Exploring the Zone of Possible Agreement on the Nuclear Issue of the Korean Peninsula

封面

如何引用文章

详细

From 2003 to 2009, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States engaged in a series of multilateral negotiations to address North Korea’s nuclear program. On September 19, 2005, the six participants achieved a “gold standard” agreement on denuclearization. North Korea agreed to relinquish all nuclear weapons, abstain from deploying nuclear weapons, and rejoin the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The United States affirmed its lack of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and expressed no intention of attacking or invading the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with nuclear or conventional weapons. China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States concurred to provide energy assistance to the DPRK. Furthermore, the agreement established the principle of “commitment for commitment, action for action,” which holds significance for the spirit of future engagement. The prevailing impasse in resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula prompts the inquiry of a possible negotiation model. This paper uses the Harvard negotiation method to examine a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) between China, North Korea, Russia, and the United States, which culminated in the September 19, 2005 Six Party Talks agreement addressing the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The first section of the article is devoted to scrutinizing the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), which facilitated the 2005 agreement. Based on the acquired insights, the second section assesses the prospects for implementing the 2005 Joint Statement in the current context. This section also concentrates on identifying a ZOPA under current conditions, taking into account past experiences and lessons learned from past negotiations.

作者简介

Roman Kalinin

Lomonosov Moscow State University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: kalininrr95@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8495-2196
SPIN 代码: 3041-4678

Postgraduate Student, Faculty of World Politics

Moscow, Russian Federation

Yue Yuan

China Foreign Affairs University

Email: yuey.yuan@outlook.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1784-8521

Assistant Professor

Beijing, China

Veronika Bedenko

Open Nuclear Network

Email: veronika-bedenko@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3187-761X

Analyst

Vienna, Austria

参考

  1. Asmolov, K. V., & Zakharova, L. V. (2023). Determination and diligence. Relations between Russia and the states of the Korean Peninsula in a new era. Russia in Global Affairs, 21(4), 203–224. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-4-203-224
  2. Boasson, C. (1991). In search of peace research: Essays by Charles Boasson. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11885-4
  3. Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531–582. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002531
  4. Chu, Shulong, & Lin, Xinzhu. (2008). The six party talks: A Chinese perspective. Asian Perspective, 32(4), 29–43. http://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2008.0003
  5. Dyachkov, I. V. (2014). Evolution of the North Korea nuclear program in the context of nuclear proliferation in the Northeast Asia (2nd half of 20th — 21st century) [dissertation]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russian).
  6. Guiguzi. (2014). Jilin University Press. (In Chinese).
  7. Hecker, S. S. (2023). Hinge points: An inside look at North Korea’s nuclear program. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  8. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research In Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
  9. Kristensen, H. M., & Korda, M. (2021). SIPRI Yearbook 2021: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2003). 3-D negotiation. Playing the whole game. Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 64–74.
  11. Mnookin, R. H. (2003). Strategic barriers to dispute resolution: A comparison of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 159(1), 199–220.
  12. Mnookin, R. H., Peppet, S. R., & Tulumello, A. S. (2000). Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  13. Panin, A., & Altov, V. (2004). North Korea. The era of Kim Jong Il at sunset. Moscow: OLMA Media Group publ. (In Russian).
  14. Park, J. S. (2005). Inside multilateralism: The six‐party talks. Washington Quarterly, 28(4), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1162/0163660054798726
  15. Sankaran, J., & Fearey, B. L. (2017). Missile defense and strategic stability: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1280744
  16. Toloraya, G. (2008). The six party talks: A Russian perspective. Asian Perspective, 32(4), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2008.0004
  17. Wallensteen, P. (2018). Understanding conflict resolution. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  18. Yeon, S. H. (2011). Political aspects of Russia’s cooperation with the states of the Korean peninsula [dissertation]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russian).
  19. Zhang, Xiaoming. (1998). The Korean peninsula and China’s national security: Past, present and future. Asian Perspective, 22(3), 259–272.
  20. Zhao, Tong. (2022). China and the international debate on no first use of nuclear weapons. Asian Security, 18(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2021.2015654

补充文件

没有额外的文件显示


版权所有 © Kalinin R., Yuan Y., Bedenko V., 2024

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##