This paper employs the framework of "strategic asset-liability-toxic asset" and integrates sensitivity and vulnerability dimensions from interdependence theory to construct a strategic net return model. It examines the evolving structure of U.S. dependence on Taiwan and highlights Washington's shifting strategic evaluation. Since the Cold War, the United States has regarded Taiwan as a key strategic asset in its geopolitical and technological architecture, forming dependencies across security, politics, and economics. Entering the 2020s, China's rise and growing cross-Strait tensions have raised U.S. strategic maintenance costs, reduced marginal returns, and increased risk exposure, prompting a redefinition of Taiwan as a potential strategic liability. This paper observes that Washington has responded by promoting de-dependencization through supply chain reshoring, diversified military deployments, and strategic ambiguity-signaling an increased possibility of China and the United States compromising on the Taiwan issue and the risk of Taiwan falling into a passive position.
Since Donald Trump's return to the White House, his administration has introduced controversial domestic and foreign policies, particularly protectionist measures such as reciprocal tariffs, sparking debates on U.S.-China relations and alliances in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. This article raises a central question: How is the United States, under Trump's leadership, accelerating the restructuring of the global political and economic order? Are these transformations contingent outcomes driven by individual leadership, or do they reflect deeper structural dynamics? It argues that these shifts extend beyond Trump's leadership style and reflect enduring structural forces. Despite its relative decline, the United States retains significant hegemonic power, with its strategic objective being the preservation of dominance. Washington's pressure on China and other states represents a preemptive adjustment to counter decline and reshape the international order in its favor. Thus, while Trump's leadership influences tactical decisions, structural forces are the primary drivers of U.S. policy shifts.
The necessity for defense cooperation between Korea and the United States and the policy demand for concluding an RDP Agreement are steadily increasing. However, concrete discussion and preparation for this remain insufficient. Addressing this issue, this study aims to identify the matters requiring prior discussion and preparation for the conclusion of an RDP Agreement, assess the impact on the legal and institutional framework, and suggest directions for its refinement. To this end, the study: 1) analyzed existing RDP Agreements through text-mining and clauseby-clause review to identify the provisions requiring review, 2) assessed the impact on Korea's laws and regulations, and 3) suggested directions for the improvement of the legal system. The research findings are as follows: First, the concluded RDP Agreements are categorized into four groups. Among these, Group 1 (Luxembourg, Italy, Poland, Finland, Czech, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Slovenia) was identified as the benchmark treaty templates group. Second, it was found that 46 provisions require review for the future conclusion of the RDP Agreement. Third, it was found that 46 provisions affect Korea's laws and regulations. Fourth, Korea's laws and regulations must be improved in a direction that implements the principle of "reciprocity" of the RDP Agreement while protecting Korea's defense industry ecosystem.
The intensifying technological competition between the United States and China has emerged as a defining feature of contemporary international relations, with profound implications for the global governance of emerging technologies. This study examines the fundamental ideological and structural differences between democratic and authoritarian approaches to Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance, analyzing how this competition shapes the formation of international norms, standards, and institutions. Drawing on regime theory and comparative institutional analysis, this research develops a systematic typology that distinguishes democratic AI governance models-characterized by multi-stakeholder participation, rights-based regulation, and transparency requirements-from authoritarian models that emphasize state-led development, sovereignty-based regulation, and centralized control. The study employs mixed methods combining qualitative content analysis of policy documents, comparative case studies of multilateral negotiations, and quantitative assessment of governance maturity indicators. Analysis of three critical cases-ISO/IEC AI standardization, UN Global Digital Compact negotiations, and OECD AI Principles development-reveals how ideological differences translate into competing institutional strategies. Findings demonstrate three major structural changes in global AI governance. The first is the shift from consensus-based to contested standard-setting processes, with the United States leveraging traditional technical organizations while China increases participation in alternative forums. The second is the fragmentation of regulatory approaches along democratic-authoritarian lines, reflected in divergent emphases on privacy protection versus state sovereignty. The third is the emergence of parallel cooperation mechanisms, as value-based coalitions supplement universal multilateral institutions.
This article examines the main trends and changes in Russian-Chinese economic relations following the outbreak of the full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine in 2022. The primary focus of this study is on the adaptation strategies of China and Russia to the new geopolitical and geoeconomic realities, particularly the development of legal frameworks for bilateral economic relations, the creation of mechanisms to circumvent sanctions, the management of currency risks, and the use of diverse financial instruments, among other aspects. The findings show that, despite the apparent deepening of economic cooperation in different areas, a significant imbalance persists between the two countries, which fosters growing mutual distrust and hampers further development of their relations.
