The relationship between the ROK and DPRK is bound to be affected by the two great powers—the US and China. Especially in recent decades, the power gap between the two great powers has continued to narrow. Given this, how is the geopolitical situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula shaping inter-Korean relations? This study uses event data and statistical analysis to explore the geopolitical factors that shaped inter-Korean relations from 1993 to 2019. We find that DPRK–ROK relations deteriorated as the power gap between the US and China narrowed. Also, inter-Korean relations were positive when DPRK–US relations were positive. In short, we conclude that during the shift in the US–China power distribution, maintaining positive DPRK–US relations while also managing inter-Korean relations peacefully is necessary for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
The Impact of US and China on ROK–DPRK Relations, 1993–2019: An Empirical Analysis Using Event Data Available to Purchase
Alec Chung (corresponding author) received his PhD from the Department of Political Science of the University of Florida. He is currently a Research Director at the Jeju Peace Institute. His research interests include peace and conflict in East Asia, political economy of East Asia, China–Japan–ROK relations, and the connection between public opinion and foreign policy in East Asian countries. For this research, Alec Chung received support from the National Research Foundation of Korea (2019S1A5B5A01034946). Email: <[email protected]>.
Ki Eun Ryu is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Jeju Peace Institute. She received a PhD in political science from the University of Iowa in 2020. Her main research area is international law and treaties, especially the diffusion of international multilateral treaties and the relationship between regime type and treaty ratification/compliance. Email: <[email protected]>.
Alec Chung, Ki Eun Ryu; The Impact of US and China on ROK–DPRK Relations, 1993–2019: An Empirical Analysis Using Event Data. Asian Survey 1 June 2022; 62 (3): 413–440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2021.1439545
Download citation file:
Sign in
Client Account
Sign in via your Institution
Sign in via your Institution
University of California Press