Search

The politics of international finance for coal power plants have intensified since the 2015 Paris climate agreement was negotiated. Over the past few years, Japan and South Korea have signaled their intent not to fund new coal projects overseas, leaving China and its Belt and Road Initiative as the 'financier of last resort.' In September 2021, China too announced its intent to stop providing finance for overseas coal projects. What accounts for their decision to cease financing overseas coal projects despite prominent differences in political systems, degree of internationalization of their financial systems, and economic size? Drawing on datasets of coal projects and financing supplemented by case material and interviews, this paper explores the dynamics of coal export finance and how the combination of international reputational pressures and declining demand for coal finance diminished the domestic support for incumbent coal exporters in all three countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, Korea and Japan have increasingly exhibited different strategic priorities in trade in face of China's rising global economic prowess and worsening USChina trade conflict. Japan's trade policy decisions have worked to reinforce its economic and security ties with the US as a means to counter China. Japan has used both bilateral and multilateral means to secure its ties with the US against China. In contrast, Korea's trade policy positions have been one of 'strategic ambiguity'. Korea has been more conciliatory towards China, reluctant to take actions that would counter China's interest. Korea has mainly resorted to bilateral channels to maintain favorable relations with both China and the US. Korea's reluctance to clearly ally with the US against China has been observed across different administrations with opposing political orientations. This paper examines Korea and Japan's diverging strategic priorities in trade through the 2017 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference; the 2017 US imposition of Section 232 on steel; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Korea-US FTA renegotiation and the Korea-China FTA Phase Two Negotiation; and the 2019 Japan-US Trade Agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methamphetamine (MA) abuse continues in East Asia and shows an increasing trend among youths in South Korea, Japan, and China. Although the negative effects of MA abuse on youth are considered as significant problems, few studies have been conducted on the topic in these countries. This paper focuses on the effects of MA on the human body and current MA abuse among youths in South Korea, Japan, and China. To investigate the negative effects of MA on the human body, we searched the keywords "MA," "human," and "effect" for studies published from 2013 to 2017. MA activates the neurotransmitter system and the central nervous system, and when used at high dosage or for long term, MA can cause severe neurotoxicity and cardiovascular problems. Online networks contribute to MA abuse by sharing methods for preparing synthetic MA. Despite efforts to reduce MA abuse, social crimes associated with its abuse continue and numbers of illegal MA users are increasing steadily in Korea, Japan, and China. In young users, diverse factors associated with drug addiction, such as curiosity and peer effect, lead to MA abuse and its attendant personal and social problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, the International Maritime Organization has adopted technical and operational measures, and discussed the possibility of adopting market-based measures. China, Japan and South Korea are major shipbuilding nations in the world, and have differing responses towards the IMO's regulatory initiatives. This paper conducts a comparative assessment of these three countries' positions on regulatory principles of the greenhouse gas issue, and concludes that their differentiated perspectives on this matter reflect their different regulatory interests. It is significant to take their differentiated interests into account in the developing regulatory regime to avoid disproportionate burdens being placed on certain countries, in particular developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]