不必要的参与?韩国的脱北者公共外交

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Daniel Connolly
{"title":"不必要的参与?韩国的脱北者公共外交","authors":"Daniel Connolly","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2022.2042482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The controversy surrounding defector balloon launches into North Korea is often viewed as a bizarre example of Cold War legacies on the Korean peninsula. However, it is also a unique case study of non-state public diplomacy because these groups are attempting to engage in cross-border communication against the wishes of their host government. This article argues that South Korea’s unique interpretation of public diplomacy as a participatory activity has proven vulnerable to non-state organisations with divergent views of the national interest, which has resulted in two different types of public diplomacy being directed at North Korea. Subsequent attempts by the South Korean government to control the dissonant public diplomacy of non-state groups resulted in reputational costs for both sides and ultimately failed to prevent defectors from advancing their claim to a human right to communicate across national borders. Even though this case study broadly supports a polylateral interpretation of public diplomacy, it cautions that human rights discourses may obscure the fact that the traditional diplomatic system was designed to mitigate many of the risks associated with non-state diplomatic actors. Therefore, this paper suggests the need for more discussion about the consequences of a right to communicate across national borders.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"76 1","pages":"432 - 451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unwanted participation? Defector public diplomacy in South Korea\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Connolly\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10357718.2022.2042482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n The controversy surrounding defector balloon launches into North Korea is often viewed as a bizarre example of Cold War legacies on the Korean peninsula. However, it is also a unique case study of non-state public diplomacy because these groups are attempting to engage in cross-border communication against the wishes of their host government. This article argues that South Korea’s unique interpretation of public diplomacy as a participatory activity has proven vulnerable to non-state organisations with divergent views of the national interest, which has resulted in two different types of public diplomacy being directed at North Korea. Subsequent attempts by the South Korean government to control the dissonant public diplomacy of non-state groups resulted in reputational costs for both sides and ultimately failed to prevent defectors from advancing their claim to a human right to communicate across national borders. Even though this case study broadly supports a polylateral interpretation of public diplomacy, it cautions that human rights discourses may obscure the fact that the traditional diplomatic system was designed to mitigate many of the risks associated with non-state diplomatic actors. Therefore, this paper suggests the need for more discussion about the consequences of a right to communicate across national borders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"432 - 451\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2022.2042482\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2022.2042482","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

围绕向朝鲜发射叛逃者气球的争议通常被视为朝鲜半岛冷战遗留问题的一个奇怪例子。然而,这也是一个非国家公共外交的独特案例研究,因为这些团体试图违背东道国政府的意愿进行跨境交流。本文认为,韩国对公共外交的独特解释是一种参与性活动,事实证明,这种解释很容易受到具有不同国家利益观点的非国家组织的影响,这导致了针对朝鲜的两种不同类型的公共外交。韩国政府随后试图控制非国家团体不和谐的公共外交,结果双方都付出了声誉上的代价,最终未能阻止脱北者提出跨越国界进行交流的人权主张。尽管本案例研究广泛支持对公共外交的多边解释,但它警告说,人权话语可能会掩盖这样一个事实,即传统外交体系的目的是减轻与非国家外交行为体相关的许多风险。因此,本文建议有必要对跨境通信权的后果进行更多讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unwanted participation? Defector public diplomacy in South Korea
ABSTRACT The controversy surrounding defector balloon launches into North Korea is often viewed as a bizarre example of Cold War legacies on the Korean peninsula. However, it is also a unique case study of non-state public diplomacy because these groups are attempting to engage in cross-border communication against the wishes of their host government. This article argues that South Korea’s unique interpretation of public diplomacy as a participatory activity has proven vulnerable to non-state organisations with divergent views of the national interest, which has resulted in two different types of public diplomacy being directed at North Korea. Subsequent attempts by the South Korean government to control the dissonant public diplomacy of non-state groups resulted in reputational costs for both sides and ultimately failed to prevent defectors from advancing their claim to a human right to communicate across national borders. Even though this case study broadly supports a polylateral interpretation of public diplomacy, it cautions that human rights discourses may obscure the fact that the traditional diplomatic system was designed to mitigate many of the risks associated with non-state diplomatic actors. Therefore, this paper suggests the need for more discussion about the consequences of a right to communicate across national borders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: AJIA is the journal of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. The Institute was established in 1933 as an independent and non-political body and its purpose is to stimulate interest in and understanding of international affairs among its members and the general public. The aim of the Australian Journal of International Affairs is to publish high quality scholarly research on international political, social, economic and legal issues, especially (but not exclusively) within the Asia-Pacific region. The journal publishes research articles, refereed review essays and commentary and provocation pieces. ''Articles'' are traditional scholarly articles. ‘Review essays’ use newly published books as the basis to thematically examine current events in International Relations. The journal also publishes commentaries and provocations which are high quality and engaging pieces of commentary, opinion and provocation in a variety of styles. The Australian Journal of International Affairs aims to analyse international issues for an Australian readership and to present Australian perspectives to readers in other countries. While seeking to stimulate interest in and understanding of international affairs, the journal does not seek to promote any particular policies or approaches. All suitable manuscripts submitted are sent to two referees in a full ''double blind'' refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信