Conceptions of a rogue state in a comparative perspective: the United States and European Union vis-à-vis North Korea

References

• Alexandrova, I. (2019). The European Union’s policy toward North Korea: Abandoning engagement. International Journal of Korean Unification Studies, 28(1), 33–62. doi:10.33728/ijkus.2019.28.1.002
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. D. (2017). Explaining North Korea’s nuclear ambition: Power and position on the Korean Peninsula. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(6), 621–641. doi:10.1080/10357718.2017.1317328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballbach, E. J. (2022). “Moving beyond targeted sanctions: The sanctions regime of the European Union against North Korea.” SWP Research Paper 4. German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Berkofsky, A. (2003). EU’s policy towards the DPRK – Engagement or standstill?. Briefing Paper. European Institute for Asian Studies. Available at: http://nautilus.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2011/12/eudprkstandstill.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bush, G. W. (2002). “President delivers state of the union address”. Available at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, G. W., & Kim, D. J. (2002). “President Bush & President Kim Dae-Jung meet in Seoul”. Available at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/text/20020220-1.html.
   Google Scholar
• Cha, V. D., & Kang, D. C. (2018). In V. D. Cha, & D. C. Kang (Eds.), Nuclear North Korea: A debate on engagement strategies, revised and updated edition. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, S. (2006). The saga of U.S. economic sanctions against North Korea. The Journal of East Asian Affairs, 20(2), 109–139.
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, L., Mawdsley, J., & Petrov, P. (2016). The EU, strategy and security policy: Regional and strategic challenges. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, D. (2017). A nuclear North Korea and the limitations of US security perspectives. Critical Studies on Security, 5(3), 317–332. doi:10.1080/21624887.2017.1409560
   Google Scholar
• Clapton, W., & Hameiri, S. (2012). The domestic politics of international hierarchy: Risk management and the reconstruction of international society. International Politics, 49(1), 59–77. doi:10.1057/ip.2011.33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2003a). A secure Europe in a better world: European Security Strategy. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2003b). EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2008). Report on the Implementation of the European security strategy: Providing security in a changing world. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Drezner, D. (2011). Sanctions sometimes smart: Targeted sanctions in theory and practice. International Studies Review, 13(1), 96–108. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.01001.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2018). “Implementing the EU global strategy: Year 2” Available at https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_annual_report_year_2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Esteban, M. (2019). “The EU’s role in stabilising the Korean Peninsula”. Working Paper, Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2002). The EC – democratic people’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) country strategy paper 2001-2004. Brussels. Available at: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/korea_north/docs/01_04_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union. Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira-Pereira, L. C. (2012). The European Union as a ‘Model Power’: Spreading peace, democracy and human rights in the wider world. In F. Bindi, & I. Angelescu (Eds.), The Foreign Policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World (2nd edition, pp. 293–305). Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira-Pereira, L. C., & Smith, M. (2021). Strategic partnerships in European Union’s external Action: evolution and analysis of a developing policy instrument. In L. C. Ferreira-Pereira, & M. Smith (Eds.), The European Union’s strategic partnership: Global diplomacy in a contested world, The European Union in international affairs series (pp. 21–47). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. (2006). Networks, culture and narratives. Adelphi Papers Series, 45(379), 11–26. doi:10.1080/05679320600661640
   Google Scholar
• Habib, B. (2016). The enforcement problem in resolution 2094 and the United Nations Security Council sanctions regime: Sanctioning North Korea. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(1), 50–68. doi:10.1080/10357718.2015.1095278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilpert, H. G., & Krumbein, F. (2016). Human rights in North Korea: A European perspective. The Journal of East Asian Affairs, 30(1), 67–92.
   Google Scholar
• Izumikawa, Y. (2023). The impact of the Donald Trump presidency on Northeast Asia. In A. Iwashita, Y.-C. Ha, & E. Boyle (Eds.), Geo-politics in Northeast Asia (pp. 57–74). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, R. (2011). Culture, identity and hegemony: Continuity and (the lack of) change in US counterterrorism policy from Bush to Obama. International Politics, 48(2-3), 390–411. doi:10.1057/ip.2011.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S., & Suh, J.-J. (2017). Development and security in international aid to North Korea: Commonalities and differences among the European Union, the United States and South Korea. The Pacific Review, 30(5), 729–749. doi:10.1080/09512748.2017.1294614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaldor, M., Martin, M., & Selchow, S. (2007). Human security: A new strategic narrative for Europe. International Affairs, 83(2), 273–288. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00618.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, D. C. (2018). Response: Why are we afraid of engagement? In V. D. Cha, & D. C. Kang (Eds.), Nuclear North Korea: A debate on engagement strategies, revised and updated edition (pp. 101–127). Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keukeleire, S., & Delreux, T. (2022). The foreign policy of the European union (3rd edition). Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, D. (2015). The Obama administration’s policy toward North Korea: The causes and consequences of strategic patience. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 9(1), 32–44. doi:10.1080/17516234.2015.1122715
   Google Scholar
• Ko, S. (2008). Vanguard of European politics: The role of member states in the EU’s foreign policy toward North Korea. Journal of International and Area Studies, 15(1), 47–59.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs, R. R. (2015). Narrative and the making of US national security. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. S. (2005). The two faces of the EU-North Korea relations. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 17(1), 33–52. doi:10.1080/10163270509464073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matray, J. I. (2013). The failure of the Bush administration’s North Korea policy: A critical analysis. International Journal of Korean Studies, 13(1), 140–177.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 14–31). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, J., & Williams, H. (2017). The nuclear education of Donald J. Trump. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(1), 54–77. doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1291206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miskimmon, A. (2017). Finding a Unified Voice? The European Union through a strategic narrative lens. In A. Miskimmon, B. O’Loughlin, & L. Roselle (Eds.), Forging the world: Strategic narratives and international relations (1st paperback edition, pp. 85–109). University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives. communication power and the new world order. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2017). Introduction. In A. Miskimmon, B. O’Loughlin, & L. Roselle (Eds.), Forging the world: Strategic narratives and international relations, 1st paperback edition (pp. 1–22). University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mogherini, F. (2017). “Remarks by Federica Mogherini at the press conference following the Foreign Affairs Council”. Available at https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/34029_en.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, C.-i., & Bae, J.-Y. (2005). The Bush Doctrine and the North Korean nuclear crisis. In M. Gurtov, & P. V. Ness (Eds.), Confronting the bush doctrine: Critical views from the Asia-Pacific (pp. 39–62). RoutledgeCurzon.
   Google Scholar
• Oberdorfer, D., & Carlin, R. (2014). The two Koreas: A contemporary history (revised and updated 3rd edition). Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pacheco Pardo, R. (2021). Pyongyang’s failure: Explaining North Korea’s inability to normalize diplomatic relations with the United States. Asia Policy, 16(1), 97–127.
   Google Scholar
• Pacheco Pardo, R., Desmaele, L., & Ernst, M. (2018). EU-ROK relations. Putting the strategic partnership to work. KF-VUB Korea Chair Report.
   Google Scholar
• Panda, A. (2020). Kim Jong Un and the bomb: Survival and deterrence in North Korea. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Portela, C. (2015). EU strategies to tackle the Iranian and the North Korean Nuclear issues. In S. Blavoukos, D. Bourantonis, & C. Portela (Eds.), The EU and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (pp. 188–204). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Pyon, C. (2011). Strategic patience or back to engagement? Obama’s dilemma on North Korea. North Korean Review, 7(2), 73–81. doi:10.3172/NKR.7.2.73
   Google Scholar
• Rigstad, M. (2009). The ‘Bush Doctrine’ as a hegemonic discourse strategy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12(3), 377–398. doi:10.1080/13698230903127895
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T. (2012). Identity matters: Exploring the ambivalence of EU foreign policy. Global Policy, 3(1), 87–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau, D. L., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2007). Identity, power and threat perception. A cross-national experimental study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), 744–771. doi:10.1177/0022002707304813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, O. (2018). When are strategic narratives effective? The shaping of political discourse through the interaction between political myths and strategic narratives. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(4), 487–511. doi:10.1080/13523260.2018.1448925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selchow, S. (2016). The construction of “European security” in The European Union in a changing global environment: A systematic analysis. European Security, 25(3), 281–303. doi:10.1080/09662839.2016.1199547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigal, L. V. (2008). Hand in hand for Korea: A peace process and denuclearization. Asian Perspective, 32(2), 5–19. doi:10.1353/apr.2008.0020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, A. M. (2011). Preface. In A National strategic narrative (pp. 2–4). Woodrow Wilson Center.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, S. A. (2009). Lee-Myung-bak’s foreign policy: A 250-day assessment. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 21(1), 85–102. doi:10.1080/10163270902745711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, O., & Kaarbo, J. (2021). Predictably unpredictable: Trump’s personality and approach towards China. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(3), 452–471. doi:10.1080/09557571.2021.1879018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 18 December 2014. A/RES/69/188. Available at https://undocs.org/A/RES/69/188.
   Google Scholar
• United States of America. (2002). The national security strategy of the United States of America. Available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States of America. (2010). National security strategy. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States of America. (2017). National security strategy. Available at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Weissmann, M., & Hagström, L. (2016). Sanctions reconsidered: The path forward with North Korea. The Washington Quarterly, 39(3), 61–76. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2016.1232635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Yanagisawa, K. (2019). The North Korea-United States summit and possibilities for new security-oriented thinking. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(1), 357–369. doi:10.1080/25751654.2019.1592708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar