Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy for Human Security: A Global and Regional Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to discuss characteristics and limits of Koreas human security-oriented policies in global and regional dimensions as a core tool of identifying itself middle power country. Having recognized a global-regional divide in Koreas positions and leverage, the paper argues that its middle power diplomacy should distinguish the global and regional levels in planning strategies. The paper also argues that it is more realistic for Korea to purse soft power to induce support and agreement from other states rather than hard power to muddle through regional power competition. Yet, given the possibility where its endeavor can be thwarted by its the regional dynamics of the great power politics, it is equally important for Korea to secure a sizable amount of hard power, like financial and military might. Taking the case of the human security diplomacy, which is a distinctive example of soft power strategies, the paper reviews what issues and challenges have been in Koreas quest for middle power leadership on the human security agenda, as well as to evaluate whether the countrys efforts positively or adversely affect its diplomatic status as a middle power. The cases of Canada, Australia, and Japan are examined so that we may draw a lesson for Koreas middle power diplomacy. All three countries actively pursue soft power diplomacy, including the substantive contribution to human security agenda, for the sake of their international contribution and national interest. While Australia and Canada have achieved their expected objectives, Japan does not seem to have done so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".