Abstract

The tension present between North and South Korea has been an interesting topic to
pursue ever since their separation. It remains a concern of the international community, and
thus it has been the topic of studies for many scholars. The main goal of this review of literature
is to show that studies in this field focus more on the differences of two Koreas ignoring the role
of internal and external actors, which in fact, are the ones causing the tension between North
and South Korea. It hopes to open up future studies which focus more on these internal and
external actors.

Introduction

Korea was an independent kingdom and much of its high culture is influenced by China. In
1910, Japan took over Korea and for the next 35 years, Japan ruled Korea in a very strict and brutal
manner. By the end of Japanese colonial period in 1945, Korea was the second most industrialized
country in Asia after Japan itself.

The surrender of Japan to the allies, which are the US and USSR, at the end of the World
War II due to their conflicting ideologies resulted in an unexpected development on Korean
peninsula: the division of Korea into North Korea (also known as Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea) and South Korea (also known as the Republic of Korea).

This paper aims to show that a lot of studies focus more on the differences of two Koreas
ignoring the role of internal and external actors, like US and USSR and the leaders of the two
Koreas, which in fact, are really the ones causing the tension between North and South. The objective
is to analyze and prove that the differences, such as economic, social cultural, political and military,
are not the real causes of the tension between the two Koreas but it is in fact due to the role of
internal and external actors. The review is believed to be significant for it highlights the role of
internal and external actors, which actually cause tensions between the North and South Korea, were
neglected and to suggest that this topic be pursued.

The paper is divided into three parts. The first part will classify the literature and focus on the
theoretical approaches used. The second part will illustrate the empirical works on the differences of
the two Koreas. The third part will show the issues that were failed to address by the authors of the

1
literature. The concluding argument proposes that future literature about the topic should focus more
on the role of the internal and external actors that cause the tension between North and South Korea.

Theoretical Approaches

The differences between North and South Korea which are assumed to cause the divide and
contribute to the tension have been and ongoing concern of the world today. Approaches were used
to analyze and these approaches were used to group and classify the main focuses of the literature
that were found. These three approaches are rationalism, institutionalism and intentionalism.

Intentionalism and Institutionalism: Main approaches used to show that the differences cause
the tension between North and South Korea

Intentionalism

Intentionalism is defined as “constructing explanations out of the direct intentions and

motivations of the actors involved and using explanatory concepts which the actors themselves might
use to account for their actions”. (Hay 1995b:195) In this case, the individuals or agents are said to
make decisions based on their personal interests and own intentions. This approach also covers the
rational choice theory approach in which social and political choices are made by rational, self-
interested individuals. (Marsh and Stoker: 2002). In this approach, the rational, self-interested
individuals choose what will bring about greater happiness and utility to them.

In the study conducted by Feffer (2003), it is depicted that the military dimension of North
and South Korea uses intentionalism approach. Intentionalism approach can be applicable for the
military case of North and South Korea. South Korea’s military force is unmistakably smaller or
even weaker than North Korea. For it is evident that economic growth is South Korea’s main
priority. However, the country’s economic growth can be traced back from the full assistance of the
United States of America. Why South Korea did accept the help of United States? What are the
underlying intentions of United States of America for their offering as well as North Korea’s
intention of accepting them? North Korea on the other hand is known today as a great nuclear power
but then no one can push them to stop the nuclear issue. Why does North Korea act in such a way
that it brings fear to the international community? North Korea’s intentions are also addressed to
understand the roots of their acts and their intentions. Intentionalism can be used as an approach in
analyzing North Korea’s military status today as it will focus on why do North Koreans do the things
that generates fear to other countries?
2
 South Korea used to be a government-directed model but moved toward a market-
oriented one. This was caused by the extensive financial reforms that restored stability to
markets. These economic reforms help the Southern Korea to return to growth. (South Korea,
2010) This showed that the actions intended South Korea to have growth in their economy again.
The economic reforms were intended to improve the situation of South Korea.

Institutionalism

Institutionalism is an approach that deals with the set of norms and rules inside formal
organizations and political systems. It is more of a descriptive way of presenting. It also focuses on
rules and the informal formation of institutions as dynamic. (Marsh and Stoker, 2002) In this case,
institutions are seen as the causes which affect the situation of the country and its people.

In the studies by Connor, Jonsson, and the National Unification Board of Korea, the approach
that has been used can be observed and classified as institutionalism. It is shown in these three
studies that the different ideologies of both the North and South Korea have been the reason for the
separation of the two countries. The three works in general were trying to show that “the socio-
cultural changes differed greatly in content between South and North Korea due to their ideologies
and systems.” (A comparative study…; 1988) These studies also showed how the institutions,
especially in terms of the socio-cultural aspect were developed and have evolved through the years
after the separation. These studies tended to be descriptive, showing the differences of both the
institutions in the North and South Korea which is why it has been written in such a way which used
the institutionalist perspective.

Also, in the studies conducted by the National Unification Board, Franz Schurmann, Song-
chol Yang and Young-ju Kim, which focuses on the political aspect of the two Koreas, used an
institutionalism approach to explain how politics add to the tension between the two countries. They
look at the political ideologies, political system, power structure and policy-making between North
and South Korea that can cause the gap between them and lead to tension. (A comparative study…:
1988) In general, the authors looked at how the institutions, like the government and private
organizations, used their power and position to influence the thinking of the people. These studies
tended to be comparative because it shows the differences of the nature of politics between the two
Koreas and used it to explain why institutions, its decision, can affect the thinking of the people of
Korea, especially North Korea.

3
 Nick Eberstadt pointed out that North Korea’s economy did not falter because of the
communist economies; rather it is because of the hyper-militarization of North Korea.
Accordingly, the state is allocating an enormous share of its resources for to the defense sector
and allied defenses sector. Under these circumstances, they would likely have a continuing drain
of potential resources that produce little or no economic value-added. And because North Korean
economy is based on the ideology of self-reliance, very minimal to no international trade
relations, a minimal source for the economy would lead to the fall. (Harvie and Yi, Nanto, 2003;
Chanlett-Avery, 2010) This shows how the military institution affects the movement of the
economy of the Northern Korea.

Institutionalism Intentionalism

All aspects (A comparative study of (Feffer, 2003; Noland, 2004;

North and South Korea, 1988); O’Hanlon and Mochizuki, 2003);
Economic (Eberstadt, 2009; Harvie (South Korea, 2010)
and Yi, Nanto, 2003; Chanlett-
Avery, 2010); Soci-cultural (Connor,
2009; Jonsson, 2006); Political
(Schurmann, 1968; Kim, n.d.; Yang,
1986)

Intentionalism vs Institutionalism

As shown in the two previous sections, the intentionalists and institutionalists have different
and concrete explanations on how the tensions due to the differences between North and South Korea
arise and are influenced upon. For intentionalism, as said in the first part, the tension is brought about
by the own intentions of the actors. As for the institutionalism approach, there is an emphasis on the
formation of the institutions.

Majority of the literature reviewed fell on the institutionalism approach. The researches that
were put in this category focused on the differences between the institutions present in the economic,
socio-cultural, political and military aspect. Some of these studies covered all aspects, while some
only covered one, two or three aspects. – All aspects (A comparative study of North and South
Korea, 1988); Economic (Eberstadt, 2009; Harvie and Yi, Nanto, 2003; Chanlett-Avery, 2010);
Soci-cultural (Connor, 2009; Jonsson, 2006); Political (Schurmann, 1968; Kim, n.d.; Yang, 1986).

4
 There are less literature classified which used the intentionalism approach. The researches
that focused on the intentionalism approach focused on the personal intentions of the individuals.
The works which focused on this approach were: (Feffer, 2003; Noland, 2004; O’Hanlon and
Mochizuki, 2003); (South Korea, 2010).

The debate present within these two approaches is similar to the structure and agency debate.
With these two approaches, the insitutionalists are trying to argue that the differences were caused by
the evolvement of the different institutions, which eventually led and contributed to the tensions
between the North and South Korea. However, the intentionalists would argue that tension was
caused based from the actions and personal intentions of the individual. The institutionalists in turn
would say that the actions of the individuals were influenced by the environment they were in, in this
case the institutions which eventually led to the differences which caused the tensions.

Empirical Studies on the differences which lead to tensions in the two Koreas

This part will be divided into four parts. It will discuss how the differences between North
and South Korea in terms of socio-cultural, economic, political and military aspects that are said to
cause the tension between the two Koreas. In the book entitled ‘A comparative study of South and
North Korea’, it identified the differences in each of the four aspects between the two Koreas that
eventually lead and contribute to the tension between the two countries.

Socio-cultural

The study conducted by Connor, Jonsson, and the National Unification Board of Korea,
stated that upon the separation of the two Koreas, it was only natural for South Korea to inherit the
traditional views of the unified Korea whilst the North changed its viewpoints. Even though some
aspects of the traditional culture might have remained in the North Korean society, there was still a
greater amount of change compared to views that were kept. The two Koreas underwent large
amount of changes and they were able to develop concrete differences from each other upon their
formal divide into two countries. These changes which led to be the differences included many
aspects. Among these aspects are: The cultural, wherein the individual developed to have more
power and freedom in the South while the man was tied up to the leaders and the government in the
North. When it came to ethics and morals, the North viewed morals in terms of the correct form of
conduct when it came to following their principles and rules of their government. Before the divide,
both North Korea and South Korea had little difference in beliefs but when it was finally separated,

5
both countries changed and the circumstances became different. “The contrasting belief system in
North and South Korean make the peninsula one of the most diverse places in the world in terms of
religion and thought, these differences inevitably heighten interest in the Koreas, but they are very
problematic for possible reunification.” (Connor 2009:156). In terms of religion, there is complete
freedom to express and practice one’s own religion in the South while it is prohibited in the North.
Religion in the North, was imposed on an individual forcefully, in this case, this religion referred to
as is said to be a religion which idolized their leader. No other faith can exist in North Korea except
the loyalty to their leader. In the study conducted by the National Reunification Board, the North
viewed religion as “a tool to beguile, exploit and oppress the people.” When it came to class
structure, North Korea bases one’s status from what family he or she is born from. It is inherited. An
example of this would be that the dictatorship of the former leader was just passed on to his son, and
this will continue as long as the Communist regime in the North exists. South Korea has a different
view, for it believes that man can improve his status in the society by his or her own efforts. (A
comparative study…; 1988) Also in education, the South views education as a way to enhance the
knowledge of the individual while the North regards it as a way to make the people learn about and
impose its ideologies and communist beliefs onto the individual. As for media, the South allows both
the freedom of the press but it also expects it to have complete responsibility. The function of the
press in the North, as found in the book entitled: “A comparative study of the North and South
Korea” states that the function fulfilled by the press in the North is the recreational and advertising
function. The press is used only for political purposes. It has become a tool for propaganda. There
have been efforts for inter-Korean socio-cultural exchanges, but it remains unsuccessful due to the
concrete differences of the two Koreas go in the way and only contribute to the tension. Although
educational exchanges such as the putting up of branch schools from the South to the North are
proposed, these are not most likely to work. As it has been previously said, the two countries have a
different kind of educational system. Also, the “North uses cultural contacts as political propaganda.”
(Jonsson 2006:100) Even though there was also an agreement to the mutual opening of media in
1991, it still didn’t turn out successful for North Korea failed to cooperate well and it still wanted it
to be limited. (Jonsson 2006:99) it can be inferred that this failure would also be due to the fact that
the function of media in both the North and the South Korea differ.

Economic

The economy of North and South Korea has been a competitive development under their
conflicting ideologies and economic systems. North Korea’s economy follows the communist
6
siege economic system, an even more tightly closed form of socialist command economy.
(National Unification Board) It follows the principle of self-reliant national economy or inner-
directed economy which was centered on building its industries within the country while
avoiding commitments abroad. (Kim, 2003) Because of prolonged drought and rains North
Korea’s industrial growth slowed, and per capita GNP fell. A major cause for this relatively poor
performance is the disproportionately large percentage that North Korea devotes to the military.

The economy of South Korea is classified under the capitalist market economy system,
but in used to be a centrally planned government-directed investment. (South Korea) The basic
features of the market economic system according to the book “A comparative study…” are 1.
Private ownership of production means guaranteeing the freedom of the activities of economic
subjects; 2. Decentralized economic decision-making; 3. The automatic adjustment of the
economy through the market mechanism. For South Korea, this economic policy shows
effectiveness, South Korea now stands as the 15th in the world by nominal GDP and 12th
purchasing power parity. (Global Times, 2009)

The communist economic system of North Korea and the capitalist market economy
system of South Korea has been a competitive development. North Korea carried out plans to
develop their economy in line with strengthening their military power. Whereas South Korea’s
economic plans were based on the method of market development. The differences in the budget
allocation of the two Koreas show how different the two countries view on what is important for
the betterment of their countries.

Political

In the book A Comparative Study on North and South Korea (1988) written by the National
Unification Board, after the divide of the two Koreas took place, there appeared a lot of differences
especially in political ideologies, political system, power structure and policy-making that said to be
the causes of the arising tension between them.

According to the National Unification Board of Korea on the book A Comparative Study on
North and South Korea (1988), when it comes to political ideologies, South Korea embraces liberal
democracy where it permits people’s voluntary participation among various groups. In this way,
people’s basic rights are guaranteed and maintained. Unlike in North Korea, according to Franz

7
Schurmann on his Ideology and Organization in Communist China (1968), embraces a totalitarian
society. North Korea believed in Marxism-Leninism as their pure ideology and Kim II-sung’s , the
prime minister at that time, “Juche” philosophy, a revolutionary doctrine which explains the position
and role in revolution and construction and sets out the basic position, method and guiding principle
the working class and masses should retain, as their practical ideology.

It is evident that their choice of who has the power to control over their society is basically
different from each other. It can be a source of tension because of competing and exactly opposite
ideas about who has the power over because, as stated by Reo M. Christenson on his Ideologies and
Modern Politics (1975), “Ideologies put forth the goal and direction to pursue in the future”. In the
case of North and South Korea, they have differing ideologies and in order to pursue their own
interest, they will compete even to the point of going to war and risking the lives of their people who
have nothing to do, in the first place, of their “political-related” tension.

There are also differences when it comes to political system, power structure, and even in
policy-making itself like policies in media and education. As said by Song-chol Yang in his
Analytical Model of South and North Korean Political Systems, An Introductory Attempt (1986),
South Korea, holds a democratic type of political system wherein the power is distributed into the
legislative, the executive and the judiciary and places them under separate offices to maintain checks
and balances and prevent concentration and misuse of power. Whilst in the North Korea, it has a
totalitarian dictatorship system, where one-party, which is the Workers Party, have the over-all
control in the different social activities whether in the personal or public realm.

When it comes to policy-making, in the South Korea, meetings were held with the different
offices and the public as well and will come up with the decision of the majority. The interests of
others are accepted and considered by the government. On the contrary, the Workers Party is the
dominant party in North Korea that controls the whole economy and decides for the country without
knowing the voice of their people. The opinions of the people in the North Korea are blocked from
the start since the Workers Party is generally the representative of the North.

Here is an example of an instance where the policy-making of both North and South Korea
took place. In terms of media, in line with what Young-ju Kim stated in his Press Policy and Press
Structure (n.d.), the operation of the South was privately owned wherein the proprietor has all the
freedom to televise the current issues and events that is happening in their country. Here, they can
expose the diverse opinions of their people. While in the North, it is censored by their government
8
and only Kim II-sung’s speeches and insult against the South were put on view of the public. They
are using the media to propagandize and strengthen anti-Japanese revolutionary tradition and
“Juche”‘s philosophy. When it comes to educational policies, the South Korea focuses on developing
individual creativity and potentiality of their peoples while in the North, even the education is under
the control of the Workers Party and they are imposing all schools under them to follow the
“Collectivist education”, according to Lee Chung in his Collectivist Education System: Its Norms
and Operations and Hong-chul Yum and others in their Structure of and Change in North Korean
Society (n.d.), was designed to falsify the socialistic type of people and all curricula are prepared for
political indoctrination in addition to pure academic purposes.

It is proven in the sample situation given that North Korea can be said that it is a “closed”
society not only in terms of limiting their trade and relations with other country but inside their
country as well. Their government ignored the role and opinions of other and limits their rights to
education and awareness which can be the cause of believing a wrong idea about the other country. It
can affect the thinking of their people because their education is one-sided. It favors North Korea and
pays no attention to South at all. Because of this, they give their full support to their own
government not considering the side of the South. In the side of limiting the media, it overlooked the
chance of letting their people be aware of the current development and steps the South is taking to
resolve the tension between them. The government is instilling in the minds of their people that they
can never be reunited due to political differences. Whereas in the side of the South Korea, because of
North Korea being a “closed” society, doesn’t have the chance to make them understand that there
was no tension between them and it is just because of the conflicting ideologies they got from their
different invaders, which is the US and the USSR, which build the tension between the two.

Therefore, it is clear that even in having different political system causes tension to take place
between the two Koreas. Whose interest is valued is the most important factor in the society and how
the major institution think can have great effects to the whole community and how they view others
different from them. It is the responsibility of the government to deliver to their people the issues and
events that are happening around them to prevent the misperception of their people towards the other
country opposing their principles. The leaders should also be open to the opinions and view of their
people.

These differences that are the possible cause of the tension between the North and South
Korea should be given importance because when it is addressed, it can help in the unification of both

9
the North and South Korea. It is also evident in this study what the feminist said in the book of Marsh
and Stoker, Theory of Methods (2002), that “Personal is Political” and the doings of the government
can affect its people. In the case of North and South Korea, it shows that the government has a big
influence to its people and instilling a wrong understanding about the issue to the minds of the people
can affect the situation that may lead to unending argument and tension, and failure of negotiations
between the two countries.

Military

In the study conducted by Gills entitled Korea versus Korea: A Case of Contested
Legitimacy (1996), Korea divided because of the use of military as well as political strength as a
gauge to become a great power. It all began during the Korean War that sparked in the 1950s because
of the United States of America and Soviet. This showed that North Korea’s intention of creating
itself as a nuclear power as it will depict their greater power compared to other states. North Korea’s
military force in the present day is considered to be bigger, better, closer and deadlier before
according to Feffer’s North Korea, South Korea: US Policy at A Time of Crisis (2003). Queries arise
on the fundamental intentions of the North Koreans to act is such way. Feffer also argued that North
Korea, given its communist beliefs do not want interference from any outside force like the United
States of America which is considered to be the reason why a divided Korea existed. The study of
Feffer used an intentionalism approach that focused on the underlying rationale of North Korea as a
nation.

North Korea’s ‘other half’, South Korea is enjoying a harmonious relationship with other
countries after it acknowledged the help of the United States of America. South Korea’s good
affiliation with other countries can be considered to contribute a lot to their economic growth. By
some means, it’s essential for North Koreans to grow as an independent nation. Park and Kim (2001)
argued that North Korea since its economic and military decline had an intention of becoming a
“defensive power” by using its capability to surface nuclear tension. And that, North Korea driven by
self-determination and they’re ability to become a nuclear power is an example of a “defensive
power”. Defensive power is the refusal of a country to be influenced by the offensive power.
Currently, the offensive power is the United States of America whereas it puts great influence in
most of the countries. Though North Korea has been offered by the United States of America, Japan
and China treaties that will help them grow economically and stop the growth in number of North
Koreans starving, North Korea still refused to conform to it because the North Koreans blame them

10
for all of the problems North Korea is facing. North Korea believes that the United States is using the
nuclear issue as a scapegoat in order for latter to declare war (Park and Kim, 2001). According to
O’Hanlon and Mochizuki’s Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal With A Nuclear North
Korea (2003), North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il has brainwashed his general public that the outside
world is responsible for everything that have happened to their country. These authors also
mentioned that North Korea today has a military force of 1 million out of the country’s total
population of 22 million. Military force of North Korea is essential for them as it controls all the
institutions. Ironically, according to Feffer (2003) North Korea’s intention on its attack to South
Korea is not to ignite war but to unify their ‘lost’ country by force. Generally, it shows that North
Korea’s military strength is a show of their potency as a unified Korea and not about their “war” with
South Korea.

South Korea, according to the Korean Security Dynamics in Transition by Park and Kim
(2003), North Koreans once expressed that the former are puppets. South Korea has taken advantage
of the help the United States of America had offered and became open for competitive political and
economic system which allows every Korean to achieve his or her full potential (Donahue and
Prosser, 1997). It is evident that South Korea had huge arrears in terms of economic growth from
United States of America. Thirty years ago, South Korea experience poverty whereas its agrarian
society is dependent on other countries’ help in order for them to survive. Generally, South Korea’s
first priority is their economic growth. South Korea’s issue with the North Koreans is only a second
priority (Oh and Hassig, 2000). Since South Korea is somehow influenced by the United States of
America, it gained a yearning for autonomy inspired democracy as an effort to establish a more
sufficient military (Feffer, 2003).

Wrapping up the military tension between North and South Korea, it is evident that the
problems are rooted from the military differences as well as the intentions and institutions that pre-
empt the possible unification of the divided Koreas.

Research Gaps

The main gaps that have been noticed in this field of study are that the internal and external
actors that have the greatest impact which contribute to the tension were failed to be addressed. This

11
section will show the research gaps in each of the different aspects. It will then integrate these
research gaps and come up with the major gap that was present in this field of study.

Socio-cultural

The socio-cultural aspect focused more on highlighting the differences of North and South
Korea in terms of the socio-cultural systems, such as the cultural ideals as well as their cultural
standpoints. What this aspect only addressed are the facts that these socio-cultural differences
contribute to the tension present in both countries, which fail the attempt for possible reunification. It
failed to recognize the influence of the internal actors, in this case, the leader of the government of
the two countries, most especially North Korea. The actors were only ‘glanced upon’ in these works
and they were not given of much importance. The role of the actor or the leader should also be put
into consideration, for the North Korean government, is operating in a what can be referred to as a
dictatorship, for the current leader decides on important matters which affects the development of
every aspect, which includes the socio-cultural one. Although, the role of the internal actor might
have been mentioned in the claim that Socio-cultural exchanges during the past 20 years are
dependent upon political circumstances. (Jonsson 2006:139) However, the importance of the internal
actor was not given much importance and was only glossed upon. This claim can suggest the study of
internal actors not just in North Korea, but in the two Koreas, for it shows that the current leader of
the North has a great influence on the socio-cultural exchanges that happen between the North and
the South. The study also failed to look at the fact that the political motives and personal beliefs of
the leader can influence the institutions and their development which can be the factor for producing
and worsening the tension between North and South Korea. As long as the influence of the internal
actor has not been a topic for future studies, the tensions between North and South Korea are only
most likely to worsen.

Economic

The socio-cultural aspect focused more on highlighting the differences of North and South
Korea in terms of the economic systems; the north as a communist economy and the south as a
capitalist market economy. These differences do cause more tension between the two Korea’s but the
internal and external actor that affects the ideology of North and South Korea was missed out. In the
history of North Korea, the Soviet Union and China were helping them out. China used to be a
communist economy, and Soviet Union, which is now Russia, is still a communist economy. This
clearly shows that the countries that helped the Northern Korea affected their thinking, and their
12
economic system. South Korea was helped out by the US, thus making them realize the importance
for them to have a market economy.

Political

The political aspect focused more on emphasizing the differences between the North and
South Korea in terms of political ideology, political system, power structure and policy-making. In
the works of Franz Schurmann (1968), Young-ju Kim (n.d) and Song-chul Yang (1986), they only
mentioned the differences in politics, its nature and scope, that contribute to the arising tension
between North and South Korea and they failed to look at the underlying issues on from where, how
and why did these differences came about which can be used for possible reunification of the two
countries. The authors failed to trace the roots of these differences and concentrate more on the
differences itself which contribute more on having a dilemma on reuniting the two Koreas because of
lack of foundation or not having the fuller understanding of the issues. They first look at the bigger
picture of the issue disregarding the fundamental detail which is the role of external, the US and
USSR and said to be the cause of divide, and the internal, the government of both Koreas which is
already influenced by the external actors, which can be the real cause of the arising tension between
the once united Korea. Those actors and their decisions have big impact in the arising tension
between North and South and since North Korea embraces a totalitarian dictatorship system which
means that the leader has the over-all control over the economy and can manipulate the decisions of
his people, it is essential to look at their influences in order to be addressed properly especially for
the agenda of reuniting the once united Korea. It can be suggests that the future studies about North
and South Korea divide should look at the roots that causes the appearance of the differences of the
two countries. Studies should include the role of the internal actors since North Korea practices
dictatorship and that the leader has the biggest influence and the dominant authority over their
country and the external actors since the divide of North and South Korea is due to the conflicting
ideologies of their conqueror, which is the US and USSR. Failure to address these actors can
contribute to the unending and worsening tension between the two countries.

Military

The military aspect focused more on highlighting the differences of North and South Korea
in terms of the intentions of their acts and the institutions that are within their territory. This aspect
only addressed the facts that the present military differences contribute to the tension existing in both
countries which highlights that reunification is somehow impossible. Related studies on the military
13
aspect failed to recognize the influence of the internal actors especially the leaders of the government
like Kim Jong Il, prime minister of North Korea and the leader of South Korea Lee Myung-Bak. The
aforementioned actors were only given a glimpse. Their works were not highlighted which should
have contributed to better understand the study. The actors’ works and decisions, if given the same
importance should have clarified certain accounts that are seen vague or unclear. Actors should be
given as much importance given that the North Korean government and its institution are controlled
by a sole actor which is the prime minister. Herein, it argues that consideration of internal actors
both Koreas should be given an importance because it greatly contributes to the military status of
North and South Korea as well as the relation that exists between the two of them. Though the study
have mentioned intentions of both countries, it concentrated on the intentions of the country as a
whole and failed to address the motives and intentions at a personal level. Inability to address
motives and intentions of actors can be considered to contribute to the exacerbating military tension
between the North and the South.

Another gap that has been noticed in the reviewed literature is the role of the China, which is
also an external actor. It has been known in history that China has aided North Korea in the verge of
the Korean War. (Boose, 1996) The influence of China, which gave aid to North Korea during the
Korean War, went unnoticed in the studies. The aid that was given to North Korea might have been a
way to influence it in terms of its culture and institutional decisions. China’s giving of aid to North
Korea, which is continuing up until now based on different news reported by the media, might be a
way for them to have access, control and to interfere to many political decisions as well as aspects of
North Korea. It is proposed that this influence of China, which is an external actor be addressed and
researched upon more thoroughly to gather many other reasons that are contributing to the tension
between North and South Korea.

In general, combining all the aspects, the main research gaps that were found had to do with
the discussion of the internal and external actors. The works weren’t able to discuss the roles of the
internal and external actors properly which in this case means the leaders of North and South Korea,
as well as the influences and roles of the US, USSR (now Russia) and China which are external
actor.

The importance of internal and external actors (Conclusion)

The main objective of this review is to suggest a future topic and focus on research with
regards to the tension between the two Koreas. Looking at the classification of the works done in the
14
previous sections, the role of internal and external actors such as the US, Russia and the leader of
both North and South Korea were not thoroughly discussed. There are some works which mentioned
the role of the current leader of North Korea but the mentioning of this issue was very vague and still
fails to address the issue about the internal actors with regards to the tension between the two Koreas.
With regards to external actors, most of the studies also failed to tackle the issues which
concern the influences of these actors like in the case of Korea, the US and USSR (now Russia).
Authors usually mention them but they neglect to discuss the main contributions of these actors in
the formation of the thinking of the people they rule over with.

As mentioned and illustrated from the previous description, the role of internal and external
actors, especially China as an external actor can also be a possible research topic and a research focus
in the future. The role of these actors should be given more importance. Although their roles were
mentioned in the literature that were reviewed, there has not been a study which entirely focuses on
this kind of topic and on how these actors are able to contribute to the growing tension between
North and South Korea.

15