Age and the Distribution of Crime in Botswana, Africa: Comparisons with the USA, Taiwan, South Korea, Namibia, and HG Invariance Norm

ABSTRACTIn South Africa and South Korea, the state adopted corporatism as a crisis response to the demands of democratisation. As a result, as social dialogue mechanisms, the corporatist institutions in South Africa and South Korea have failed to bring the actors together and to resolve the various issues as these institutions were expected to do. Labour in particular has been placed at a disadvantage in the overall policy-making process. Consequently, labour has become discontented, forcing it to withdraw from these processes. This article compares the rise and fall of corporatism in two seemingly very different cases, namely South Africa and South Korea by examining four similar reasons that prompted the adoption of corporatism and four similar conditions that also led to its collapse.

本研究は1970年代以降に出版された4冊の朝鮮学校中級3年生の社会科教科書により朝鮮学校社会科教育の変化について考察した。研究方法はキーワード頻度分析と質的分析を並行した。社会科の教科書は表紙から変化が確認された。教科書の編成も金日成の教示と説明のためのものから、現代の人々の生活と日本社会、そして在日朝鮮人の社会を学ぶシステムへと次第に変貌していった。内容的な面では在日朝鮮人をめぐる3国、つまり韓国と北朝鮮、そして日本に関する記述を中心に分析した。｢南朝鮮｣と｢祖国｣に関する内容は2005年の教科書以前までは減少し続けたが、これは韓国と北朝鮮の内容が次第に縮小していったことを意味する。特に、韓国の内容は1994年の教科書からは消えた。南朝鮮と関連した内容は2000年6.15南北共同宣言の発表と在日朝鮮人社会の形成に関する内容が追加され、2005年教科書に再び登場した。北朝鮮の内容は、第5次教育課程から日本社会と世界に関する内容が増加し、相対的に減少している。実際の北朝鮮を意味する時は｢祖国｣よりは｢共和国｣という単語を使った。日本に関する内容は1994年以前まではほとんど取り扱われていなかったが、第5次教育課程から次第に増加していった。本研究は朝鮮学校の教科書の中で比較的研究が少なかった社会科教科書を対象に体系的な分析を試みたことに意味がある。This study examined a change in how Joseon schools thought social studies by comparatively analyzing four social studies textbooks for 3rd graders in junior high schools, which were published after 1970s. It simultaneously used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Such a change in social studies was initially verified from their covers. The composition systems of them also gradually shifted from explanations about Kim Ilseong’s instructions to learning about modern people’ life, Japanese society and the society of Korean residents. It analyzed the contents of them, around descriptions about Korean residents-related South and North Korea and Japan. In social studies textbooks, the terms including ‘South Joseon’ and ‘homeland(Joguk)’ were steadily decreased before the textbooks published in 2005, indicating that the contents about South and North Korea were gradually reduced. In particular, the contents about ‘South Joseon’, South Korea disappeared in the textbooks published in 1994. South Joseon-related ‘South Korea’ and ‘the Republic of Korea’ began to reappeared in the textbooks published in 2005, as 6.15 South-North Joint Statement was announced in 2000. The contents about ‘homeland’, North Korea were relatively reduced, as the portions of Japanese society and the world were increased since the 5th curriculum. It is also found that ‘republic’ was actually used rather than ‘homeland, as a term representing North Korea’. In addition, ‘Japan’ had been scarcely used until 1994, but was increasingly used since the 5th curriculum. This study has an implication, in that it attempted to systematically analyze the social studies textbooks which have not been researched among all textbooks in Joseon schools.

Reduction in Kawasaki Disease After Nonpharmaceutical Interventions in the COVID-19 Era: A Nationwide Observational Study in Korea.

In this article we argue that recent debates in the corporatist literature about whether corporatism is best understood as a process of structured interest representation or political dialogue miss the point as to corporatism's central task — the shift of material resources and power away from the working class to the capitalist class, in which two processes are evident — containment and roll-back. We discuss these processes in the context of successive waves of corporatism in Western Europe from the 1940s to the 1990s before moving on to an analysis of the contrasting fortunes of corporatism in South Africa and South Korea during democratic transition. We conclude that the ability of corporatism to carry out the processes of containment and roll back in these two cases have been dependent on the existence (or absence) of supportive prior political relationships between organized labour and the state.

The main actors in inter-Korean cooperation are the residents of South and North Korea. The individuals who play a key role in achieving reunification, the residents of both North and South Korea, should collectively become the owners, ensuring the freedom, welfare, and human dignity of each individual. They should strive to form a national community where a free and prosperous life is attainable. However, the reality is that the residents of South and North Korea have yet to fully assume the role of effective participants in cooperative exchanges. This study aims to identify legal disputes arising from the application of social security systems for North Korean laborers entering South Korea's border areas and proposes legal and practical directions. Ultimately, the study seeks to contribute to the establishment of a substantive legal framework for inter-Korean unification by fostering pre-emptive discussions in the legal and policy dimensions. The focus is on creating a foundation for the human and social integration of North and South Korea during the process of unification.

In this study, I examine the effect of US foreign policy on the relationship between South Korea and North Korea. In particular, I analyze whether two different foreign policy approaches—the hard-line approach and the soft-line approach—have played a role in advancing or slowing steps toward peace in the Korean peninsula. I use the Integrated Data for Events Analysis dataset for the period 1990–2004. By employing a Vector Autoregression model, which analyzes the behavioral patterns of South and North Korea and the United States, I find that US foreign policy affects the relationship between the two Koreas by affecting North Korea's behavior toward South Korea. The triangular relationship among the United States, North Korea, and South Korea shows a reciprocal behavior pattern. This finding suggests that a soft-line and reciprocal US foreign policy toward North Korea is critical to maintaining peace in the Korean peninsula.

Alloimmunity to Erythrocytes in Patients during Pregnancy in South Korea and Japan; Recent Results from a Cooperative International Study of Alloimmunity to Antigen Diversity in Asian Populations

P368 Serological response to the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in patients with Crohn's disease: preliminary results of a prospective, multicentre study

The recent dramatic increase of North Korean refugees in South Korea (called saeteomin, new settlers) has attracted the attention of scholars as well as practitioners not only because of their impact on South Korea and its citizens but, more significantly, because of their unique experiences there. They have encountered various hardships in South Korean society, including economic difficulties, maladjustment to schools, and emotional distance or isolation. This article attempts to illuminate and analyze the status of the North Korean refugees and their perceptions and emotions with respect to South Koreans.

After a year of trading colorful barbs with the American president and significant achievements in North Korea’s decades-long nuclear and missile development programs, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared mission accomplished in November 2017. Though Kim's pronouncement appears premature, North Korea is on the verge of being able to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. South Korea has long been in the North Korean crosshairs but worries whether the United States would defend it if North Korea holds the American homeland at risk. The largely ceremonial summit between US president Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, and the unpredictability of both parties, has not quelled these concerns and leaves more questions than answers for the two sides' negotiators to work out. The Korean Peninsula’s security situation is an intractable conflict, raising the question, “How did we get here?” In this book, former North Korea lead foreign service officer at the US embassy in Seoul Patrick McEachern unpacks the contentious and tangled relationship between the Koreas in an approachable question-and-answer format. While North Korea is famous for its militarism and nuclear program, South Korea is best known for its economic miracle, familiar to consumers as the producer of Samsung smartphones, Hyundai cars, and even K-pop music and K-beauty. Why have the two Koreas developed politically and economically in such radically different ways? What are the origins of a divided Korean Peninsula? Who rules the two Koreas? How have three generations of the authoritarian Kim dictatorship shaped North Korea? What is the history of North-South relations? Why does the North Korean government develop nuclear weapons? How do powers such as Japan, China, and Russia fit into the mix? What is it like to live in North and South Korea? This book tackles these broad topics and many more to explain what everyone needs to know about South and North Korea.

IntroductionDoes economic integration between South and North Korea generate positive spillover effects on their relationship? Or, are geopolitical factors and security issues still powerful enough to dominate Korean politics, limiting the effect of economic integration? The level of economic integration between the two Koreas has deepened over time. The amount of bilateral trade was only about $1.1 million three years after they officially began their trade relationship in 1988. It increased to $400 million in 2000 and then $2 billion in 2012. Currently, South Korea is North Korea's second largest trading partner, accounting for about 38 percent of its total trade in 2007. Considerable research argues that economic integration generates positive spillover effects on economic partners socially and politically.2 Scholars of liberal peace, for instance, claim that bilateral economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of militarized conflict between trading partners.3 Strong economic ties and material gains generated from it may promote economic partners' incentive to maintain or strengthen their relationship and avoid threats that may disrupt their partnership. Frequent interactions can also increase common knowledge, understanding, and interest on various issues. To the extent it occurs, economic partners are likely to narrow their policy preference gaps over various foreign policy issues.4 In this regard, it is reasonable to suspect that increasing economic integration between the two Koreas may have promoted their foreign policy preference similarity, increasing political cooperation in international organizations.Meanwhile, from a realist perspective, military tension and external forces on the peninsula, such as the U.S. and China, are still powerful factors that drive Korean politics. From this perspective, inter-Korean relations and their foreign policies have been shaped and affected by geopolitical issues and regional super powers. Therefore, bilateral economic integration may have a negligible impact on inter- Korean relations.Both claims have solid theoretical grounds. Nevertheless, virtually no empirical studies have tested these claims and show whether economic integration has gen- erated any positive spillover effects on inter-Korean relations. This article examines whether deepening economic integration has promoted cooperation between the two Koreas by analyzing their voting (dis)similarity in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the time period, 1991-2011. Also, it tests whether their voting decisions are strongly influenced by the positions of the U.S. and China on the issues. Empirical results show no significant evidence that economic integration promotes cooperation between South and North Korea in the UNGA. However, the two Koreas show relatively similar voting patterns over economic issues and Palestinian issues, while they tend not to agree on nuclear, security, and human rights issues. Meanwhile, their vote coincidence is strongly influenced by the United States' and China's positions on votes. These results imply that political rather than economic factors are still significant in explaining non-cooperation on the Korean Peninsula.In the following pages, we first examine the theoretical basis of the relationship between economic integration and states' cooperation. Next, we explore states' voting behavior in the UNGA in general and that of the two Koreas in particular. Research design, the data and variables used in this article, and the empirical results are reported in the next section. Finally, we conclude with a summary of the findings and their implications.Economic Integration and Cooperation Between StatesEconomic integration, which is typically defined as the free flow of goods, capital, and labor across national borders, has deepened in many places in the world. The Korean Peninsula is not an exception from this global trend. Ever since the devastating Korean War in 1950-1953, the two Koreas lacked a formal economic relationship until 1988. …

본 연구의 목적은 코로나-19의 범유행에 따른 남북한 보건협력의 일환으로 남북 검역 협력 법제화를 수립하고자 수행되었으며, 검역 합의서 도출을 위하여 남북의 검역 관련 법제를 검토하여 비교· 분석하였다. 그동안 남북한 간에 오가는 사람과 물건 등에 대한 검역은 개성공단 운영과정에서 남북검역협력이 이루어져 온 경험 있다. 전 세계적으로 코로나-19가 유행을 하면서 감염병 확산을 방지하기 위한 검역의 중요성이 강조되고 있는 시점에서 향후 남북한 간의 교류협력이 이루어진다면 항만, 공항 및 육로검역에 대한 실효적 법제화가 마련되어야 할 것이다. 본 연구에서 남북한 검역 협력 법제화에서 제시한 합의서(안)은 기존의 개성공업지구 검역에 관한합의서를 기반으로 코로나-19와 같은 신종감염병에 신속하게 대응할 수 있도록 수정 제안을 하였다. 제시한 검역협력 합의서에서 검역대상과 기준·방법은 남북한의 쌍방으로 들어오거나 나가는 사람과 운송수단 및 화물 즉 운송수단 내의 컨테이너, 운송수단 내 비치용품, 소모용품 및 개인 소지물품에 대해서 검역조사를 받도록 하는 것이다. 또한 검역원칙은 쌍방 간의 검역 절차를 신속하게 하면서도 상호협력 검역으로 검역감염병을 철저하게 예방하고, 감염병이 상대국으로 확산하는 것을 차단함으로써 남북한 교류를 촉진하고 동시에 양측 주민의 건강을 유지·보호하기 위한 조치가 필요할 것이다. 감염병 관리에서 가장 중요한 정보제공은 남북한에서 발생하여 유행 중인 감염병에 대한 정확한 정보를 검역당국 간의 실시간으로 교류하는 것으로 상대측의 감염병 및 방역 관련 자료협조 요청에 대하여 특별한 사정이 없으면 지체없이 응하도록 해야 한다. 신고의무 및 검역조치는 남북한 사람이 대면할 때, 검역감염병이 발생한 지역에 체류하거나 그 지역을 경유하여 들어오는 사람 중 검역감염병을 의심할 수 있는 증상이 있는 사람은 대면 전에 쌍방의 검역 당국에 건강상태 등을 신고하도록 해야 한다. 선박위생 증명서의 발급 등과 같은 검역 관련 증명서 발급은 WHO의 보건규칙(International Health Regulation, IHR)에 따르는 규정을 남북이 모두 준수하도록 한다. 출입국의금지 또는 정지 요청은 쌍방의 검역 당국이 공중보건상 큰 위해를 끼칠 염려가 있다고 인정되는 사람, 동물과 식물에 대하여는 출국 또는 입국의 금지 또는 정지를 요청할 수 있도록 할 필요가 있다. 남북한 경색국면이 지속되는 가운데 코로나-19의 범유행에 따른 남북한 교류협력의 물꼬를 트기위한 보건협력 방안이 제시되고 있다. 보건협력이 논의되는 과정에서 필요한 「검역협력합의서(안)」를마련함으로써 향후 관련 법안의 개정이나 남북 간의 실효적 검역협력하는데 크게 기여할 것이다.

British Journal of Educational TechnologyVolume 39, Issue 4 p. 732-733 Development of a media literacy education programme for children based on activity theory Sun-Hee Park, Corresponding Author Sun-Hee Park College of Engineering Dan Kook University, Republic of Korea Dr. Sun-Hee Park, College of Engineering Dan Kook University, 3rd Engineering Building #506, 44-1 Jukjeon-dong, Suji-GuYongin, Gyeonggi 448-160, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82 31 8005 3462; email: [email protected]. Dr Sung-ho Kwon. Tel: +82 2 2220 1123; email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSung-ho Kwon, Corresponding Author Sung-ho Kwon College of Engineering Dan Kook University, Republic of Korea Dr. Sun-Hee Park, College of Engineering Dan Kook University, 3rd Engineering Building #506, 44-1 Jukjeon-dong, Suji-GuYongin, Gyeonggi 448-160, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82 31 8005 3462; email: [email protected]. Dr Sung-ho Kwon. Tel: +82 2 2220 1123; email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Sun-Hee Park, Corresponding Author Sun-Hee Park College of Engineering Dan Kook University, Republic of Korea Dr. Sun-Hee Park, College of Engineering Dan Kook University, 3rd Engineering Building #506, 44-1 Jukjeon-dong, Suji-GuYongin, Gyeonggi 448-160, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82 31 8005 3462; email: [email protected]. Dr Sung-ho Kwon. Tel: +82 2 2220 1123; email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSung-ho Kwon, Corresponding Author Sung-ho Kwon College of Engineering Dan Kook University, Republic of Korea Dr. Sun-Hee Park, College of Engineering Dan Kook University, 3rd Engineering Building #506, 44-1 Jukjeon-dong, Suji-GuYongin, Gyeonggi 448-160, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82 31 8005 3462; email: [email protected]. Dr Sung-ho Kwon. Tel: +82 2 2220 1123; email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 03 July 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00824.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume39, Issue4July 2008Pages 732-733 RelatedInformation

In the wake of the financial crisis in East Asia in the second half of 1997/8, East Asia has taken serious consideration of the prospects for regional community building. Since then, East Asian countries became more competitively engaged with their region. South Korea and Japan, who had limited engagements in foreign/regional policy during the Cold War, developed different responses and approaches toward East Asian regionalism in East Asia. Observing their efforts in building regional cooperation during the period between 1998 and 2007, it is notable that South Korea had been relatively active, whereas Japan had been passive in response to its neighbour’s involvement in the East Asian regional framework, particularly in regard to China’s role in shaping regional cooperation. South Korea’s EU-inspired vision of regional integration and its assimilation of European ideas about regional integration associate strongly with its active engagement in a newly emerged East Asian regionalism. While precedent explanations such as external crises/shocks and external influences can account for the stimulation of regionalism in East Asia, these factors alone cannot explain the different approaches taken by South Korea and Japan to shape regional cooperation frameworks. In order to solve the puzzle, the thesis investigates two specific questions: (1) How can we explain South Korea’s active engagement with (North) East Asian regionalism in contrast to Japan’s passive, reluctant involvement? (2) Why have European ideas concerning regional integration been accepted by South Korea but ignored by Japan? Drawing on four mechanisms of diffusion (coercion, competition, lesson- drawing, emulation), this thesis tries to explain the differential approaches of South Korea and Japan towards East Asian regionalism. Although the mechanisms of coercion and competition do not give satisfactory explanations for the different approaches of the two countries, both the role of the US (coercion) and the rise of China (competition) should be considered as significant explanatory factors which still prevail in South Korea and Japan. Therefore, the thesis incorporates structural conditions and domestic constraints which mediate the impact of coercion and competition on South Korea and Japan into the theoretical framework. The empirical part of the thesis analyzes the differential approaches of the two countries in light of the theoretical framework. By complementing inductive narrative and process tracing, this dissertation employs comparative analysis of different stances of South Korea and Japan toward East Asian regionalism during the period 1998-2007. This thesis argues that South Korea was inspired to form policy ideas concerning regionalism by drawing lessons from the European experience and emulating European ideas concerning regional integration. It is this which explains South Korea’s active participation as a pace-setter in regional cooperation arrangements as well as FTAs. Japan, however, has taken an ambivalent and unstable stance toward East Asian regionalism. It has lacked policy ideas, followed the dictates of U.S. interests in the region, and only became involved in regionalism as a means to oppose China’s rise to prominence. Whilst, South Korean leaders developed policy ideas for regionalism and attempted to overcome its structural condition and domestic constraint such as national division by balancing its relations with the United States and China, the Japanese, under Koizumi, reinforced the U.S.-Japan alliance and displayed indifference or ignorance toward their neighbours. This thesis provides not only explanations for the two countries’ differential approaches toward East Asian regionalism, but also advances a plausible account of how European ideas concerning regional integration were transmitted to South Korea´s political leaders.

Asian Perspective 36 (2012), 191-193 Introduction: South Korea-China Relations Jae Ho Chung Post-Cold War complexities are such that sea changes after the implosion of the Soviet Union have generated new conflicts and reinvigorated old disputes. The end ofideology meant the resurrection around the globe of more traditional and geostrategic dilemmas that had been largely dormant during the Cold War. At the same time, the demise of the Cold War led to new ties and partnerships between former adversaries such as South Korea and China. South Korea-China relations have long been lauded as a model for cultivating interdependence between former adversaries. China is currently South Korea’s top trading partner, while South Korea is China’s third-most-important trading partner (excluding Taiwan). Beijing is a crucial diplomatic force to be reckoned with, especially regarding the North Korean issue. South Korea and China established a “strategic cooperative partnership” in May 2008, the goal of which is to expand the domain of Sino-South Korean cooperation from the bilateral to the regional and even the global level. The wealthier and stronger China becomes, the larger the perceptual disparity may grow between China and its regional neighbors, including South Korea. Will China continue to be a “mod­ est giant,” refraining from being audacious and imposing? Will Beijing continue to stick to the long-standing principle of “remaining affinitive despite differences” (he er butongY! Fears do exist and may increase over time: What if China should revert to the past practices of domination and dogmatism once it has risen to the apex? Such worries are particularly prominent in South Korea. Three reasons account for them. First, distance matters. The security dilemma is naturally more intense for countries that border each other. Second, given that China’s projection of military force has occurred more often toward neighboring countries than toward any others, concerns and worries linger in the region despite Beijing’s rhetoric 191 192 Introduction on the “friendly neighbor policy” (Ryan, Finkelstein, and McDevitt 2003, 18-19). Third, deep-seated memories of Chinese dominance and, more importantly, the newly brewing historical controversies among China and regional states are adding fuel to these generic concerns about the rise of China. As the level of interdependence grows, sources of friction between South Korea and China are bound to amplify. In this special issue on South Korea-China relations, Chen Zhimin offers Chinese assessments of Sino-South Korean relations—a “more complicated relationship”—for the last twenty years. Jae Ho Chung provides a South Korean view of the bilateral relationship and suggests that South Korea-China relations are heading toward an uncertain passage. Si Joong Kim suggests that economics and trade could become a key conflict arena as South Korea and China are likely to have more frequent disputes concerning product safety, restructuring of bilateral trade and investment, technology transfer, and formation of a bilateral free trade agreement. Frictions and disputes may go beyond economics and trade. Since China and South Korea are both highly nationalistic nations, clashes may occur in the areas of history and territorial integrity. Gilbert Rozman discusses the history controversy as a key issue and points out that sinocentrism as a resurgent ideology in China is a key obstacle. Scott Harold digs into the likelihood of territorial disputes between South Korea and China, and suggests that the US position— though not its action—is probably closer to South Korea’s on the issue. As the power gap between the United States and China narrows, the sources of Sino-South Korean conflicts could extend beyond issues ofbilateral concern, such as the Korea-US alliance. Keyu Gong suggests that China views a stronger, broader, more comprehensive, and more strategic alliance as threatening. Hyon Joo Yoo, however, argues that alliance consolidation is necessary vis-a-vis North Korea, although Seoul should be careful not to get sucked into regional conflicts between China and the United States. Considering the global ascent of China, whose future trajectory has yet to be specified, the future of South Korea-China relations does not warrant blind optimism. As the Chinese refer to it, “the Seoul-Beijing relationship is healthy in general terms but carries some Jae Ho...