imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2026-17-1-51-78imi-690Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESВнешнеполитическая стратегия Республики Корея в рамках «Кэмп-Дэвидского треугольника» в 2023–2025 гг. и интеграция Сеула в «решетчатую» архитектуру безопасности в АТРThe Republic of Korea’s Foreign Policy Strategy Within the “Camp David Triangle” in 2023—2025 and Seoul’s Integration into the Emerging US-Led “Latticework” Security Architecture in the Asia-Pacific RegionКозловаД. Н.KozlovaD. N.

Дарья Николаевна Козлова – аспирант

117997, Москва, Нахимовский проспект, 32

Daria N. Kozlova – PhD student

32, Nakhimovsky avenue, Moscow, 117997

dn.kozlova@gmail.comИнститут Китая и современной Азии Российской академии наукРоссияInstitute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russia Academy of SciencesRussian Federation2026210520261715178Copyright © Козлова Д.Н., 20262026Козлова Д.Н.Kozlova D.N.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/690

Статья посвящена интеграции Республики Корея в формирующуюся «решетчатую» (latticework) архитектуру безопасности в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе под эгидой Вашингтона. Основное внимание уделяется институционализации «КэмпДэвидского треугольника» (США, Южная Корея, Япония) как одного из ключевых элементов сети минилатеральных объединений, призванной дополнить традиционную систему двусторонних альянсов («ось и спицы»). Задачи исследования включают: анализ сближения Южной Кореи и Японии вопреки сохраняющимся историческим противоречиям; оценку роли и мотивов Сеула в новой структуре; анализ потенциальной устойчивости «решетчатой» архитектуры; прогнозирование шагов США и их партнеров в регионе. Методологической основой исследования альянсов служит модель «перспектива – угроза», объясняющая готовность государств идти на большие риски и уступки при росте воспринимаемых угроз. Для анализа динамики сотрудничества применяется гипотеза Б. Немета о синергии структурных и ситуативных факторов. Автор статьи приходит к выводу, что устойчивость «Кэмп-Дэвидского треугольника» остается под вопросом из-за нерешенных исторических противоречий и зависимости от ситуативных факторов. Однако особенность новой «решетчатой» архитектуры безопасности заключается в гибкости, которая позволяет ей адаптироваться и переживать периоды спада.

The article analyzes the integration of the Republic of Korea into the emerging US-led “latticework” security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region. It focuses on the institutionalization of the “Camp David Triangle” (US–South Korea–Japan) as a key element within a network of minilateral partnerships designed to supplement the traditional “hub-and-spokes” system of bilateral alliances. The article’s objectives include: identifying the reasons for the rapprochement between South Korea and Japan despite persistent historical tensions; assessing Seoul’s role and motives within the new structure; analyzing the potential sustainability of the “latticework” architecture; and forecasting the next steps for the US and its regional partners. The methodological framework of the study relies on the “prospect – threat” alliance model, which explains a state’s willingness to accept greater risks and concessions in response to heightened perceived threats. Bence Nemeth’s hypothesis on the synergy of structural and situational factors is also applied to analyze the dynamics of cooperation. As a result, the author concludes that the sustainability of the “Camp David Triangle” remains questionable due to unresolved historical contradictions and its dependence on situational factors. However, a distinctive feature of the new “latticework” security architecture is its flexibility, which allows it to adapt and weather periods of reduced activity.

«решетчатая» архитектура безопасности«Кэмп-Дэвидский треугольник»Индо-Тихоокеанская «четверка»Индо-Тихоокеанская стратегия СШАРеспублика КореяАзиатско-Тихоокеанский регионИндо-Тихоокеанская стратегия Республики Кореяinternational relations“latticework” security architectureCamp David TriangleUS Indo-Pacific strategyRepublic of KoreaAsia-Pacific FourIndo-Pacific strategy of the Republic of Koreathe Asia-Pacific regionReferencesБогатуров, А.Д. Среда против лидеров. «Пространственная структура» самоорганизации международных отношений в Восточной Азии // Очерки теории и методологии политического анализа международных отношений / под ред. А.Д. Богатурова, Н.А. Косолапова, М.А. Хрусталева. М.: Научно-образовательный форум по международным отношениям, 2002. С. 266–282.Bogaturov, Alexey D. “Sreda protiv liderov. ‘Prostranstvennaya struktura’ samoorganizatsii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii v Vostochnoi Azii.” In Ocherki teorii i metodologii politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy, edited by Alexey D. Bogaturov, Nikolay A. Kosolapov, and Mark A. Khrustalev, 266–282. Moscow: Nauchno-obrazovatel’nyy forum po mezhdunarodnym otnosheniyam, 2002 [In Russian].Волощак, В.И. Позиции Республики Корея и Японии по институционализации военно-политического сотрудничества в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе // Известия Восточного института. 2024. № 3. С. 150–161. https://doi.org/10.24866/2542-1611/2024-3/150-161.Voloshchak, Valentin I. “Republic of Korea’s and Japan’s Stance on Defense Cooperation Institutionalization in the Asia Pacific.” Oriental Institute Journal, no. 3 (2024): 150–161 [In Russian].Истомин, И.А., Байков, А.А. Динамика международных альянсов в неравновесной мировой системе // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2019. Т. 63. № 1. С. 34–48. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-1-34-48.Istomin, Igor A., and Andrey A. Baykov. “Dynamics of International Alliances in an Unbalanced World Structure.” World Economy and International Relations 63, no. 1 (2019): 34–48 [In Russian].Кистанов, В.О. Треугольник Япония – США – Южная Корея: насколько прочным окажется новый альянс? // Проблемы Дальнего Востока. 2024. № 2. С. 7–20. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0131281224020018.Kistanov, Valerii O. “Japan – US – South Korea Triangle: How Strong Will the New Alliance Be?” Far Eastern Affairs, no. 2 (2024): 7–20 [In Russian].Крячкина, Ю.А. Роль и интересы Японии в многосторонних форматах в сфере безопасности в АТР // Проблемы национальной стратегии. 2024. № 2. С. 204–223. https://doi.org/10.52311/2079-3359_2024_2_204.Kryachkina, Yuliya A. “Japan’s Role and Interests in Multilateral Security Formats in the Asia-Pacific Region.” National Strategy Issues, no. 2 (2024): 204–223 [In Russian].Толорая, Г.Д. Обострение глобального противоборства в Северо-Восточной Азии и проблема геополитических треугольников: роль РФ, Китая и КНДР // Современные проблемы Корейского полуострова. 2025. № 1. С. 44–53. https://doi.org/10.48647/ICCA.2025.86.62.005.Toloraya, Georgiy D. “The Aggravation of Global Confrontation in Northeast Asia and the Problem of Geopolitical ‘Triangles’: The Role of the Russian Federation, China, and the DPRK.” Korean Peninsula: Current Issues, no. 1 (2025): 44–53 [In Russian].Cha, Victor. Alignment Despite Antagonism: The US – Korea – Japan Security Triangle. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999.Cha, Victor. Alignment Despite Antagonism: The US – Korea – Japan Security Triangle. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999.Cha, Victor. Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.Cha, Victor. Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.Easley, Leif-Eric. “Korean NGOs and Reconciliation with Japan.” Journal of East Asian Studies 23, no. 1 (2023): 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2022.21.Easley, Leif-Eric. “Korean NGOs and Reconciliation with Japan.” Journal of East Asian Studies 23, no. 1 (2023): 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2022.21.Friedberg, Aaron L. “Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia.” International Security 18, no. 3 (1994): 5–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539204.Friedberg, Aaron L. “Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia.” International Security 18, no. 3 (1994): 5–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539204.He, Kai. “Rethinking East Asian Peace: The Perils of Over-Deterrence and Minilateralism.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 79, no. 2 (2025): 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2025.2459314.He, Kai. “Rethinking East Asian Peace: The Perils of Over-Deterrence and Minilateralism.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 79, no. 2 (2025): 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2025.2459314.He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. “‘Why Is There No NATO in Asia?’ Revisited: Prospect Theory, Balance of Threat, and US Alliance Strategies.” European Journal of International Relations 18, no. 2 (2012): 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110377124.He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. “‘Why Is There No NATO in Asia?’ Revisited: Prospect Theory, Balance of Threat, and US Alliance Strategies.” European Journal of International Relations 18, no. 2 (2012): 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110377124.Hemmer, Christopher, and Peter J. Katzenstein. “Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism.” International Organization 56, no. 3 (2002): 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081802760199890.Hemmer, Christopher, and Peter J. Katzenstein. “Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism.” International Organization 56, no. 3 (2002): 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081802760199890.Hornat, Jan. “Вeyond the Hub and Spokes: The Networking Logic and the Operationalization of US Indo-Pacific Strategy.” Asian Affairs 54, no. 4 (2023): 647– 669. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2023.2275902.Hornat, Jan. “Вeyond the Hub and Spokes: The Networking Logic and the Operationalization of US Indo-Pacific Strategy.” Asian Affairs 54, no. 4 (2023): 647– 669. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2023.2275902.Ikenberry, Gilford J. “State Power and the Institutional Bargain: America’s Ambivalent Economic and Security Multilateralism.” In US Hegemony and International Organizations, edited by Rosemary Foot, Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno, 49–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Ikenberry, Gilford J. “State Power and the Institutional Bargain: America’s Ambivalent Economic and Security Multilateralism.” In US Hegemony and International Organizations, edited by Rosemary Foot, Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno, 49–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Jo, Wooyun, and Hwee-rhak Park. “Autonomy or Security? The Case of the US–South Korea Alliance Under Trump’s First Presidency.” East Asia (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-025-09460-4.Jo, Wooyun, and Hwee-rhak Park. “Autonomy or Security? The Case of the US–South Korea Alliance Under Trump’s First Presidency.” East Asia (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-025-09460-4.Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.Morrow, James. “Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliance.” American Journal of Political Science 35, no. 4 (1991): 904–933.Morrow, James. “Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliance.” American Journal of Political Science 35, no. 4 (1991): 904–933.Nemeth, Вence, and Saeme Kim. “South Korea and NATO: From Unlikely Companions to Key Partners.” International Affairs 100, no. 2 (2024): 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae007.Nemeth, Вence, and Saeme Kim. “South Korea and NATO: From Unlikely Companions to Key Partners.” International Affairs 100, no. 2 (2024): 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae007.Rozman, Gilbert. “China – South Korea – U.S. Relations.” In Joint U.S.–Korea Academic Studies, edited by Gilbert Rozman, 43–54. Princeton: Princeton University, 2014.Rozman, Gilbert. “China – South Korea – U.S. Relations.” In Joint U.S.–Korea Academic Studies, edited by Gilbert Rozman, 43–54. Princeton: Princeton University, 2014.Snyder, Glenn H. “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut.” Journal of International Affairs 44, no. 1 (1990): 103–123.Snyder, Glenn H. “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut.” Journal of International Affairs 44, no. 1 (1990): 103–123.Ward, Robert. “A Fragile Convergence: The US – Japan – South Korea Camp David Summit.” Survival 65, no. 5 (2023): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2023.2261241.Ward, Robert. “A Fragile Convergence: The US – Japan – South Korea Camp David Summit.” Survival 65, no. 5 (2023): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2023.2261241.Wilkins, Tomas S. “‘Alignment’, Not ‘Alliance’ – the Shifting Paradigm of International Security Cooperation: Toward a Conceptual Taxonomy of Alignment.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (2012): 53–76.Wilkins, Tomas S. “‘Alignment’, Not ‘Alliance’ – the Shifting Paradigm of International Security Cooperation: Toward a Conceptual Taxonomy of Alignment.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (2012): 53–76.Woodman, Stewart. “Beyond Armageddon? The Shape of Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.” In The New Security Agenda in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by Denny Roy, 81–95. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25701-0_7.Woodman, Stewart. “Beyond Armageddon? The Shape of Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.” In The New Security Agenda in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by Denny Roy, 81–95. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25701-0_7.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.