanese political-economic relations. This puzzling pattern of interaction is clearly illustrated in the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. The island dispute has unfolded in five rounds of distinct clashes thus far. From one perspective, the competitive elements in the island dispute make it difficult for both Japan and China to give way to the other side on the territorial and maritime issues. At the same time, the two countries have successfully managed to contain their respective territorial and maritime claims thus far. Drawing on the liberal peace theory, this article systematically demonstrates that economic interdependence has repeatedly fostered the de-escalation of Sino-Japanese conflict over territorial and maritime rights.

South Korea’s FTAs: Moving from an Emulative to a Competitive Strategy

East Asian countries’ interest in free trade agreements (FTAs) has surged at the turn of the new millennium (Pempel, 2005; Aggarwal and Koo, 2005; Aggarwal and Urata, 2006; Solis and Katada, 2007). In particular, the rise of South Korea’s FTA initiative has been remarkable in its speed and scope. Over the past decade, South Korea has successfully concluded FTAs with Chile (2003), Singapore (2004), the European Free Trade Association (2005), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2006), and the United States (2007). South Korea has also been negotiating FTAs with Japan, Canada, Mexico, India, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, feasibility studies are under way with China, South Africa, Russia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and Mercosur.

Forming a Cross-Regional Partnership: The South Korea–Chile FTA and Its Implications

Introduction As noted in the lead article of this special issue, South Korea is not the only country in East Asia which is belatedly attempting to catch up with the global trend of free trade agreements (FTAs).1 Yet the rise of South Koreas FTA initiativesparticularly its appetite for cross-regional trade agreements (CRTAs) is truly dramatic in its speed and enthusiasm, thereby offering fertile grounds for testing the hypotheses developed in the introduction by Solis and Katada. In this study, we focus on the first cross-Pacific FTA, signed between South Korea and Chile in February 2003. Against the background of South Koreas new trade strategy in the post-Asian financial crisis period, we examine various economic and diplomatic/security factors that affected the long, halting negotiations and ratification process of the South Korea-Chile FTA. For South Korea, the agreement marked the beginning of its dramatic embrace of trade liberalization methods outside multilateral ones such as the GATT

Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia

East Asian Island and Maritime Disputes in a World of Globalization.- Conceptual and Theoretical Framework.- Quantitative Analysis of East Asian Island Disputes.- The Island and Maritime Disputes in the East Sea/Sea of Japan.- The Island and Maritime Disputes in the East China Sea.- The Island and Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea.- Maritime Regime Building in East Asia.- Conclusion and Implications.

Economic and Security Institution Building in Northeast Asia: An Analytical Overview

How has regionalism evolved in Northeast Asia? This chapter focuses on the new developments in the region in the post-triple shocks period—namely the post-Cold War, the post-Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, and the post-September 11, 2001 attacks. We argue that Northeast Asia’s new appetite for preferential economic arrangements and regional security dialogues reflects a convergence of interests in securing inclusive club goods as an insurance policy to realize free trade, financial stability, and collective security as traditional mechanisms under the so-called San Francisco system stall or are dismantled.2 The growth of economic and security interdependence of Northeast Asian countries has been remarkable during the postwar period. Yet, seen in comparative regional perspective, Northeast Asia’s economic and security cooperation has lacked significant formal institu-

The Past, Present, and Future of Asia’s Institutional Architecture

Asia’s institutional order is in flux. The erosion of Asian countries’ traditional confidence in bilateral alliances and multilateral globalism is increasingly visible, manifesting itself in the burgeoning interest in intra- and extra-regional free trade agreements (FTAs), regional financial institutions, and cooperative security dialogues. The sudden shift in Asia’s institutional equilibrium has led to an extensive and thriving literature on the theory and practice of Asian regionalism.

The Future of Northeast Asia's Institutional Architecture

This volume has focused on how and to what extent the triple post shocks—namely the post-Cold War, the post-Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, and the post-September 11, 2001 attacks—have helped Northeast Asian countries secure inclusive club goods to realize free trade, financial stability, and collective security. The emerging institutional architecture in Northeast Asia has been marked by the proliferation of free trade agreements (FTAs), preferential financial arrangements, and both formal and informal security dialogues. The institutional architecture under the San Francisco system served Northeast Asia well for the Cold War period, obviating the need for any significant regional institutionalization of both economic and security affairs. In the hub-and-spokes network of the San Francisco system, the U.S. served not only as the principal architect of regional order, but also as a power balancer between Japan and China, as well as between the two Koreas and the two Chinas. U.S. hegemony also played a critical role in gluing together its key allies through open access to its market, thus creating a unique institutional mix of bilateralism and multilateralism.