The persisting environmental cooperation between the two Koreas in forestry is due to North Korea’s motivation to cooperate on environmental issues and the intermediary role played by South Korean and international non-state actors with ties to the South Korean government.
Recent studies have shown that "complex" peace agreements with long lists of provisions are more likely to lead to a return of violence within five years. This research is important to the ongoing Korean peace process: focus should be placed on peace agreements built on trust with clear, actionable provisions.
The United States has downplayed the importance of including civil society in the peace talks between North and South Korea. However, civil society has a proven track record in this area: history and research show that by including civil society in negotiations, the strength and longevity of peace agreements are increased.
Peace agreements are not helped by boasting about policy successes that have not yet happened and weakening relationships with strategic allies. Peace science points to more effective roles mediators and negotiators can play to achieve durable peace.
In the month since the Singapore summit, much of the world has been waiting for a plan for "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” But in Seoul, Koreans aren’t wasting time defining denuclearization: Instead, they are pushing ahead with plans for reconciliation with North Korea—with or without the United States.
Following the Trump/Kim Singapore Summit, the U.S. canceled their upcoming "war games" with South Korea. The New York Times and peace science agree that early concessions can lead to big payoffs when denuclearization is on the negotiating table.
Talks with North Korea should include long-term visions of U.S. troop withdrawals.
Context: Amidst growing tensions and another round of verbal escalations by both sides, President Trump announced that he was pulling
North Korea says joint U.S./South Korean military exercises are jeopardizing the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim.
Anecdotal assumptions by government officials, academics, and the media about North Korean provocations as responses to U.S./Western triggers are not supported by data.