Institute For Peace And Unification Studies

본고의 목적은 이론적 연구를 통해 대안적 국제정치경제학 이론의 유의성을 비판적으로 검토, 현재의 미중 갈등 상황 하 한국이 궁극적으로 추구해야 할 평화와 통일을 실현하기 위한 단초를 모색하는데 있다. 그리고 본 연구 결과, 본고는 한국문제를 해석할 이론의 존재론적 전회의 필요성을 제시한다. 미중 통상갈등으로 외화 되는 미국 패권 쇠퇴는 한국에게 미중 양자택일을 강요로 이어지고 있다. 이는 세계 평화와 한반도 평화가 비대칭적 상황임을 보여주는 것으로 본고는 이에 대한 문제제기와 해답의 추구과정일 것이며, 이것이 본고의 유의성과 시의성이다. 본고는 대부분 논의가 패권 불안정성이 전쟁 가능성으로 해석되고, 미국 패권의 안정을 지향하는 이론적 속성을 폭로해 내고, 이에 대한 반박과 국제질서의 역동적 해석을 통해 질서 변화 가능성의 이론적 타당성을 이론의 존재론적 전회에서 찾는다. 이를 위해 본 고는 주류 국제정치경제학 이론을 비판적으로 검토, 즉 패권 안정적 속성을 지닌 인식론적 토대의 주류이론에 대해 비판적으로 살펴보고, 그 대안으로 네오그람시주의의 가능성을 비판적으로 검토하고, 이를 기반으로 미국 패권을 분석해 본다. 결론에서는 앞선 논의를 기반으로 한반도가 마주한 현실을 재해석하고 이를 극복하기 위한 단초를 찾아본다.
The purpose of this article is that in order to realize the peace in the Korean Peninsula, the article attempts to criticize the mainstream theories and examine an alternative theory such as neo-Gramscianist approach in the field of international political economy. This attempt will show the crews what Korean Question should be analyzed by, and how ontological turn of Korean Question is crucial to establish the peace in Korean Peninsula. In this sense, this study will be significant, especially under the situation, the US and China are competing in the all of the fields. In the 1980s, in order to avoid the decline of US hegemony, the US attempted to drive neo-liberal economic policies toward the world, and it helps to reinforce US hegemony. The US' reactions to the challenges in 1970s, is similar to recent trade tension between the US and China. This shows this theoretical discussion about the hegemonic conflicts will be meaningful. Thus, the research examines the mainstream discussion of international political economy, especially focusing on searching a significant theoretical framework from the field.

본고의 목적은 한국문제에 대한 질서 중심적 이해로부터의 탈피 가능성을 비판적으로 검토해 보며, 이에 대한 대안으로 영국학파의 국제사회론과 그 중에서도 질서와 정의의 긴장을 통한 한국문제에 대한 재이해의 유의미성을 살펴보는데 있다. 그 동안 한반도를 둘러싼 제 문제들은 강대국들 간 패권경쟁과 함께 역사적으로 구성되어 왔다는 점에서 (신)현실주의와 같은 질서의 안정을 추구하는 이론이 주류적 관점으로 자리잡고 있다. 그러나 이런 질서 중심적 접근은 세력균형을 추구하다 보니 구조적으로 강대국들의 관점을 대변할 수밖에 없으며, 동시에 한국문제 당사국들은 객체화시키고 배제시킨다. 이는 한국문제에 있어 당사자-패권국 간의 불균형과 불공평함을 발생시켜 평화로의 진전 보다는 지배적 질서로의 편입, 종속을 강화시킬 수밖에 없다. 본고는 이런 질서 중심적 관점의 한계에 주목하고, 이를 극복하기 위한 존재론적 전환으로 영국학파 이론에서 질서-정의의 긴장 개념을 통한 한국문제 재구성을 시도한다. 질서 중심의 한국문제 이해는 국제질서 안정을 위한 한국문제의 관리에 초점을 두고 결국 한국의 주체적 해결의지는 배제될 수 밖에 없으나, 질서-정의 간 긴장을 통한 이해는 한국문제를 강대국 질서와 이를 정당화하기 위한 정의 간의 관계로 재구성시킴으로써 강대국-한국 간의 상호 주관성을 통해 한국문제를 재구성할 수 있을 가능성을 제공한다. 이는 한국문제의 당사자에 의한  주체적 해결 가능성을 가진다는 점에서 유의미한 논의가 될 것이다.

The article attempts to critically examine the possibility of breaking away from the hegemonic order-based understanding of the Korean Question. Taking an alternative approach, it explores the "English School" of international relations theory, delving in particular into the significance of re-understanding Korean issues through the tension between order and justice. Given that the Korean peninsula issues have historically been structured around the competition for dominance among major powers, theories that pursue the stability of hegemonic order such as neorealism have become the mainstream perspective. However, the problem with this order-based approach is that in its pursuit of balance of power, it is left with no choice but to represent dominant countries' viewpoints. At the same time, the truly relevant parties to Korean issues are objectified and excluded. It creates an imbalance and inequality between the relevant parties and the hegemonic powers with regard to Korean affairs, thereby strengthening the process of integration and subordination into the dominant order, rather than progressing toward regional peace. Therefore, the research attempts to reconstruct Korean issues through the notion of the order-justice tension in the English School of international relations in what is an existential transformation that seeks to overcome the limitations of the current order-centric paradigm. The current hegemonic order-centric understanding of Korean issues focuses on managing Korean issues to stabilize the international order. It inevitably rules out Korea’s self-determination to resolve its problems. In contrast, the research’s attempt at understanding the tension between order and justice offers the possibility of Korean restructuring issues through the inter-subjectivity between Korea and the hegemonic powers by reconstructing the issues into the relationship between the hegemonic order and the justice to legitimate the hegemonic. It will be a meaningful discussion as it is indicative of the potential for self-initiated resolution by the rightful stakeholders in the Korean issues.

본고는 국제정치학 이론의 서구 중심성의 탈피 가능성을 가늠한데 그 목적이 있다. 본고는국제정치이론에 있어 서구 중심성을 두 가지 차원에서 이해하는데, 하나는 질서 유지적 속성그리고 다른 하나는 서구 경험의 일반화가 그것이다. 그리고 전자의 속성을 지닌 이론들을 신현실/자유주의 등 주류이론이 주로 지니고 있으며, 후자의 경우는 그 밖의 1세대 영국학파 이론가들의 연구에서 나타난다. 그러나 전자의 경우, 존재론의 부재와 인식론적 과신으로 인해서구 중심성의 극복은 커녕, 그 인식 조차 부재하다. 그에 비해 존재론적 토대를 지닌 후자의경우에는 비서구적 재구성의 가능성을 가지고 있다. 그런 점에서 영국학파 이론의 서구 중심성으로부터의 탈피를 위한 몇 가지 이론적 틀인‘유럽국제사회 팽창’ 그리고 새로운 ‘문명의 기준’ 등은 유의미한 시도라 할 수 있다. 그러나본고는 여기에 그치지 않고 이러한 시도가 지닌 본질적 문제, 즉 지적(知的) 서양으로부터 자유롭지 못한 존재론적 고민에 주목했다. 그리고 이런 지적 서양을 극복하기 위한 몇 가지 가능성을 영국학파가 지닌 역사사회학적 방법론적 유의성과 국가의 국제 행위로부터의 탈피와문명간 관계에 대한 주목, 나아가 비교사상사적 접근 등에서 찾아보았다. 본 연구는 영국학파 이론의 서구 중심적 개념들을 존재론적으로 재해석 및 재구성함으로써영국학파가 지닌 서구 중심적 속성의 한계의 극복하고 이론이 지닌 유의미성을 되살렸다는점에서 유의미한 시도이며, 이런 시도는 한국적 국제정치 이론(Korean School)의 수립의 실마리를 제공할 수 있을 것이라는 점에서 유의미하다.

This paper considers the possibility of moving away from West-centered perspectives in international political theory, construing West-centeredness in this theory on two levels: the tendency to maintain order and generalization of the Western experience. The previous characteristics are found in mainstream theories, while the latter appears in the works of other first-generation English school theorists. However, in the former, far from overcoming West-centeredness, the absence of ontology and epistemological overconfidence has led to a lack of realization; in contrast, the latter has the potential for non-Western reconstruction due to its ontological foundation. In this regard, it is a meaningful approach to reinterpret the English school theory: theoretical frameworks that are “expansion of international society” and “standards of civilization” that depart from the standard pattern of Western-centered views. However, the paper also focuses on the fundamental problem in these attempts, namely ontological concerns according to which we are not free from the Western intellectual tradition. As possibilities for overcoming this tradition, this paper examines the historical-sociological and methodological significance of the English school, departure of the state from international behaviors, attention to relations between civilizations, and comparativehistorical approaches. Drawing on the perspective above, the contribution of the research is to consider the possibility of diverse perspectives that only centered on the Western characteristic based on the ontological reconstruction of the English school theory. By extension, the research also provides clues for the Korea’s international political theory by breaking away from the West-centered and order-maintaining theory.

본고의 목적은 안보 개념 변화에 따른 경제적 통치술(economic statecraft) 의 위상변화를 살펴보고, 경제 안보적 요소인 희토류 문제를 중심으로 중국의 통치술의 진화와 발전에 대해 검토하는 것이다. 이를 위해 본고는 신흥안보의 관점에서 경제적 통치술의 안보적 연계성을 해석하고, 중국의 통치술이 어떻게 발전했는지를 살펴봤다. 신흥안보 등의 복잡 네트워크화 되어가는 안보개념을 상정하되, 이에 대한 정치경제학적 분석을 전제한다는 점에서 진화된 시도이다. 최근 미중 전략경쟁에서 구사되는 제재-보상 형태의 통치술이 군사적 대립보다 우선되고, 나아가 대립의 중심에서 IPEF, Chip4등의 형태로 사활적으로 구사되고 있다는 점은 그 중요성을 대변한다. 안보적 개념으로서의 통치술 발전을 중국의 희토류 금수조치사례 전후를 비교하며 그 발전과 진화를 살펴보았다. 이는 단편적인 자원 민족주의적 현실주의 분석에서 한 발 더 나아간 해석이라는 점에서 유의미하다. 무엇보다, 선진국을 대상한 제재의 통치술이라는 점은 향후 미중 간 전략적 경쟁에서 미국에 대해 중국이 어떻게 대응지 그 방향성을 가늠할 수 있다는 점에서 중요한 논의가 될 것이다.

The purpose of this study is that to examine the changes in the status of economic statecraft based on the concept of security and reviews the evolution of Chinese statecraft, focusing on rare earths. For the purpose of this study, the paper interprets the security linkage of economic statecraft through the concept of emerging security, and examines how China's economic statecraft has been developed. The development of economic statecraft as the emerging security based on the approach of political economy was examined by comparing the before and after of China's rare
earth export restriction. It takes a step forward from a fragmentary resource-nationalist realist understanding. Above all, the economic statecraft of sanctions against developed countries will be an important discussion how China will respond to the U.S in the strategic competition of them.

This study aims to diagnose the current state of the Korean Peninsula by
examining the transitional international order. The strategic competition
between the United States and China and military conflicts such as the war in
Ukraine and the war in Israel are raising fundamental questions about the
liberal international order that has dominated the post-war order and the
leadership of the United States in leading it. The U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy
can be understood as a response to those challenges ahead. The problem is
that the Korean Peninsula has been caught in the magnetic field of this grand
strategy (trilateral cooperation between the United States, South Korea, and
Japan). Yun Suk-yeol administration’s Korean version of the Indo-Pacific
Strategy, along with the Value Alliance Doctrine, was intended to counter
North Korea’s nuclear weapons development programme, but the magnetic
field pushed it into a realm beyond its control, bringing China, Russia and
North Korea closer together and perpetuating the Korean Question. In order
to escape the magnetic field of great power rivalry, this article shed light on
the imagination to abandon factional epistemologies and establish new
non-aligned spaces.

The crisis of the liberal international order, initiated by the 2008
Financial Crisis in the United States, marked the onset of U.S.
hegemonic decline. Consequently, China's ascension introduced a rift
in the structure of U.S. hegemony, giving rise to the 'New Cold
War' global order. This transformation was concretized by
Russia's subsequent invasion of Ukraine. Primarily, the prevailing
sense of crisis resonates throughout the Western world, as the
invasion profoundly challenged the military security of the EU.
Thus, this study examines the national security policies of the EU
in response to those changes of international order. EU defines
their security concept as the normative power such as "civilian
power" founded on the economic superiority and supplemented by
intergovernmentalism in terms of military security. However, the
Brexit and NATO's "brain death" after Cold War but also Ukraine
war have left the EU recognition of the military-security vacuum.
In the regard, EU faces on the challenge how EU compel UK and
NATO involve into the unstable European international order. It is
important to understand next hegemonic international order.

The purpose of this study is to examine non-Western international relations theory (IRT) and explore, at the theoretical level, the potential for epistemological autonomy from the confines of Western-centered epistemology prevalent in existing IRT. As a consequence, the non-Western world, subjected to colonialist expansion and modernization and often regarded as merely the leaves, has been relegated to a passive role within the international system, becoming a disengaged object of little interest. However, what has existed cannot be entirely erased. While it is undeniable that international politics was predominantly developed based on a Westerncentric epistemology, other ancient civilizations had diverse international systems and orders that molded their identities as regional international societies. Consequently, the study provides a crucial backdrop for theoretical endeavors aimed at integrating the voices and experiences of the Global South into IRT, which has traditionally been dominated by Western perspectives. This study seeks to explore the potential for transcending Western intellectual hegemony by critiquing the limitations of a singular worldview and expanding and transforming the English School Theory (EST). It seeks to investigate the possibility of moving beyond Westerncentricity in international relations theory by conducting a historical comparison of civilizations across countries and the associated disciplines within civilizations as a field.

The purpose of this study is to explore what political and ethical priorities should be in the aftermath of a war.
The Russia-Ukraine war and Israel's operations against Hamas in Gaza has amplified the calls for the norms of war. In fact, the conflict between norms, state reason, and rational self-help actions reveals the duality of norms, explaining the inseparability of power. The culmination of this process ends with the victor's declaration of post-war justice. However, paradoxically, the recovery of the war victims' damages is also only achievable through post-war justice. Some argue that the restoration of victims' damages is only possible through the punishment of war crimes, and thus the victors seek to justify the war by promoting reconciliation to avoid this. However, this paper argues that post-war justice is rather established by the coexistence of punishment and reconciliation. This research is significant in that it considers the fragments of envisioning a just peace after the war while the war is still ongoing. Additionally, discussing post-war justice rather than the legitimacy of current wars adds to the study's contributions.

The purpose of this study is to find an alternative theory and to critically review significance and limitations of mainstream theories in international politics under the transnational crisis such as climate crisis. This article reviews existing theories including constructivism through a meta-theoretical approach and analyses ontological transition. This study seeks an alternative theory to overcome positivist mainstream theories, constructivism and the state-centric approach. This study suggests planetary politics as an alternative. The Anthropocene itself is valuable in international politics because of its ontological transition. However, its colonial limitations are a challenge.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of postcolonial critical international development studies by critiquing the power dynamics and Eurocentrism inherent in international development research. Through an examination of the South Korean case, this study critically reviews the biases and reproduction of Eurocentrism in international development knowledge and engages in a critical discourse on postcolonial critical international development studies within the Korean context. Historically, with the expansion of European international society, a dichotomy between civilization and barbarism was established, distinguishing the West from "the rest." This hierarchical relationship has persisted even after the end of colonialism, manifesting in the division between developed and underdeveloped countries, or donor and recipient nations, mediated through the concept of "development." Although South-South cooperation has been proposed as an alternative, it faces numerous limitations. Initially, South Korea expanded its development cooperation initiatives by emphasizing its shared experiences of poverty and colonialism with other countries in the Global South and its potential for successful development. However, the emphasis on homogeneity and the successful development model has, paradoxically, facilitated the natural dissemination of the international system established by the West. This has conferred a sense of nationalistic superiority through exceptional achievements and led to the politicization and impoverishment of knowledge in South Korea's state-led knowledge-sharing projects. Despite the political and economic rise of the Global South, the increasing number of failures in South-South cooperation and the growing resistance against these failures underscore the need for critical reflection in South Korea's international development research. This necessitates the adoption of postcolonialism and the critical reconstruction of the dominant international order as essential values for meaningful discourse.

This study aims to propose an alternative theoretical framework prioritizing ontology over epistemology within International Political Economy (IPE). By critiquing mainstream epistemological theories, it seeks to reinterpret American hegemony to explore paths towards peace and unification amidst the conflicts between the United States and China, which are particularly pertinent to Korea. The study highlights the dissolution of boundaries between international politics and economics, illustrating hegemony's formation through their interrelation. Especially focus on the ontological turn in international political economy theories, focusing on the limitations of hegemonic stability theory and similar problem-solving theories due to their socio-political ahistoricism. It emphasizes the significance of Neo-Gramscianism, which challenges the traditional paradigms by linking state and society through the dialectical interconnection of production, power, and world order. This perspective allows for a dynamic understanding of the international system, moving beyond stability to embrace the potential for change. The document also critiques the mainstream theories for their epistemological dominance and highlights the need for an ontological shift to understand the international order more comprehensively.

I. Introduction Some of scholars suggests that the current conflict between the liberal and authoritarian camps may be seen as a precursor to a "new" Cold War or even a Third World War (Juergensmeyer, 2023). The Russia-Ukraine war has made this situation more visible, and amidst the growing anxiety due to the long-term global economic stagnation, this anxiety evokes a strong sense of déjà vu. However, this sense of familiarity cannot be dismissed solely as negative, since history can present itself anew in different contexts (Leffler, 2019; Brands and Gaddis, 2021). Above all, the violence of our current era is more complex than that of the past. In other words, it is not as clear-cut as the Cold War conflicts of the past. The confrontational framework between liberalism and authoritarianism is merely justifying and normalizing the conflict through liberal norms and their arbitrary interpretation (Yi, 2022b; Yi, 2022a). Human instrumental reason continues to deteriorate in extreme situations. Moreover, the Cold War memories, resurrected by the 'nuclear threat', lead us into a period of confusion and chaos. This does not only refer to the Ukraine war on the other side of the globe; tensions surrounding the Korean Peninsula are also consistently escalating. The 2008 Kumgang Mountain shooting incident and the 2010 Cheonan and Yeonpyeong incidents significantly restricted inter-Korean exchanges and led to a frozen state of inter-Korean relations. In effect, both governmental and civilian exchanges between the two Koreas were virtually suspended. Over the next decade, the situation worsened. Although three inter-Korean summits in 2018 generated momentum for peace on the Korean Peninsula, the situation has continued to deteriorate since the Hanoi US-North Korea summit. Particularly under the new government, a substantial number of missiles, unprecedented even compared to the past, have been launched into the East Sea and the West Sea, and for the first time since the Korean War, beyond the Northern Limit Line (NLL) to the south. Upcoming US-South Korea or US-South Korea-Japan military exercises and North Korea's "proportional response" seem unlikely to cease and are expected to intensify. In response, nuclear armament is becoming a discourse in South Korean politics, and the United States is strengthening alliances and implementing measures that press China under the guise of targeting North Korea. The annulment of the September 19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration has rendered the peace roadmap envisioned in the Pyongyang Joint Declaration a mirage. In this context, it seems that all momentum for inter-Korean dialogue has been exhausted. Thus, questions such as "Is peace possible?" and "What can be done to achieve it?" seem to be mere deep sighs. However, transforming these lamentations into 'admiration' is the destiny of political science. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the issues surrounding tensions on the Korean Peninsula and assess their limitations through an epistemological reconstruction of peace to explore the diversification of subjects. By evaluating concrete empirical measures to overcome the limitations of current discussions, it seeks to provide theoretical grounds for attempts and alternatives. It is undeniable that the absence of discussions on subjectepistemology has restricted the issue of inter-Korean exchange to debates over 'means' and

This paper evaluates the relevance of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice in addressing justice within the Anthropocene, focusing on climate change. The Anthropocene marks a period of significant human impact on ecosystems, highlighted by the Trinity Test and the Great Acceleration. The study examines three policy paths: sustainable development, a steady-state economy, and degrowth. While Rawls's influence on political theory is undeniable, critiques by Katrina Forrester suggest his framework may overlook crucial issues like power dynamics. This paper argues for the continued relevance of Rawls's focus on moral psychology and motivation, particularly in intergenerational justice. It narrows the scope to motivations for caring about future generations and reassesses Rawls's assumptions about economic growth. Through the concept of "theodicy of difference," it challenges the notion that Rawls presupposed growth, ultimately supporting the applicability of his theory in contemporary environmental discussions.

This study explores the decline of American hegemony, which dominated the latter half of the 20th century following the United States' emergence as a global leader post-World War II. Despite unprecedented economic prosperity and military dominance, the United States' hegemonic status began to face skepticism in the 1970s due to global recession and disillusionment with American-style liberalism. The 1985 announcement of the US as a debtor nation marked the beginning of a perceived decline in American economic power. Although the 1990s economic boom provided temporary optimism, subsequent economic challenges and the 2008 financial crisis reignited debates about the sustainability of the American-led neoliberal order. This study critically evaluates the ideological foundations of American hegemony and questions the stability of the neoliberal international order that has shaped global governance since the late 20th century.

This article investigates the growing use of robots and automation in military operations, emphasizing the ethical challenges posed to international humanitarian law. The Iraq War marked a key shift, transforming robots from tools viewed skeptically to vital military assets. By 2006, robots had executed over 30,000 missions, and demand for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) surged. These technologies span military branches, including the navy's use of unmanned submarines. The focus is on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), which can independently make combat decisions. Nations like the U.S., China, and Russia are advancing LAWS, raising ethical concerns about autonomous warfare. The study aims to clarify issues surrounding LAWS, examine international arms control discourse, and propose regulatory strategies. Key areas of discussion include defining LAWS, reviewing debates under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), addressing regulatory challenges, and suggesting regulation methods for dual-use technology weapons. The article stresses the need for preemptive arms control to limit LAWS development and anticipates future ethical and military landscapes shaped by these technologies. It calls for aligning future LAWS regulations with existing frameworks to manage their impact effectively.

Emerging technology has gained prominence in U.S. export controls, particularly following the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) and the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). Influenced by China's draft Export Control Law, these measures underscore a technological rivalry between the U.S. and China dating back to the 1970s. This paper reviews the historical and current U.S. export control systems and U.S.-China relations.
The U.S. approach balances national security with economic interests, evolving from Cold War-era policies to recent unilateral measures on emerging technologies. The re-legislation of ECRA in 2018 marks a
strategic shift, highlighting China as a key competitor. This legislation aims to enhance control over advanced technologies, reflecting the U.S.'s commitment to maintaining technological leadership and national security amidst global challenges.

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, marked by Russia's military invasion, has now entered its second year, with no apparent resolution in sight. A notable aspect of this war is the active discourse and legal proceedings concerning war crimes, with both Russia and Ukraine accusing each other and prosecuting opposing soldiers. The international community is also engaged in addressing not only war crimes but also the legality of the conflict itself, utilizing various platforms such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC initiated an investigation shortly after the invasion and issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin on war crimes charges. These developments reflect the strengthening of international humanitarian and human rights norms and underscore the heightened expectation for justice in the context of war crimes. Concurrently, discussions are underway regarding potential 'exit strategies' for a ceasefire. While some argue that war crime prosecutions might hinder ceasefire efforts, historical precedents suggest that such prosecutions can be integral to post-conflict stability. This paper explores the role of war crime prosecutions within exit strategies, positing that these prosecutions are crucial for the transition from military conflict to peace. By examining historical cases, such as the Nuremberg Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the paper aims to refine the concept of exit strategies and expand policy options by highlighting the strategic objectives shared between ending conflicts and establishing long-term peace.

China, as the world's second-largest economy, contrasts its economic power with the modest international status of its currency, the renminbi (RMB). Despite the declining dominance of the U.S. dollar, the RMB lags behind the euro, pound sterling, and yen. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, was anticipated to boost RMB internationalization through significant global infrastructure investments. Yet, a decade later, the RMB's global status remains limited. This study explores the BRI's impact on RMB internationalization, beginning from the post-2008 financial crisis period when efforts intensified. Utilizing recently collected comprehensive data, the research examines RMB flows domestically and internationally, finding minimal offshore net outflows. The study highlights China's strategic caution, balancing RMB inflow and outflow while prioritizing capital control, despite public rhetoric supporting RMB internationalization.