Home  About us  Contact
 

Peace Treaty (peace + treaty)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

The role of mercantilism in Anglo-Dutch political relations, 1650,74

ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW, Issue 3 2010
GIJS ROMMELSE
The three Anglo-Dutch wars of the seventeenth century are traditionally seen as mercantile confrontations. This view has been challenged by political historians. Firstly, this article discusses the historiographic developments in this field. Secondly, it aims to explore the relationship between Anglo-Dutch mercantile competition and political and diplomatic relations in the period 1650 to 1674. It favours an integrated approach in which all these dimensions are taken into account. The article argues that the 1667 Peace Treaty of Breda was a major turning point in Anglo-Dutch relations after which mercantilism ceased to dominate Anglo-Dutch political relations. [source]

The Six-Party Talks and North Korea's Denuclearization: Evaluation and Prospects

PACIFIC FOCUS, Issue 2 2010
Tae-Hwan Kwak
The six-party process for North Korea's denuclearization has long been stalled since the Six-Party Talks (SPT) failed to agree on a verification protocol in early December 2008. The DPRK officially stated on 10 February 2005 that it already possessed nuclear weapons. It now wants to be recognized as a nuclear power. The North Korean nuclear issue, a key obstacle to the Korean peace process, needs to be resolved peacefully through the six-party process. The author has argued over the years that while the six-party process is the best means to resolve the North's nuclear issue, bilateral US,DPRK talks are equally important to a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the DPRK's issue. The peaceful resolution of the North's nuclear issue is prerequisite to building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and regional peace in Northeast Asia. The author has two specific goals: (i) to evaluate the stalled SPT for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula since December 2008; and (ii) to make policy recommendations for continued denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in the framework of the SPT. The first part of this article examines DPRK's denuclearization process up to the point when the SPT failed to adopt a written verification protocol in December 2008. Since then, the six-party process has been stalled. The second part discusses the impact of the DPRK's rocket launch in April 2009 and its second nuclear test in May on the SPT. The third part evaluates the DPRK's new proposal for peace treaty talks and its new conditions for returning to the SPT. Finally, this article proposes key issues on agenda to be negotiated at the next SPT and some policy recommendations for achieving denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. [source]

The Korean Peninsula Peace Regime: How to Build It

PACIFIC FOCUS, Issue 1 2009
Tae-Hwan Kwak
A Korean peninsula peace regime has not yet been established, over a half century since the Korean armistice agreement. Two approaches to a Korean peninsula peace-regime-building process are required: inter-Korean and international approaches. The two Koreas should play leading roles at the inter-Korean and international levels in inter-Korean confidence-building measures by reducing tension through reconciliation and economic cooperation. A Korean peace forum involving the USA, China and the two Koreas under the 19 September joint agreement could conclude a Korean peninsula peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement and a peace regime could be institutionalized by implementing the inter-Korean basic agreement (1992) through inter-Korean cooperation. This article proposes a comprehensive, long-term roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace-regime-building process. The author makes three major arguments. First, the two Koreas and the four powers need to agree on a comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace-regime-building process as suggested here. The inter-Korean and international approaches to the peace-regime-building process should be considered in parallel. Second, the North Korean nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through the Six-Party Talks. Third, the two Koreas need to work together to find an alternative to their respective proposals. The author proposes a Korean peninsula peace treaty signed by the ROK, the DPRK, the USA and China as an alternative. Unless the two Koreas demonstrate their desire to cooperate through sincere deeds by implementing inter-Korean agreements and are willing to make concessions by working together for establishing a peace regime in Korea, there is little chance of achieving this goal. [source]

In Search of the Korean Peninsula Peace Regime Building

PACIFIC FOCUS, Issue 2 2005
Tae-Hwan Kwak
The author proposes a long-term, comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace regime initiative for replacing the 1953 Korean armistice agreement with a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The two approaches to a Korean peninsula peace regime building are examined in detail at the inter-Korean and the international levels. The two Koreas at the inter-Korean level, and the six parties involving the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia at the international level may concurrently make efforts to build a peace regime by replacing the 1953 Korean armistice agreement with a peace treaty through confidence-building measures, national reconciliation and international cooperation. A peace regime can be institutionalized by implementing the inter-Korean basic agreement (1991) through inter-Korean cooperation and by concluding a Korean peninsula peace treaty through the four-party peace talks involving the U.S., China, and the two Koreas. However, the current North Korea's nuclear issue has been a key obstacle to the peace regime building process. Three major arguments in this paper are presented: First, the two Koreas and the four major powers need to agree on a comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peace regime. Second, in the short-term, the North Korea's nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully and diplomatically through the six-party process. Third, the two Koreas need to abandon their respective positions: the Seoul's proposal for an inter-Korean peace treaty and the Pyeongyang's proposal for a DPRK-U.S. peace treaty to replace the 1953 Korean armistice agreement. The author proposes that a Korean peninsula peace treaty among the four parties involving the ROK, the DPRK, the U.S. and China should be an alternative, and the proposal needs to be seriously considered. [source]