‘Econophoria’ is the hope that the solution of all governance challenges, whether international or domestic, can be sought through economic growth and development. It is prevalent in the East Asian region, where tremendous economic development success stories have gone hand-in-hand with lengthy periods without interstate war. This paper explores the theoretical underpinnings and antecedents for econophoria, and how it has manifest in practice in East Asia. It also raises, however, a number of questions which challenge the underlying assumptions of peace though trade and economic growth paradigms in East Asia. How does the skewed wealth distribution that is associated with macro-economic growth affect the internal stability and peace of the societies in East Asia? Does this have an impact on the propensity of the governments to contain the conflicts they have with their neighbours at a level of low tension? Is the pursuit of economic growth prior to, or at the expense of, human rights and the wellbeing of the most vulnerable sustainable in the contemporary international operating environment?
FORTHCOMING IN 2021
In 2021, individuals will become eligible for a limited promotional period of
free access to the
Asian International Studies Review. Please be sure to revisit this page to take advantage of this offer.
Asian International Studies Review (AISR) is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal published in coordination with the
Ewha Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS) and the
Institute for International and Area Studies (IIAS). It is a registered journal at the Korea Research Foundation, has been listed by the Korea Citation Index (KCI) since 2010, and in 2018 was accepted for listing with Scopus. The AISR is the official journal of both the Korean International Studies Association (KISA) and the Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA).
The principal aim of
AISR is to advance international studies research broadly defined to include international relations, international economics, international security, international law, development cooperation, comparative politics, international trade and investment, international business, and Asian and cross-cultural studies. It also supports networking and the exchange of ideas between academics and practitioners across disciplines, countries, and regions in order to give a greater voice to scholars of the international interactions of Asia and to Asian-based scholars of international affairs.
AISR welcomes submissions of standard research articles (5,000-10,000 words)
The United Nations (UN) has been the key contributor to the diffusion of human rights norms and practices in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The process of promoting human rights in the DPRK has been beset with challenges. The UN has had to steer its way through a complex web of international politics in order consistently to apply pressure on Pyongyang to amend its human rights norm-violating behavior. While achievements to date have been limited, this paper identifies the processes of socialization rather than coercion or inducements, as constituting the most promising avenue for the UN to impact North Korean governance. The paper will examine the evolution of UN socialization efforts in the DPRK to date, including how and under what mechanisms or conditions, socialization occurred, and what progress has been made by UN socialization dynamics.
Although the progress so far may have been limited at best, what has been achieved merits greater scholarly attention, in order to derive implications for future policy prescription with regard to promoting human rights in North Korea and beyond.
Ten years on, the impact of the inaction of the international community during the Rwandan crisis is still being felt. This article considers normative, legal, and realpolitik constraints operating upon decision- makers, contending that the first two should have enabled decision- makers to authorize intervention if not actually requiring them so to do, and that the international community's non-intervention in genocide was, therefore, due to considerations of national interest. However, international law played a significant role in framing excuses for inaction, and the end of the crisis saw international decision-makers having their hands forced by pressure &om their internal and external communities, promising that non-state-centric humanitarian considerations could play a greater role in future conflicts such as Kosovo and Sudan. Thus this article demonstrates not only that liberal claims of a new world order at the end of the Cold War were premature, but also that post-Rwanda power-political considerations no longer fully explain normative war-fighting decision-making.