Explaining the Persistence of North Korea’s Missile Strategy

A Comparative IR Perspective

Abstract

North Korea’s investment in nuclear and missile capabilities despite sanctions and diplomacy presents a puzzle in international relations. This research note compares seven perspectives—Realism, Neorealism, Liberalism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, International Political Economy, the English School, and Constructivism—to examine North Korea’s missile behavior and responses. The comparison shows that persistence cannot be explained by security incentives alone. Material and structural conditions establish incentives for military development; institutions and economic networks mediate external pressure; and identities and norms shape its political interpretation. Realism and Neorealism best explain strategic pressures, while Liberalism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and IPE clarify the limits of sanctions and diplomatic cooperation. The English School and Constructivism illuminate how sovereignty, international order, and political identity give military capabilities broader meaning. The note argues that these perspectives are most useful when treated as analytically distinct. Their comparison shows how security incentives, institutional constraints, and political meanings sustain North Korea’s missile strategy.