The share of global CO2 emissions from the core Northeast Asian (NEA) countries in 2015 was estimated to be as high as 33.63 percent. Representing 28.21, 3.67, and 1.75 percent of total global emissions, China, Japan, and South Korea were ranked the first, fifth, and seventh largest contributors, respectively. Some parts of China, the Republic of Mongolia, the Russian Far East, and Southeast Asia have long been on serious alert due to accelerated deforestation. With their rapid population growth and economic development, the core countries of Northeast Asia are responsible both directly and indirectly for numerous environmental problems. Urgent individual and collective action is required from the region’s governments. Against the backdrop of debate on how to understand Northeast Asia as a "region," Park focuses on the major regional economies of China, Japan, and South Korea, along with Russia, North Korea, and the Republic of Mongolia, due to both their geopolitical proximity and their significance to the region. The author attempts to answer the questions: "How far has regional environmental cooperation progressed in Northeast Asia?"; and "Why are Northeast Asian countries reluctant to cooperate further on urgent transboundary and regional environmental issues?"

Drawing on cutting-edge research from leading scholars, this book investigates state preferences for regime creation and assesses state capacity for executing these preferences in Northeast Asia’s energy domain, defined as the geographical area comprising the following countries: Russia, Mongolia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. It examines questions pertaining to how states perceive the need and necessity for establishing a regime when it comes to the issue of energy and how much commitment they make to the effort in Northeast Asia. The book analyses the factors that shape each country’s fundamental energy interests in the region, how these interests impact their attitudes toward engaging the region on energy security and the way they carry out their regional engagement. Based on countries’ interests in promoting institutionalized regional energy cooperation and their capacity for forging that cooperation, the collection assesses each state’s role in contributing to an energy regime in Northeast Asia. It then concludes with a critique on the decade-plus quest for energy security cooperation in Northeast Asia and suggests ways forward for facilitating regional energy security cooperation. This book will be of great interest to scholars and students of environmental policy, energy policy, security studies, Asian studies and international relations.

Written by a team of leading scholars, this volume presents a variety of theoretical perspectives and case studies to offer a comprehensive analysis of the pressures that shape the policy choices of China, Russia, Japan, the United States, North and South Korea, and Taiwan.

Four hundred years ago, indigenous peoples occupied the vast region that today encompasses Korea, Manchuria, the Mongolian Plateau, and Eastern Siberia. Over time, these populations struggled to maintain autonomy as Russia, China, and Japan sought hegemony over the region. Especially from the turn of the twentieth century onward, indigenous peoples pursued self-determination in a number of ways, and new states, many of them now largely forgotten, rose and fell as great power imperialism, indigenous nationalism, and modern ideologies competed for dominance. This atlas tracks the political configuration of Northeast Asia in ten-year segments from 1590 to 1890, in five-year segments from 1890 to 1960, and in ten-year segments from 1960 to 2010, delineating the distinct history and importance of the region. The text follows the rise and fall of the Qing dynasty in China, founded by the semi-nomadic Manchus; the Russian colonization of Siberia; the growth of Japanese influence; the movements of peoples, armies, and borders; and political, social, and economic developments—reflecting the turbulence of the land that was once the world's "cradle of conflict." Compiled from detailed research in English, Chinese, Japanese, French, Dutch, German, Mongolian, and Russian sources, the Historical Atlas of Northeast Asia incorporates information made public with the fall of the Soviet Union and includes fifty-five specially drawn maps, as well as twenty historical maps contrasting local and outsider perspectives. Four introductory maps survey the region's diverse topography, climate, vegetation, and ethnicity.

A Region of Regimes traces the relationship between politics and economics—power and prosperity—in the Asia-Pacific in the decades since the Second World War. This book complicates familiar and incomplete narratives of the "Asian economic miracle" to show radically different paths leading to high growth for many but abject failure for some. T. J. Pempel analyzes policies and data from ten East Asian countries, categorizing them into three distinct regime types, each historically contingent and the product of specific configurations of domestic institutions, socio-economic resources, and external support. Pempel identifies Japan, Korea, and Taiwan as developmental regimes, showing how each then diverged due to domestic and international forces. North Korea, Myanmar, and the Philippines (under Marcos) comprise "rapacious regimes" in this analysis, while Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand form "ersatz developmental regimes." Uniquely, China emerges as an evolving hybrid of all three regime types. A Region of Regimes concludes by showing how the shifting interactions of these regimes have profoundly shaped the Asia-Pacific region and the globe across the postwar era.

This book is a joint endeavour of the three partner universities to develop a book with in-depth and state-of-art analysis for the academic community of East Asia and the world. Past disasters, like the 2008 Great Sichuan Earthquake in China and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, saw good efforts of East Asian countries in helping each other. Such a trend has been further strengthened in these countries’ recent cooperation and mutual support in their fight against Covid-19 pandemic. While China, Japan, and South Korea are geographically and culturally contiguous and hence may share some characteristics in their risk management principles and practices, there may also be many significant differences due to their different socioeconomic and political systems. The commonalities and variances in East Asia risk management systems are also reflected by their recent responses to the Covid-19 challenges. While all three countries demonstrated overall success in controlling the epidemic, the measures taken by them were different. This research will be of interest to policymakers, scholars and economists.