Editor-in-Chief's Comments

Dear Readers,On behalf of North Korean Review I wish you a Happy 2017. As always, it is my pleasure to bring you another edition of NKR. This issue is the first at the beginning of a new American presidency which, to be certain, has introduced a certain level of unpredictability and uncertainty to the international stage that we have not seen in quite some time. To be sure, never in recent memory has there been so much potential for a change in the U.S. policy direction all over the world, with the Korean Peninsula being no exception. In that vein, this issue of NKR includes some interesting offerings that give some advice and potential new avenues for dealing with North Korea.Blinka and Křiž attempt to uncover whether relations between the United States and North Korea are driven by reciprocal or bullying strategies by using event data analysis. They find it is possible to determine the existence of reciprocity or bullying and the over-all pattern of mutual relations in a given period. Their conclusion is that states should not expect their counterparts to respond in a reciprocal manner, especially when they strive to establish long-term cooperative relations. When dealing with North Korea, they contend that states should take a firm stance rather than offering positive stimuli, because those tend to be exploited and not reciprocated.Lee and Kim seek to address China's cooperation and limitations in sanctioning North Korea. This study goes beyond the majority of existing research which discusses North Korea's nuclear sanctions in the context of China's foreign policy or policies concerning the Korean Peninsula in the Northeast Asian order. They find that while perception and interests pose fundamental influence on state behavior, an institutional foundation is needed for China to project its actions or preferences. In short, cooperation with international sanctions was made possible with China's changing perception of the nuclear regime, increase in relevant interests, and evolution of the domestic institutional environment.Bluth develops a novel approach to understand North Korea's nuclear policy on the basis of conflict transformation theory. By conceptualizing the situation on the Korean peninsula as a protracted conflict (either between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea or North Korea and the United States), new insights into the nature of the protracted cycle of engagement and conflict with North Korea can be developed. In this context, the role and trajectory of the nuclear program can be analyzed and both the failure of and the need for arms control negotiations understood. He shows that the use of conflict transformation theory provides an analytically coherent explanation of North Korean security policy and foreign policy behavior that fits the empirical evidence more closely than alternative approaches.Patterson sets out to explore the ways in which North Korea has low efficacy in fulfilling its self-prescribed duties to ensure economic and social equality to the masses. Furthermore, he aims to expose these issues of inequality and other domestic problems in order to focus on topics which are often left at the wayside in a chiefly international relations based discourse about the state. …