This book is a study of regime change in the context of international administration, where the United Nations and other multilateral organisations hold temporary executive authority at the domestic level. Work on the politics of state-building has highlighted how these administration operations can influence nearly every aspect of politics in the country or territory in which they are deployed. This book concentrates in particular on the 'regime-building' practices of these missions, and examines the aims and influences of international administrations in the area of democratic development, as well as their ultimate impact on the process of regime change. Through a comparative analysis of events in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, the book demonstrates how external actors assume positions of power conventionally held by domestic elites, and in so doing gain the ability to affect democratic development in ways unavailable to international actors in more conventional settings. In particular, the case studies highlight the ways in which the democracy promotion objectives of international administrators can have both positive and negative effects on democratization processes, with the presence of international authorities helping to rule out non-democratic options in some areas, while at times undermining democratic development in others. The book identifies the key international actors involved, highlights the mechanisms of influence available to them in these contexts, and explores the crucial mediating role of domestic actors and structures. Oxford Studies in Democratization is a series for scholars and students of comparative politics and related disciplines. Volumes concentrate on the comparative study of the democratization process that accompanied the decline and termination of the cold war. The geographical focus of the series is primarily Latin America, the Caribbean, Southern and Eastern Europe, and relevant experiences in Africa and Asia. The series editor is Laurence Whitehead, Official Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.

The past few decades have witnessed the emergence of a vast array of regional arrangements and institutions dealing with all aspects of ocean management. The level of cooperation ranges from minimal dispute avoidance to relatively comprehensive ocean governance at the regional level. As concrete examples, reasonably successful and comprehensive regional regimes have been created for the Baltic, the North, and the Mediterranean Seas and the South Pacific. And attempts at regional regime building are ongoing in Southeast Asia, the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Although there are broad similarities between the semi-enclosed seas of Western Europe and Northeast Asia, no regional maritime regime has yet been initiated in Northeast Asia. The papers in this volume are authored by leading authorities on not only the maritime affairs of their particular region of focus but on maritime policy in general. They describe and explain existing or incipient regional maritime regimes in an unusually broad comparative context, and extract lessons learned that may be applicable elsewhere including Northeast Asia. The case studies are neatly sandwiched between an introduction to concepts and principles on regional co-operation and concluding chapters on lessons learned and their applicability to Northeast Asia. Moreover, the papers raise and address several questions of relevance to policy. For example, what factors are conducive to maritime regime initiation, expansion and positive evolution, and which constrain regime formation and evolution? Why has maritime regime building been successful in Europe and largely unsuccessful in Asia? And which, if any, lessons learned in the European context areapplicable in Asia? Given the growing interest in regime formation and effectiveness in general and maritime regimes in particular, this book will be of considerable interest to both analysts and policymakers.

A permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula has yet to be achieved even though the Korean War came to a halt more than half a century ago. Without a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, the two Korean states are technically still at war. The current situation on the Korean peninsula is extremely tense and precarious, and tensions and distrust between the two Koreas and between the U.S. and North Korea escalated in the wake of North Korea's second underground nuclear weapons testing in 2009. The editors of this volume conceptually present a two-track (inter-Korean and international) approach to Korean peninsula peace-regime building. They argue that an inter-Korean and international approach should be pursued simultaneously for the construction of a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula. The contributing authors are established specialists and experts on Korean foreign relations and Northeast Asian international relations. As natives of the U.S., Korea, China, and Japan, they provide objective, scholarly and diverse perspectives on the Korean peace regime building.

One of the most creative innovations of the international diplomatic community in the 20th century was its invention of the international regime,” wrote Douglas M. Johnston in his last major work published posthumously (The Historical Foundations of World Order: The Tower and the Arena, Nijhoff, 2008). While regimes often provide order and certainty and a consequent reduction in disputes and misunderstandings, regimes are driven by specific concerns. With diverse disciplinary backgrounds and perspectives, the distinguished contributors to this tribute follow a long tradition of scholarly inquiry into the governance, creation, operation, viability and maintenance of international regimes. Their contributions on ocean and environmental regimes as diverse as fisheries, ocean dumping, maritime security, seafarers’ rights, or enhancement of marine environmental protection attest to the depth to which modern international law and the underlying international relations have been transformed into an international law of structured cooperation. This book includes biographical and bibliographic notes on Douglas M. Johnston

islands has emotional content far beyond any material significance because giving way on the island issue to Japan would be considered as once again compromising the sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula. For Japan, the Dokdo issue may lack the same degree of strategic and economic values and emotional appeal as the other two territorial disputes that Japan has had with Russia and the two Chinas – namely the Northern Territories/Southern Kurile Islands and the Senkaku Islands, respectively. Nevertheless, fishing resources and the maritime boundary issues became highly salient with the introduction of UNCLOS. Also, the legal, political, and economic issues surrounding Dokdo are all intertwined with Japan’s other territorial disputes to the extent that concessions of sovereignty on any of these island disputes could jeopardize claims or negotiations concerning the rest. South Korea and Japan have forged a deeper diplomatic and economic partn- ship over the past decade. A new spirit of partnership after the landmark joint declaration of 1998 culminated in the successful co-hosting of the World Cup 2002. At the end of 2003 the two neighbors began to negotiate an FTA to further strengthen their already close economic ties. South Korea’s decades-long embargo on Japanese cultural products has now been lifted, while a number of South Korean pop stars are currently sweeping across Japan, creating the so-called “Korean Wave” fever. A pragmatic calculation of national interests would thus suggest cooperative behavior.

islands has emotional content far beyond any material significance because giving way on the island issue to Japan would be considered as once again compromising the sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula. For Japan, the Dokdo issue may lack the same degree of strategic and economic values and emotional appeal as the other two territorial disputes that Japan has had with Russia and the two Chinas – namely the Northern Territories/Southern Kurile Islands and the Senkaku Islands, respectively. Nevertheless, fishing resources and the maritime boundary issues became highly salient with the introduction of UNCLOS. Also, the legal, political, and economic issues surrounding Dokdo are all intertwined with Japan’s other territorial disputes to the extent that concessions of sovereignty on any of these island disputes could jeopardize claims or negotiations concerning the rest. South Korea and Japan have forged a deeper diplomatic and economic partn- ship over the past decade. A new spirit of partnership after the landmark joint declaration of 1998 culminated in the successful co-hosting of the World Cup 2002. At the end of 2003 the two neighbors began to negotiate an FTA to further strengthen their already close economic ties. South Korea’s decades-long embargo on Japanese cultural products has now been lifted, while a number of South Korean pop stars are currently sweeping across Japan, creating the so-called “Korean Wave” fever. A pragmatic calculation of national interests would thus suggest cooperative behavior.

The collapse of the Soviet Union famously opened new venues for the theories of nationalism and the study of processes and actors involved in these new nation-building processes. In this comparative study, Kudaibergenova takes the new states and nations of Eurasia that emerged in 1991, Latvia and Kazakhstan, and seeks to better understand the phenomenon of post-Soviet states tapping into nationalism to build legitimacy. What explains this difference in approaching nation-building after the collapse of the Soviet Union? What can a study of two very different trajectories of development tell us about the nature of power, state and nationalizing regimes of the ‘new’ states of Eurasia? Toward Nationalizing Regimes finds surprising similarities in two such apparently different countries—one “western” and democratic, the other “eastern” and dictatorial.