Suchergebnisse

In this article I analyze double-layered power struggles from a power transition perspective. This study compares the case of global power transition between the US and China linked to a case of regional power transition between China and Japan. US–China relations in the global order have been more cooperative than China–Japan relations in the regional order since the beginning of this century. The question is about how the two cases interact with respect to each other. The first scenario shows that stability in the global order deters instability in the regional order. The US–China partnership stabilizes China–Japan conflictual relations. In this situation the US, China and Japan maintain status quo policies and regional order is stabilized. The second scenario is one in which instability in the regional order overwhelms stability in the global order. In this situation China and Japan accelerate their hegemonic struggles in Northeast Asia, and the US serves to mediate between China and Japan. The US should be making a decision as to what kind of diplomatic stance it will take to minimize the tension between China and Japan. The US must also make its own world strategy. China is more likely to be a status quo power in the global order, but a challenger in breaking down the status quo in Northeast Asia. However, the US role is critical in making this power transition stable or unstable.

The past year witnessed a broad range of cooperation between the US and Asian states. As tensions with China and Russia and threats from North Korea continued to mount, the Biden administration's strategic goal of a free and open Indo-Pacific gained ground in many Asian states, and strategic partnerships were formed based on various interests. The trilateral partnership between the US, South Korea, and Japan and deepening ties between the US and India were notable. While US–China relations deteriorated, there was a glimpse of positive adjustment in their competition. However, uncertainties and skepticism were raised regarding shared interests or values. Worries about the rise of a new Cold War intensified. The third year of the Biden administration continued to see persistent challenges to its Asia policy.

The articles in this special issue address such questions as: How do states approach global health issues? How have they utilized health diplomacy and for what purposes? What are the principal challenges? How do pandemics affect conflict, and vice versa? Has health diplomacy effectively addressed global health concerns particularly in conflict-torn societies? This special issue contributes to our understanding of pandemics, health diplomacy, and peace by highlighting issues associated with responses to global health issues and health diplomacy. The articles offer novel perspectives for analyzing the prospects for global health and security.

AbstractManganese removal at lower pH and sludge volume in settling ponds are some of the major issues affecting chemical treatment systems for mine drainage. First, Fe and Al existing in mine drainage coprecipitate with and/or adsorb Mn. Eight chemical treatment facilities were reviewed from literature and a pilot‐scale experiment was also conducted in the Daedeok mine in South Korea. The Mn/(Fe + Al) ratio revealed a positive linear relationship with the lowest pH at discharge, and regression lines were generated. This relationship may be used to predict the pH required to remove Mn considering coprecipitation/adsorption. Second, the ratios of the generation rate of sludge to the required settling volume at five semi‐active treatment facilities were evaluated from literature. This ratio is referred to as the sludge‐settling volume ratio, which can be used as one of the factors in deciding between semi‐active and active treatment systems.