This question is about identifying the causes of tensions between South Korea and Japan, and analysing them through realist, liberal and constructivist lenses to explain why these tensions exist. Therefore, it is important to determine how each of the three theories relates to South Korean-Japanese relations; to do this, some context needs to be established about the extent of the tensions within South Korean-Japanese relations before looking at the causes and how they align with the different theoretical perspectives. According to a BBC World Service Poll (2014), only 15% of South Korean residents view Japanese influence as positive compared to 79% with a dissenting view of Japanese influence. This makes South Korea the country with the second most negative perception of Japan in the world (of the 25 countries polled of course). One key reason for this, is Japan’s past as an imperial power which has led to a long-standing distrust of Japan due to its mistreatment of South Koreans. This is because Japan forced policies upon South Korea such as comfort women, who were ‘forced sexual labourers for the Japanese military’ (Clough, 2007). Estimates vary on the number of women who were raped in these brothels (Imperial Japan referred to them as pleasure houses), but most range between 200,000 and 300,000, a significant portion of which was made up of South Koreans (Anonymous, 2000). The fact that Japan did not even accept culpability for this, until 2015 when a settlement was agreed for Japan to pay ¥1 billion (Yen) to South Korea for the surviving victims (Adelstein and Kubo, 2015), has ensured that national resentment of Japan has continued to build since the war especially since Japanese courts have rejected claims of the individual victims for decades (indeed, the government’s decision to accept Japan’s offer at the expense of all the individual claims of the victims was extremely criticised at the time). There are also tensions which have been caused by long-standing geographical disputes – the two most high profile of which are the naming of the Sea of Japan and territorial claim over the Liancourt rocks. South Koreans claim that the ‘Sea of Japan’ was named the ‘Eastern Sea’ long before Westerners referred to it as the Japan Sea and argue that the name is a consequence of Japan’s imperial expansion into Korea essentially eroding at South Korean identity and allowing the Japanese to rename the body of water. This is another example of how such a long-standing dispute fuels tension and animosity to this day. Furthermore, the main reason why South Korea insists on presiding over the Liancourt Rocks is the historical threat of Japanese invasion from the South (contesting that the Rocks would help them defend an invasion), and this also stokes up nationalistic tensions particularly on the part of the South Koreans. Overall, while this is certainly just the surface of the tensions (and why they exist) between Japan and South Korea, these are important events to consider when determining which of the three main groups of theories are most useful in explaining these tensions.
Now, it is pertinent to outline how these theories align with the events to provide explanations to why these tensions exist between South Korea and Japan. In international relations, constructivism can be defined as ‘the claim that significant aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature’ (Jackson and Nexon, 2002). Certainly, there are links that can be made between this notion and the South Korean attitude towards Japan these days. Enmities between the two nations have lasted generations due to the Japanese colonisation of South Korea. This is an example of constructivism in work as the tension has been historically-constructed by events such as this and deeds during the Second World War, rather than people being born with a genetic predisposition towards Japanese influence (which would be human nature). Liberalism is, to a lesser degree, also useful in explaining some of the tensions between South Korea and Japan. Liberalism is a ‘school of thought based on the idea that international organisations, international economic cooperation, interdependence and democracy allow states to avoid power politics and establish a lasting peace’ (Shiraev and Zubok, 2014). Liberalism does apply here because since the Second World War, despite the tensions, the two nations have ‘established a lasting peace’. There are several reasons for this, among them being the setting up of trade links between the two countries (economic cooperation) and the influences of countries such as the United States, who are allied with both countries, and have thus had a vested interest in keeping the peace. Factors such as these would be looked at by liberalists as the main factors influencing South Korean-Japanese relations, although it must be noted that the theory is less useful at explaining the actual tensions (not just the relations) between the two nations. Lastly, one can describe realism as being the ‘set of theories that emphasizes the role of the state, national interest, and military power in world politics’ (Bell, 2018). A link can definitely be drawn between realism and the geographical disputes that currently preoccupy Japan and South Korea. Realism is a theory heavily focused on security, and thus the idea that South Korea claims and indeed currently ‘administers’ them because of the historical threat of invasion from Japan can directly be looked at by realist theorists as an integral factor in explaining why tensions exist between the two powers. Whilst all three groups of theories certainly have some merit to them in explaining tensions between South Korea and Japan, constructivism appears to be the most useful due to the general feeling of animosity that exists between the countries – something which has certainly been shaped by historical events.
The main reason why constructivist theory is most useful in explaining the tensions between South Korea and Japan is the idea of historically-constructed bitterness between the two countries, as a result of Japan’s colonisation of South Korea threatening to erode their identity and the perceived lack of atonement on Japan’s part for the crimes inflicted on South Korea. Indeed, the importance of ‘perceived’ should be highlighted here because, in 1965, Japan ‘provided South Korea with $300 million grant in economic aid and $200 million in loans together with $300 million in loans for private trust, a total of $800 million as “economic cooperation”’ (Ishikida, 2005). This could be seen as an example of Japan making an effort to make amends and accept responsibility for the crimes that happened under their rule, but the details of this Treaty were kept a secret for nearly 40 years after it was signed; this means that, to the public, Japan had made very little effort to re-establish positive relations with South Korea, hence why so many South Koreans still hold much resentment for Japan even today. When this is combined with Japan’s public dismissal of legal claims relating to the use of comfort women, it is easy to see how South Korea would perceive Japan in such a negative light, despite significant economic aid being provided as a means of atonement on their part. On top of this, despite the recent settlement of ¥1 billion for the surviving victims of ‘comfort women’, the matter has been far from resolved due to this settlement effectively nullifying the claims of all the individual survivors and also that the settlement lacked what these women desired perhaps most of all, which was ‘stating the Japanese government’s legal responsibility for the state-level crime of enforcing a system of sexual slavery’ (Bong-Yu, 2015). This lack of a satisfactory resolution (even though one can acknowledge that there have been some financial reparations made by Japan) in the eyes of the South Korean people is a major reason why Japan is still looked upon so disgustedly, and is therefore important to consider when explaining why tensions exist between South Korea and Japan. Another point which constructivist theorists would identify as important to explaining the tensions between these countries, is the idea that Japanese colonisation threatened South Korean identity to the extent that its consequences still linger. For example, the body of water which lies between Japan, the Koreas, and Russia is commonly known as the Sea of Japan internationally, but South Koreans claim that it was originally named the East Sea and that the only reason the name ‘Sea of Japan’ even came into use was due to the fact that South Korea was colonised by Japan (Yun and Park, 2013). The argument here for why constructivist theory is most applicable is two-fold. Firstly, it is easy to appreciate how, given that South Korean people have been mistreated by Imperial Japan throughout the previous centuries, this is seen as a major issue for South Korean people; this is because the alleged ‘stealing’ of the sea by Japan almost acts as a metaphor for the way Japan chipped away at their identity during the years of colonisation. South Korea had a large tradition of farming before Japanese rule for example, but by 1932 over half (52%) of the arable land in their own country was owned by Japanese people and companies (Nozaki, 2007). Another example is how Japan demolished the Gyeongbokgung (the South Korean Royal Palace) early in the 20th century, and also how Japan essentially forced South Korean people to speak Japanese and take Japanese names. All of these events help to explain why South Korean attitudes toward Japan remain so negative. The other aspect of this argument which can be taken from the ‘Sea of Japan’ dispute is how these underlying abrasions between the countries can seemingly blow an innocuous issue well out of proportion. Outsiders may view a dispute over the naming of a Sea as a fairly irrelevant one but the bigger issue is what it represents. The endless continuation of a relatively minor (relative to an issue such as comfort women for example) dispute is evidence that the tensions between South Korea and Japan are about a lot more than security and power (as realists may argue) and shows that the wounds of South Korean people going back several generations are yet to heal. Therefore, constructivism offers the most complete explanation of why tensions exist between South Korea and Japan because it considers the impact of intangible factors (such as national identity, pride and emotion) which the other theories simply do not.
Liberal and realist theories can offer some useful insight into explaining South Korean-Japanese tensions. Certainly, the occupation of the Liancourt Rocks by South Korea since the conclusion of the Second World War is a good example of defensive realism in practice. Defensive realism is a ‘theory derived from the school of neorealism…argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security’ (Waltz, 1979). This is because South Korea’s presence on the island can very accurately be described as a reserved and security-driven policy due to the location being very useful strategically in case of an invasion. The reason why constructivism however offers an even more useful explanation is the fact that, similar to the dispute over the naming of the Sea of Japan, the spectre of Imperial Japan still casts a big shadow over South Korean politics as the historical threat of invasion (as identified as one of the motivations for occupying the rocks) has come from Japan. Furthermore, it shows yet another example of how a historically-constructed view of Japan causes South Korea to be particularly abrasive towards them. On the other hand, it is undeniable that there are other reasons behind this dispute that are not best evaluated under a constructivist lens. The Liancourt Rocks are believed to potentially hold large reserves of natural gas (Higgins, 2013) which, in the current environmental climate where increasingly awareness on the exhaustion of natural resources and fossil fuels is heightened, are obviously an important component to this discussion. It also falls under the broader heading of realism, as realists would explain the motivation behind administering the islands as being driven by economic motives (along with the security motive). Whilst realism would certainly offer the more accurate insight here, it does not outweigh the broader picture that constructivist theory builds in terms of explaining South Korean-Japanese tensions. Liberalism has arguably a more minor role in explaining these tensions compared to constructivist theory. For sure, liberalist ideas of the ‘attempt to secure a lasting peace’ and economic cooperation do apply here; since 1945, the two countries have not been involved in military conflict and since 1965, ‘bilateral economic ties between Japan and South Korea have been expanding dramatically’ (Tselichtchev, 2018). The mere fact that the countries successfully hosted an event as massive as the FIFA World Cup in 2002 shows that Japan and South Korea can cooperate effectively. However, what liberalism does fail to do is offer much understanding of why underlying tensions exist between them, as it is far more focused on perhaps the opposite side of the debate, which is how relations (though still tense) have improved over the last half-century. Therefore again it can be deduced that constructivist theory is most useful in explaining South Korean-Japanese tensions.
In conclusion, constructivism is clearly the most useful theory in explaining why tensions persist between South Korea and Japan due to the overarching idea of historically-constructed animosity. This is relevant because firstly, the South Korean people still hold a lot of mistrust toward Japan for the way their people were treated whilst subjected to Japanese rule (such as the taking over of farm land and forced prostitution of the comfort women); this is even exacerbated by the public perception that Japan has never truly atoned for it to the extent that South Koreans believe they should have because there has never been any acceptance of legal responsibility on Japan’s part. Furthermore, constructivism applies to modern disputes because it explains the behaviour of South Korean policy makers and attitudes of the people alike. Realism can certainly apply to disputes such as the naming of the Sea of Japan (or East Sea) and the Liancourt Rocks, but the bigger issue which is highlighted by constructivist theorists is that South Koreans are wary of their identity being eroded due to the historically-constructed animosity that stems from being colonised by Imperial Japan, and if anything the claims to both the rocks and the naming of the sea are fuelled by this rather than any military or economic gain. Constructivism also explains how, as was outlined in the introduction, South Korea has the second most negative view of Japan (the country with the most negative view is China, who were also colonised by Imperial Japan and suffered similarly) in the world despite any colonisation being long-since ended; it is this historically-constructed enmity that continues to drive the tension between the nations. Thus to conclude this debate, all three of the groups of theories hold some value but only constructivism offers a well-rounded explanation as to why tensions exist between South Korea and Japan to the extent.