| The Korean Peninsula issue has unique and important geopolitical significance.It is not only a key factor to create the safe and stable regional environment,but also a long-term focus of the international academic research in Northeast Asia.As the“historical legacy” of the confrontation between camps during the Cold War,the trend of the security situation on the Korean Peninsula and the prospect of its reunification have always been closely watched by people in domestic and external related fields.Among them,foreign policy think-tanks,known as “External brain of government”and claiming to be “independent” or “unofficial”,are also actively concerned and involved in the decision-making process on the Korean Peninsula Issues.By creating a “wise and favorable” decision-making atmosphere,such institutions intend to realize the function of unofficial policy intervention in specific fields of international affairs,and then assume the responsibility of bridging the intellectual “gap” between academia and policy circles.In the field of Korean Peninsula studies,Chatham House,which has repeatedly topped the list of global think-tanks with both “academic authority” and “political influence”,has been placed at the edge of the relevant knowledge field due to the role of knowledge gap.However,as the “subject” of marginal narrative that is easily ignored,Chatham House Korean Peninsula literature and related knowledge groups can stay away from the core position and supplement or correct the gaps and biases of existing views and policies with an intermediate position and a global vision.Some of these documents deeply analyze the root causes of the failure of US policy towards North Korea and criticize the securitization paradigm of post-Cold War thinking,which is of great significance to the future research agenda and decision-making process of the Korean Peninsula issue.Therefore,this paper chooses Chatham House’s Korean Peninsula literature as the core research object,and based on its extraterritorial narrative context constructed from the perspective of outside the region,makes an overall investigation and analysis of the evolution,influence,predicament and root causes of the Korean Peninsula issue,which is dominated by traditional security.This paper is divided into five chapters,with specific contents as follows:The first chapter systematically reviews the historical changes and development status of Chatham House in the past hundred years,and comprehensively introduces the mission,key research fields and knowledge output of Chatham House.The way to obtain,continue and accumulate academic capital and authoritative reputation of Chatham House is to maintain the relative independence of research work.On this basis,by reviewing the interests and concerns of modern Britain in the Korean Peninsula region,understand the causes of Chatham House’s early research on Korean Peninsula issues,and compare the basic situation of Chatham House’s Korean Peninsula research projects and research groups,so as to lay out the narrative prospects for subsequent literature investigation.The second chapter mainly adopts corresponding historical archives research methods according to the proportion of archival documents.In the marginal narrative context established by relevant documents of Chatham House,archival documents are used to restore the history of the Korean War from its brewing,outbreak to the armistice.It not only helps to make a comparison and mutual verification with the research on the Korean War based on archives,especially the previous research focusing on the interpretation of American archives,but also puts forward a relatively novel cognition and judgment on many controversial issues in the Korean War.The deep analysis of the origins of the Korean War and the reputation crisis of the United Nations during the Korean War makes it more reflective than the mainstream Western research.However,the serious imbalance in the proportion of literature sources in the Chatham House Korean War archives is the limitation of related research.The Chapters three to four interpret and comment on the Korean Peninsula unification issue and the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue respectively based on the marginal narrative context constructed by Chatham House Korean Peninsula issue literature according to the category of multiple literature and adopt the comprehensive research method.According to the relevant literature views and suggestions of Chatham House,the following basic cognition on relevant issues can be obtained:First,the core factor affecting the political division and confrontation on the Korean Peninsula is the internal political culture tradition.Second,the “federal” state is the most likely solution to the reunification of the Korean Peninsula.Third,the US-DPRK relationship is the most important bilateral relationship and functional variable in the current Korean Peninsula issue.Fourth,there are serious paradigm defects in the U.S.policy making toward North Korea.Fifth,South Korea and Japan’s demand for nuclear independence also endangers regional security.Sixth,we need to pay attention to the spillover risk of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and its control plan.Seventh,the best way to resolve the Korean Peninsula issues is multilateral negotiations based on coordination by international organizations.The fifth chapter summarizes and comments on the research focus and mainstream views of Chatham House Korean Peninsula literature on hot security topics such as war issues,reunification issues and nuclear issues from 1950 to 2020,and comprehensively reviews the academic standards and policy reference value of Chatham House Korean Peninsula studies.This paper summarizes the theoretical revision of the study of the Korean Peninsula issues in the international academic circle and the practical reference of the relevant decision-making process in the international policy circle with its unique extraterritorial perspective and method.From the transformation and operation mode of think-tanks,the selection of research paths and methods for regional issues lacking basic research experience,and the policy advisory level of the Korean Peninsula issue research,the experience and lessons of Chatham House in the construction of global high-end modern think tanks and its regional and country research are found.By studying and investigating the literature of Chatham House on Korean Peninsula issues from 1950 to 2020,we can get a lot of experience and enlightenment.The first is the historical changes and development status of Chatham House.On the one hand,Chatham House can provide valuable experience for the construction of new and modern global think tanks.On the other hand,the inherent defects such as group limitation,perspective bias and centralism that have been revealed in its development process are always difficult to get away from,which will be the limitations and risks that need to be avoided in the construction of similar organizations in the future.Second,through the interpretation and interpretation of Chatham House’s core literature on Korean Peninsula issues,it can provide case reference for the research field of Korean Peninsula issues in terms of paradigm dimension and perspective extension.However,the reason why relevant research is difficult to make substantial breakthroughs lies in the defects of western knowledge commonality.Third,through the investigation of knowledge sociology,it can be found that the majority of Chatham House Korean Peninsula related knowledge groups are still difficult to get rid of the shackles of mainstream thinking paradigm.The reason points to the presupposition paradox and cognitive dilemma under similar“knowledge commonality”.Therefore,the real breakthrough in the research or decision-making of the Korean Peninsula issues in the international academic circles,political circles and related industries depends on the positive “Turn” and pluralistic“Comprehensive”: Firstly,the shift of observation vision from the center of the field to the edge;Secondly,the narrative position of the Korean Peninsula turning from as the security object to the subject;Thirdly,from the outside to inside,from“military-politics” to “culture-society” sector of analysis;Finally,the research paradigm shifts from single tradition to pluralistic commensuration. |
PDF Full Text Request