TEMPORAL SCOPE: 2017 – 2019 (from the escalation of rhetoric and missile tests through the Singapore and Hanoi summits and the subsequent diplomatic stalemate)
GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT: United States and North Korea (bilateral confrontation involving a nuclear-armed authoritarian regime, asymmetric power relations, and high regional and global security stakes)
Case Trigger & Political Problem #
Between 2017 and 2019, the United States shifted its approach toward North Korea from coercive pressure and deterrence signaling to unprecedented leader-to-leader diplomatic engagement.
This shift generated a political problem centered on how strategic decisions were made and coordinated in the absence of institutionalized negotiation frameworks.
The core issue concerned whether personalized leadership-driven diplomacy could manage nuclear risk and produce durable policy outcomes within existing nonproliferation institutions.
Case Overview #
This case is analytically relevant because it illustrates how foreign policy can be shaped by individual leadership style rather than by stable strategic doctrine.
It presents a decision-making problem under conditions of nuclear deterrence, high uncertainty, and asymmetric information, where symbolic actions and signaling played a central role.
The case highlights tensions between unconventional executive leadership and established bureaucratic and alliance-based policy processes.
Context & Constraints #
U.S. decision-making toward North Korea was constrained by long-standing nonproliferation commitments, alliance obligations to South Korea and Japan, and existing sanctions regimes.
Institutionally, diplomacy traditionally relied on multi-level negotiations and bureaucratic coordination, limiting unilateral executive flexibility.
Strategically, North Korea’s nuclear capability imposed deterrence constraints that narrowed credible military options while amplifying the importance of signaling.
Domestically, political polarization and presidential incentives for visible foreign policy achievements shaped the operating environment.
Key Actors #
President Donald Trump (United States)
- Interests: Reducing immediate conflict risk; demonstrating leadership effectiveness; achieving symbolic diplomatic success.
- Resources: Executive authority, agenda-setting power, media visibility.
- Constraints: Bureaucratic resistance, alliance expectations, institutionalized nonproliferation norms.
North Korean Leadership (Kim Jong Un)
- Interests: Regime survival; sanctions relief; international recognition as a nuclear power.
- Resources: Nuclear deterrent capability; centralized decision-making authority.
- Constraints: Economic vulnerability; dependence on external actors; limited trust in U.S. commitments.
U.S. Foreign Policy Bureaucracy (State Department, DoD, Intelligence Community)
- Interests: Policy consistency; risk management; institutional credibility.
- Resources: Expertise, operational capacity, alliance networks.
- Constraints: Limited control over presidential diplomacy; internal coordination challenges.
Regional Allies (South Korea, Japan)
- Interests: Stability, deterrence credibility, alliance assurance.
- Resources: Diplomatic influence, security cooperation.
- Constraints: Limited leverage over bilateral U.S.–North Korea engagement.
Critical Decision(s) #
The central strategic decision involved whether to prioritize coercive pressure or direct leader-level engagement.
Available options included maintaining sanctions-focused deterrence, pursuing incremental institutional negotiations, or engaging in high-level summit diplomacy without prior agreements.
Each option involved trade-offs between risk escalation, credibility, speed of engagement, and institutional sustainability.
The Trump administration opted for summit diplomacy, accepting ambiguity and uncertainty in exchange for potential rapid de-escalation and symbolic breakthroughs.
Theoretical Lens Applied #
Political Leadership & Decision-Making (Primary Lens) #
- Why it fits: The case centers on how presidential leadership style directly shaped foreign policy choices.
- Key concepts applied: Personalization of decision-making, risk acceptance, intuition-based judgment, leadership-driven agenda setting.
- Explanatory value: Explains abrupt strategic shifts, preference for summits, and tolerance for incomplete agreements.
Rational Choice Theory (Secondary Lens) #
- Why it fits: Both actors engaged in strategic signaling under deterrence conditions.
- Key concepts applied: Credibility, bargaining, signaling, cost-benefit calculation.
- Explanatory value: Clarifies why escalation stopped short of conflict and why bargaining reached stalemate.
Institutionalism (Supporting Lens) #
- Why it fits: Institutional constraints shaped implementation capacity and policy continuity.
- Key concepts applied: Institutional inertia, rule-bound processes, path dependence.
- Explanatory value: Explains why leader-driven initiatives struggled to translate into durable outcomes.
Outcomes & Consequences #
Immediate Effects:
- Reduction in rhetorical escalation and short-term conflict risk.
- Unprecedented diplomatic engagement at the leader level.
Medium-Term Effects:
- Diplomatic stalemate following the Hanoi summit.
- Persistence of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.
Intended and Unintended Consequences:
- Enhanced symbolic legitimacy for North Korea’s leadership.
- Limited progress toward institutionalized nonproliferation agreements.
- Increased tension between personalized diplomacy and bureaucratic policy processes.
Analytical Questions #
- How did personalization of diplomacy alter traditional deterrence dynamics?
- What institutional mechanisms could have reduced reliance on symbolic summits?
- Were alternative incremental negotiation strategies politically feasible?
- How did alliance constraints shape U.S. strategic options?
- Can leadership-driven diplomacy produce durable outcomes under nuclear deterrence?
