Search

Given the contextual conditions in each country, the United States, Korea, and China all have their own unique history of special education, which leads to different special education and service systems for students with special needs. The purpose of this paper is to compare the development and current status of special education in all three countries. The researchers did a comprehensive literature review primarily using the database of Academic Search Complete, in addition to national journals, published governmental reports, and official documents from Korea and China. The results of this review provide a better understanding of special education and trends in special education across all three countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper posits four ranked, generic goals of state foreign policy, maps them against the American ‘pivot,’ and concludes with possible handicaps of that shift. Drawn broadly from realism and liberalism, those abstract goals are as follows: national security, economic growth, prestige among the community of states, and the promotion of cherished national values. Applying this framework specifically to Northeast Asia, the USA, regarding security, is likely to increasingly ‘hedge’ China, and its North Korean client, with regional allies, off-shore balancing, and a shift toward AirSea Battle. On trade, the USA will continue its decades-long effort to reduce Asian mercantilism by tying Asian traders into multilateral, neoliberal rule sets. Regarding prestige, the ‘Beijing Consensus’ is a growing challenge to US soft power which the pivot seeks to refute. In addition, on values, the USA will continue to nag especially China to conform to US standards of law and human rights. The USA will continue to push the broad liberalization of Asian polities and economies. The democratic peace and liberal trade are the ideological frame and motivation of the pivot. Nevertheless, significant US handicaps may slow the pivot: American cultural distance from Asia means little public support and understanding of its necessity; strong regional allies will tempt the USA toward offshore balancing on the cheap; and the dire US budget shortfall will reduce the resources necessary to fund it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although NATO was originally created to address regional security concerns, since the end of the Cold War it has expanded its role and partnership to take on new security challenges. In this article, we examine what security gains South Korea could expect to achieve from engaging in NATO's global partnership security cooperation framework. Our analysis focuses on the possible benefits of security cooperation between the two partners at three different geographic levels, namely, the Korean Peninsula, Northeast Asia, and the global arena. We conclude that South Korea could draw security gains from cooperation with NATO at all three levels. First, partnership with NATO is likely to contribute to peace on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, NATO could participate in post-Six-Party Talks, which have failed to solve the North Korean nuclear problem. NATO would also be able to engage in humanitarian intervention if a crisis arose in North Korea. Second, NATO could contribute to peace in Northeast Asia. Security tensions in the region are currently increasing, as China is pursuing an assertive form of diplomacy while Japan is seeking to actively engage in military conflicts abroad. NATO could also provide support for the United States, which is having difficulty deterring these regional powers. Third, South Korea could cooperate with NATO in peacekeeping operations at a global level. Cooperation with NATO would enhance the effectiveness of South Korea's peacekeeping operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]