Joan’s Case Study Essay Example

Case Summary

Williams syndrome is a rare disease, and the case centers on a woman struggling to handle the situation. The pregnant Joan is only 20 years old. Joan keeps living with her parents. At 20 weeks gestation, she learned that her unborn child would have Williams syndrome. Due to family duress, Joan has consulted with her physician about obtaining an abortion. In the end, Joan chooses to have the baby. Katrina is born with congenital cardiovascular problems, notably aortic constriction due to supra-valvular aortic stenosis (SVAS). Due to its severity, the medical staff has determined that surgical treatment of the SVAS is necessary. Joan’s parents take a keen interest in Katrina’s well-being and frequently accompany her to medical appointments at the hospital. They recently visited the facility without Joan and addressed a medical staff member to request Katrina’s medical records. Joan understands that people with William’s Syndrome often have cognitive impairments of varying degrees. She worries that Joan will have to make all of Katrina’s decisions for her when she gets older. She seeks legal guidance in light of the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act of 2015. A legal officer’s input on the different legal and ethical considerations involved in this case is essential for making the right choice.

Ethical and legal issues in Joan’s case

It is commonly acknowledged that choosing the best course of therapy for a patient requires considering ethical and legal issues (Johnstone, 2022). Healthcare professionals and doctors are more prone than ever to encounter challenging ethical conundrums due to the intricate nature of the current legal framework, the increasing recognition of human rights, and the tremendous breakthroughs in medical understanding. Several circumstances cause these ethical difficulties experienced by healthcare professionals. Laws have been enacted throughout human history to regulate health care delivery. The primary drive of medical oversight is to protect the public from quacks that are not correctly licensed or do not have their Patient’s best interests at heart. Healthcare professionals are at risk from personal and external factors. As healthcare becomes more sophisticated, medical professionals face more challenging moral and legal issues while determining the best treatment for their patients. The biggest worry is doctors’ mental strength to handle such situations.


Doctors and other medical professionals should respect patients’ autonomy and the importance of their moral judgments and values when providing care (Clark, 2019, p. 44). It is an invasion of personal freedom when someone is exploited for the benefit of others at the expense of their own needs and desires. A self-determined, rational individual can take the initiative and make decisions independently of other influences. Due to the autonomy principle, the nurses are ethically obligated to honor Joan’s request that her parents not be involved in Katrina’s treatment.

Instead of considering how the antipsychotics would affect their daughter Katrina’s health, Joan thinks her parents are only concerned with how they might be affected by living with her.

Trust in the healthcare providers making decisions on the Patient’s behalf is crucial for improving adherence. In this case, Joan’s parents blessed her to keep the pregnancy (Clark, 2019, p. 44). This problem and the accompanying stress have had devastating consequences for her. Since Joan believes her parents are forcing her to take the medications to kill the kid, her medical team must consider her input when making treatment decisions. Joan can decide who will provide care for Katrina, or she can make those decisions for herself. In addition to being the target of unplanned hospitalizations, Joan may already feel a loss of autonomy or disempowered since she believes no one knows the difficulties child care is causing her. Therapists must determine if Joan’s parents’ resistance to treatment stems from a sense of helplessness. She might be inclined to participate in therapy if she has more control over the process. Mental health doctors must discover less harmful psychotropic substitutes or other ways to lessen the side impacts of the drugs they recommended for Katrina.


People are more likely to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of those within them when they have a sense of morality (Butts et al., 2022). Every person has a moral duty to act in a way that helps others. Being kind means that you do things that are meant to make the lives of those around you better. If a doctor or other health care worker acts in the Patient’s best interest, this is seen as good behavior. A nurse’s main job is to keep and improve the health of their patients. When caring for individuals with suicidal thoughts, nurses and doctors who concentrate on mental health face similar challenges (O’Neill et al., 2022). As an application of the beneficence principle, Joan’s psychiatrist considered alternative options that would less impact Joan and Katrina. Katrina’s (who has SVAS) care should similarly be based on this principle. If it is in a patient’s best interests, they can be committed to treatment under the Mental Capacity Act. The only thing stopping Joan from getting therapy is his parents’ decision-making on his care. Removing Joan’s parents and incorporating Joan in decision-making over Katrina’s care, especially highlighting the need for his taking her meds, will likely improve the success of the therapy.


The non-maleficence principle includes a commitment to minimizing patient harm (Thom et al., 2022). Nurses working in mental health must protect their patients from harm. Medical personnel owes it to their patients to provide care that restores health and alleviates suffering as much as possible. The nurses and mental health professionals caring for Joan should consider allowing him to select a trusted third party to make decisions about his care. Mental health nurses must administer treatment under the Mental Capacity Act to prevent further harm to Joan because she has been confused and does not know the treatment.


According to this theory, everyone should be treated equally, and all accessible resources should be used equitably (Butts et al., 2022). How Joan applied this moral principle was appropriate. Since Joan is only 20, the psychiatrists recommending therapy for her child have given her free reign to make that decision. Experts in mental health care should also create treatments with minimal risk of adverse patient effects.


A healthcare professional cannot discuss a patient’s care with anybody else without the Patient’s consent. If a patient is not a danger to themselves or others, information regarding their treatment plan should be kept private. In this instance, Joan’s medical data access will be restricted to the person entrusted with raising Joan’s kid. To disclose Katrina’s illness to Katrina’s parents or anybody else, Joan must provide her consent.

Mental Health Law and Consent

For Youngsters, Patients at mental health facilities typically agree to be treated there or voluntarily check themselves in. Nevertheless, numerous reports of people being detained or forced to undergo mental health therapy are against their choice (Morris et al., 2020). People with psychological disorders must follow two different rules to get treatment and therapy. The Act of 2007 changed the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 and the Mental Health Act of 1983 (Butts et al., 2022). The Mental Health Act of 1983 (MHA) was passed to ensure that people with mental illness can be identified, treated, and protected by the law. This law provides a resource for individuals with mental health issues to learn more about their evaluation and treatment options, both in and out of institutional settings. The MHA ensures that procedures are in place to preserve the rights of patients even when they are detained or receiving medical care against their will at a hospital. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) stipulates that to make choices for another individual, and they must demonstrate their age (16 or older) and incapacity. These choices can entail situations that would severely curtail or even take away a person’s freedom.

According to the MHA, a patient can only be locked up if a doctor thinks her mental state makes her a danger to herself or others (Twite et al., 2019, p. 483). Medical staff may treat a held patient even if the patient does not consent. Legally and in reality, the person being held has the right to know why. The ethical dilemma that healthcare workers have to solve can be looked at through the lens of mental health laws. Joan initially refused medical assistance out of fear of adverse outcomes. She was counseled to undergo an abortion but persisted in her strenuous routine. It is possible that her father’s psychiatric medication influenced Joan’s decision to forego an abortion or because her parents disregarded her wishes to care for her unborn child. The MHA also allows therapy to be administered without a patient’s permission if doing so is in the Patient’s best interests. Nevertheless, Joan’s condition has changed due to her therapies.

The Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015

The President signed the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022 into law on December 17 of that year (Johnstone, 2022). For the 2015 Act to go into effect in its entirety, it required this amending legislation, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill 2022 (the Amendment Bill). The Amendment Bill was necessary to simplify procedures mandated by the 2015 Act and strengthen protections.

This Act has established a new legal framework for assisted decision-making. It creates new laws and provides valuable aid for those who may have trouble making decisions due to dementia, advanced age, mental illness, intellectual disability, or traumatic brain injury (Pesut et al., 2022, p. 152). Since it would provide more robust safeguards for vulnerable people regarding their decision-making capacity, this Act is a welcome replacement for the expiring Wardship System. The assumption of capacity is a crucial concept in the Act. Without proof, the Act treats every adult as having capacity. This safeguards against the blanket determination of incapacity among entire groups of people.

The Circuit Court is where the ADMC applications are filed. Supporting individuals and families through the assisted decision-making process is a novel approach. The decision-making person can ask someone to help collect, analyze, and use the data. One person making a choice can choose a co-decision maker (Johnstone, 2022). If an individual lacks the psychological capacity to make choices, the legal system will choose someone else to act on their behalf.

If the individual requires medical assistance but cannot express their wishes at the time, their advance medical order specifies the type of care they prefer. Once customers have completed the procedure, the Decision Support Service will provide more details, such as monitoring and assistance with drafting and filing these forms. The Act further states that any attempt to interfere with an individual’s liberties and freedoms should be made if required, to the extent necessary, and with as little interference as possible. A practical exam can assess a person’s capacity to take in information, process it, and appropriately present their conclusion. As a result, someone may be considered able to make a particular choice but not another. We commend the shift from the basic Wards of Court approach to more nuanced decision-making considering individual circumstances.

A two-stage functional model is outlined in the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 (MCA) to determine whether Joan has the mental capacity to make decisions on Katrina’s care. Mental health professionals must first examine the Patient’s mental state to determine if they are suffering from psychological conditions and, if so, how much these illnesses may affect the Patient’s ability to make decisions. The Patient is deemed to have the necessary MCA mental capability if the medical practitioner concludes that they do not have a disease that prohibits them from using sound judgment (Twite et al., 2019, p. 483). The right of Joan and her parents to determine Katarina’s course of treatment should be evaluated against the fact that, in the U.K., teens aged 16 and 17 can do so without parental permission. Joan thinks her parents only care about her removing Katrina because they fear for their safety. The MCA states that one’s capability is decision and time-bound. Joan’s decision to reject her parents’ decisions affecting her badly demonstrates her autonomy, as does her adherence to the Act’s restrictions. Therefore, the mental health specialists should listen carefully as Joan explains why she thinks her parents should not be involved in the treatment and instead select a third party to help make such decisions. According to the Mental Capacity Act, a third party can make medical decisions on behalf of a patient.

Everyone should be able to decline any potentially harmful medical procedure or examination. In both the U.K. and the U.S., a person is assumed to have the mental capacity to make choices about their care at 16 or 17, and this assumption can only be changed by solid evidence (Morris et al., 2020). Before the age of 16, a child should only agree to treatment if they are intelligent, mature, and aware enough to understand what is happening. If not, the child’s parents or guardians must give their permission if the child is younger than 16. Before helping a child, medical staff must get permission from at least one legal guardian (Diez-Itza et al., 2022). If a court decides that a parent’s decision to let their child get medical care is not in the child’s best interest, the choice can be taken away.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) outlines how and when hospitals may release patient information. The HIPAA and related rules specify what kinds of patient information hospitals may share with other parties and what kinds of data must be kept confidential (Griffith et al., 2023). In this circumstance, even a tiny exaggeration can have unintended consequences. Court proceedings and civil suits involving the loss or theft of social security cards and the exposing of personal health information are shared with medical executives.

The fundamental moral law underlying the behavior is more relevant than duty-oriented thinking about the consequences of the deed. To offer an example: even if the truth has negative consequences, one must still tell it since it is the ethically proper thing to do. No one should ever utter a lie, not even to save a life, because it is their moral obligation always. Intentional reasoning grounded on universal principles is at the heart of duty-oriented thinking. Consequentialists employ a cost-benefit analysis to maximize the number of people who profit. This is the portion about the significance going beyond the deeds discussed there. Or, to put it another way, the results indicate that the means were appropriate (Twite et al., 2019, p. 483). Therefore, in this case, the troop’s lives would be more important than that of the scout leader. It is morally required to help as many people as possible. It would be immoral not to save as many lives as possible while allowing as few people as possible to perish in this situation.

Professional negligence, breach of duty of care, disregard for patient autonomy as evidenced by inadequate documentation of care, and inability to take matters to the Nurse in Charge and the Doctor Responsible for the Patient are all within the bounds of the Nurse’s Scope of Practice (Pesut et al., 2022, p. 152). However, the case study also exemplifies best nursing practices, such as carefully recording all care given and always adhering to ethical standards.

Following the popularity of the “respect for individuals” idea, there has recently been a renewed interest in patients’ rights as “autonomous agents” to make their own healthcare decisions (Miezah et al., 2020). Patients’ legal rights are safeguarded when they lack the mental capacity to make decisions about their health treatment. Fundamental freedoms are vigorously defended by both the federal government and local governments. The President signed the Patient Self-Care Determination Act into law in 1990. Hospitals and other healthcare providers are now lawfully required to discuss advance directives with their adult patients. The law’s purpose is to protect Patient’s rights to make healthcare decisions, including whether or not to agree to treatment and how to convey future healthcare preferences if they cannot do so. MOLSTs and POLSTs, which are medical instructions for life-sustaining therapy, have recently been supported by state rules. A patient and their healthcare team can use each tool to document the person’s medical treatment decisions.


There are constantly emerging cancer medical concerns that present new ethical dilemmas for clinicians to solve. Genetically driven treatment plans for many illnesses are now possible thanks to the virtual boom of technology and discoveries in molecular biology, which are quickly improving our knowledge of individual and family treatment. The power of computers to analyze vast amounts of patient data has led to a blurring of the lines between research and clinical treatment, leading to a greater emphasis on learning healthcare systems. Respect for the needs, values, and choices of the Patient and family will always be at the center of patient care, no matter how challenging the situation, how advanced the healthcare delivery system is, or how diverse our community. To relieve their pain, particularly in the later stages of life, our ongoing responsibility as nurses is to gain the trust of our patients and those who care for them.


Butts, J.B. and Rich, K.L., 2022. Nursing ethics: Across the curriculum and into practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Clark, C.M., 2019. Fostering a culture of civility and respect in nursing. Journal of Nursing Regulation10(1), pp.44-52.

Diez-Itza, E., Viejo, A. and Fernández-Urquiza, M., 2022. Pragmatic profiles of adults with fragile X syndrome and Williams syndrome. Brain Sciences12(3), p.385.

Griffith, R. and Tengnah, C., 2023. Law and professional issues in nursing. Learning Matters.

Johnstone, M.J., 2022. Bioethics: a nursing perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Morris, C.A., Braddock, S.R., Chen, E., Trotter, T.L., Berry, S.A., Burke, L.W., Geleske, T.A., Hamid, R., Hopkin, R.J., Introne, W.J. and Lyons, M.J., 2020. Health care supervision for children with Williams syndrome. Pediatrics145(2).

Miezah, D., Porter, M., Batchelor, J., Boulton, K., and Veloso, G.C., 2020. Cognitive abilities in Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities104, p.103701.

O’Neill, N., Cook, D., Verhofste, B., Smith, J., Pediatric Spine Study Group and Emans, J.B., 2022. Early outcomes of growth-friendly instrumentation in children with Williams syndrome. Spine Deformity, pp.1-9.

Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., Chambaere, K. and Janke, R., 2020. Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing ethics27(1), pp.152-167.

Twite, M.D., Stenquist, S. and Ing, R.J., 2019. Williams syndrome. Pediatric Anesthesia29(5), pp.483-490.

Thom, R.P., Pineda, J., Nowinski, L., Birtwell, K., Hooker, J.M., McGuire, J.F. and McDougle, C.J., 2022. A Virtually Delivered Adapted Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Group for Adults With Williams Syndrome and Anxiety. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice.

A Report On The Current Market For Both Investment And Occupation Essay Example For College

Executive summary

This report highlights the current market for investment and occupation in London’s prime real estate sector with a specific focus on office, retail, and mixed-use properties. This report provides an extensive analysis of the economic climate in London, key points about the London real estate market, and specific information on prime office and retail markets.

Evidence and market reports show that prime office and retail markets are primarily in areas like St James’s, Mayfair, the City of London, and Knightsbridge. The report also provides lives examples from the market, such as new properties coming on the market, present rental values, available space for occupation, yields, and recent sales. The report also issues examples that show the current occupier/investor appetite within London about trends in supply and demand. The report recommends that the investors consider prime office and retail markets for investment and occupation opportunities. This is because they are likely to have strong returns.


London is one of the best commercial centers in the world. Investors, especially in real estate, mostly prefer investing in the city. The prime office market in London is mainly in St James’s, Mayfair, and the west end. These areas are the best for businesses and offer exceptional office spaces that are easily accessible with excellent connectivity. On the other hand, the prime retail market is mainly in Oxford Street, Covent Garden, regent street, and Knightsbridge, the leading retail destinations in the city. Live examples include retail properties and new offices coming into the market, current rental values, available spaces for occupation, and current yields and sales. This report will provide an extensive overview of London’s prime office and retail markets alongside live examples and insights into the market dynamics. The information is essential in ensuring the investor makes informed decisions on investment and occupation opportunities in the London real estate market.

Economic Overview of the London Real Estate Market

The London real estate market is one of the most diverse and dynamic works. It draws various domestic and international investors and occupiers owing to its excellent infrastructure, global financial and business center, and cultural offerings. This section aims to provide an overview of London’s current economic climate and its effect on the real estate market (London & Partners, 2022).

The London economy is robust and diversified. The city has a Gross Value Added (GVA) of an estimated £364 billion, contributing about 22% of the country’s GVA. Many well-known financial institutions in London generate wealth and employment opportunities. London is also a center for creative industries, tourism, and higher education, contributing significantly to the economy.

The Q4 2017 UK commercial property market survey shows that the general retail property market in the UK had stable conditions, with a balance of +17% of respondents stating an increase in occupier demand. On the other hand, the retail sector had negative sentiment owing to the rise in online shopping and reduced consumer spending. (Knight Frank, 2022) offers additional insights into the London real estate markets about lease events such as rent reviews and expirations. The report shows that the market for prime offices has been robust, with the rent increasing in some areas. However, the retail sector offers many challenges with high vacancy rates and reduced rent (Knight Frank, 2022).

The Q3 2017 UK Commercial Property Market Survey by RICS also explains the challenges the retail sector faces, with a balance of -33% of respondents highlighting a reduction in the demand for retail property. The industrial sector, however, has remained strong, with a balance of +31% of respondents explaining that there has been a high demand for industrial property (RICS. 2017).

One of the most serious challenges facing the London real estate market is Brexit uncertainty. The UK departed from the European Union, leading to economic uncertainty and negatively affecting investor confidence (London & Partners, 2022). However, the market continues to be resilient with the demand for prime office and retail spaces, especially from international investors looking for safe investments for their capital.

Despite the challenges, the London real estate market remains attractive to investors due to its strong fundamentals. In 2021, the prime office rents in London West End were £ 120 per sq. ft. 2021, one of the highest in the world. This was due to the demand from the technology and financial sectors. Retail rental values in critical locations such as Regent Street ad Oxford Street remain strong, with high demands from flagship and luxury brands (HM Revenue & Customs, 2022).

The government has implemented measures and policies to improve the country’s economy. An example is the Bank of England’s interest rate of 0.1%. This is low and has thus positively impacted the real estate market by making it easy to lend money. This has, in return, increased the demand for commercial real estate (Knight Frank, 2022). The government also put measures to cushion people from Covid 19, including furlough and business rate relief. This has offered immense support to the real estate market. However, the effect of Brexit on real estate is unpredictable, mainly due to the likelihood of changes in trade agreements and immigration policy (HM Revenue & Customs, 2022).

The emergence of Covid 19 pandemic led to an increased preference for remote working primarily due to the containment measures. Serviced offices and co-working spaces have been very popular since then as they reduce costs and increase flexibility (Knight Frank, 2022). There is also an increase in the trend of mixed-use properties with many amenities such as retail, residential, and office space. The remote working and mixed-use properties trend provides new opportunities to developers and investors (HM Revenue & Customs, 2022).

The London Real Estate Market.

The London real estate market is ever-changing. The factors that affect the demand and supply of properties in the city include a high demand for modern offices in London. There are many businesses and organizations in London that need modern spaces that are well-equipped to suit their daily operations. This has led to an increase in the focus on developing commercial properties and new office buildings, with most developers and investors wanting to maximize modern consumer demands (JLL, 2020).

In addition, the demand for retail properties has grown in the city. The city’s growth has led to a significantly increased need for retail shops for visitors and residents. This explains why there is so much the development of new retail properties is the center of attraction. This has also increased the focus on upgrading and renovating the present retail spaces to address the demands and needs of modern consumers (CBRE, 2021)

In addition to the high demand for office and retail properties, the London real estate market is also affected by factors such as the economic climate and availability of resources. There are several developers and investors interested in London’s real estate. Therefore, the need for increased capital that can help support new projects and developments is growing RICS. (2017). The economic climate is an essential factor due to the unpredictability of Brexit and the impact of COVID-19. This has led to low confidence among consumers and reduced economic growth (Savills, 2020)

Although there have been many challenges, the London real estate market remains to be an excellent choice for investors and developers globally. The city has a robust economy, skilled workers, and vibrant and excellent culture (RICS, 2017). These attributes draw investors that target long-term real estate properties with good returns and an opportunity for growth and development. As such, the London real estate market is highly likely to continue being a primary focus for investors and developers for a long time (Knight Frank, 2021)

The Prime Office Market

The prime office market in London is one of the most sought-after globally. Many factors affect the prime office market. They include supply and demand, economic conditions, and varying occupier needs. One of the main significant factors is location. St James’s, Mayfair, and Covenant Garden are the most sought-after locations. Canary Wharf and the City of London are also popular areas. The factors driving the demand for office space include amenities, transport, and prestige. However, the pandemic has increased demand in a location with good outdoor areas and space.

Rentals are a significant indicator of the health of the prime office market in London. The values of rentals in the most desirable places can cost up to £ 120 per square foot per Annum. This shows that London is of the most expensive markets globally. Rental values are affected by factors such as the presence of amenities, the location, and the quality of the building. However, the pandemic has reduced rental values in some areas as occupiers seek more flexible lease terms.

Another metric for prime office markets is yield. They are a measure of the return on investment an investor can anticipate receiving. Prime office yields in London range is 3% to 5% based on the quality of the building and location. However, Covid 19 pandemic has led to some unpredictability in the market, with yields anticipated to soften in the short term due to lower rental values.

The pandemic has had an impact on the prime office market in London. Increased remote working has reduced the demand for office space in London. However, this has been balanced out by the increased demand for space in suburban areas with enough space and outdoor areas.

Prime Retail Market

The prime retail market has had several changes in recent years, which can be attributed to a change in consumer behavior due to the growth of online shopping. Location is essential in the prime retail market in London. Regent Street, Oxford Street, and Bond Street are the most desirable places. These areas are popular due to the high tourist presence, football, luxury, and high-end brands. Rental values for prime retail spaces in the areas are about £ 1000 per square foot annually, which can be among the highest in the world (JLL, 2021)

In recent years, there has been a change in demand for prime retail space from traditional department stores to experimental and lifestyle brands. Consumers are keen on finding unique shopping experiences that cannot be recreated online (McKenzi and Atkinson,2020). This has led to the emergence of pop-out stores and temporary retail concepts. Landlords have thus opted to offer flexible lease terms and short lease lengths to help accommodate these types of clients (Hoesli & Malle, 2022, 295-306.).

The prime retail market has also faced increased demand for smaller retail spaces. Retailers mainly focus on having a solid online presence instead of a physical footprint (Hoesli & Malle, 2022, 295-306.).The trend has been pushed by increasing rental values and the need to cut costs, and it has led to a change toward curated retail spaces and multi-brand stores (McKenzi and Atkinson,2020, pp.21-38.).

Another main factor in the prime retail market is the effect of e-commerce on physical retail. Online shopping has reduced sales for traditional retail stores forcing retailers to adapt their business models to include online sales (JLL, 2021). However, physical retail plays a crucial role in ensuring customer engagement and brand awareness. The prime retail market has responded by including digital technology in the physical shopping experience (McKenzi and Atkinson, 2020, pp.21-38.).

Discussion Of The Market and The Potential Opportunities It Offers

London real estate offers many opportunities for investors, including prime offices and retail stores. Despite the economic uncertainties, London continues to be a global financial center and hub for international business, which has helped grow the real estate market. One potential opportunity is the growth of the tech industry in London, which has increased the demand for office space in areas such as Old Street and Shoreditch (Orr et al., 2022). Another potential opportunity is the redevelopment of underutilized properties in prime locations. With limited space in central London, investors may find value in renovating or developing properties to address modern demands. The modern demands include combined retail, office, and residential units (McAllister, 2020, 565-583.). There is also potential for growth in the luxury retail sector, especially in Mayfair and Knightsbridge, which attracts several high-end international shoppers. Luxury brands continue to expand in London, and investors who can seize prime retail space in the areas may benefit from the strong demand for high-end retail experiences (Gillespie, 2020, pp.599-616).


One key main recommendation is the diversification of the Portfolio in London. Instead of investing mainly in one sector, such as retail and office, the investor should consider mixing to decrease risk and increase returns. This can include the combination of retail, office, and mixed-use properties in different areas of London. Another key recommendation is strategic location. The investor needs to consider a location with high demand and potential for growth. This can include areas with upcoming infrastructural projects, such as Croserail, which will increase connectivity and attract businesses and residents. In addition, areas such as Camden and Shoreditch can provide a solid rental demand (Gillespie, 2020, pp.599-616).

In addition, the investor should ensure that they have tenant diversification. The portfolio should not rely on a few key tenants. The investor should ensure they target a diverse range of tenants, such as small and middle-sized enterprises and large corporations, to spread the risk of vacancies and likely defaults (Birimoglu Okuyan and Begen, 2022, pp.173-179.). The investor should also conduct a regular market analysis. Real estate in London is constantly changing; therefore, it is crucial to analyze and adjust the portfolio where necessary regularly. This can include paying attention to vacancy rates, rental rates and demands in different sectors and areas to establish the likely risks and opportunities (Crona, Folke, and Galaz, 2021, pp.618-628.) Lastly, the investor should consider that they adhere to environmental, social, and governance considerations. An investor should ensure that their properties have a low carbon footprint. Their properties should also support social cohesion and sustainable communities. This can help future-proof the portfolio and ensure the properties maintain their values over time (Ionașcu, Mironiuc, M., Anghel & Huian, 2020).


Birimoglu Okuyan, C. and Begen, M.A., 2022. Working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, its effects on health, and recommendations: The pandemic and beyond. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care58(1), pp.173-179.

CBRE. (2021). London Retail MarketView Q1 2021.

Crona, B., Folke, C. and Galaz, V., 2021. The Anthropocene reality of financial risk. One Earth4(5), pp.618-628.

Gillespie, T., 2020. The real estate frontier. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research44(4), pp.599-616.

HM Revenue & Customs. (2022, January 26). UK property transactions completed in December 2021.

Hoesli, M. and Malle, R., 2022. Commercial real estate prices and COVID-19. Journal of European Real Estate Research15(2), pp.295-306.

Ionașcu, E., Mironiuc, M., Anghel, I., & Huian, M. C. (2020). The involvement of real estate companies in sustainable development—An analysis from the SDGs reporting perspective. Sustainability12(3), 798.

JLL. (2020). London Skyline Report 2020

Knight Frank. (2022). Q3 London office market review Q3

Knight Frank. (2022). Q4 London office market review

London & Partners. (2022). Why London

McAllister, P., 2020. Creating operational alpha? Operating models for real estate management. Property Management38(4), pp.565-583.

McKenzie, R. and Atkinson, R., 2020. Anchoring capital in place: The grounded impact of international wealth chains on housing markets in London. Urban Studies57(1), pp.21-38.

Orr, A.M., Jackson, C., White, J.T., Lawson, V., Gardner, A., Hickie, J., Richardson, R. and Stewart, J.L., 2022. Retail Change and Transition in UK City Centres. Real Estate, Place Adaptation and Innovation within an integrated Retailing system (REPAIR) End of Project Report.

RICS. (2017). Q3 2017 UK Commercial Property Market Survey.

Saville. (2020). Spotlight: London Offices.—spotlight-london-offices—web.pdf


List of graphs/tables/figures

Figure 1: Recent office and retail details in London

Property Type Location Property Name Size (sq ft) Rent (per sq ft) Sale Price (per sq ft) Yield (%)
Office West End 10 Hammersmith Grove 103,000 £75 £820 4.5
Office Canary Wharf 25 Churchill Place 290,000 £55 £915 4.8
Office City of London 1 St. James’s Square 70,000 £85 £1,424 4.2
Retail West End 61 Oxford Street 9,000 £1,200 £18,000 3.8
Retail Canary Wharf Crossrail Place 100,000 £200 £1,500 5.0
Retail City of London 20 Fenchurch Street 16,000 £350 £4,000

Figure 2: New Property coming onto the market

Development Name Location Property Type Completion Year Total Square Footage
22 Bishopsgate City of London Office 2022 1.4 million sq ft
1 Triton Square Euston Mixed-use Completed in 2021 N/A
The Goodsyard Shoreditch Mixed-use Expected completion in 2023 N/A

Figure 3: Recent sales

Property Name Sale Price Yield
The Leadenhall Building £1.15 billion 4.4%
The Walbrook Building £575 million 4.0%
One New Change £676 million 4.1%

America’s Role In ROK-Japan Relation University Essay Example

Executive Summary

For several decades, two American allies, South Korea and Japan, have been engaged in a bitter conflict associated with wartime history. However, a potential thaw in the two nations could foster significant dividends, especially for the United States, which has a comprehensive East Asia policy. Notably, Japan and the Republic of Korea normalized their relations in 1965 but still harbor unresolved historical issues like the compensation of ROK workers during world war 2. As the free-market system spread, several issues, including inequality across economic aspects like labor, became prevalent. Such disputes end up undermining bilateral reconciliation and security/economic cooperation. Past and current efforts directly impacting America strive to emphasize a future-oriented strategy linked to common economic and security interests. In this light, America possesses an essential role in incentivizing both sides to ensure that their trilateral relationship is strengthened. This way, the allies can weather North Korea, China, and even non-traditional threats like terrorism and cybersecurity. This piece delves into America’s role and the best policy to adopt in assisting ROK and Japan in settling their historical differences while enhancing East Asia’s stability.


Of utmost importance is to assert that South Korean (ROK)-Japan relation has plummeted to historic levels in the last few decades. The tensions between Japan and ROK get associated with significant war history, rivalry, and colonial rule. The past continues to haunt yet shape the national identities of the two Asian nations.[1]. Different governments have yet to fashion permanent solutions to issues linked to historical injustices like forced labor. In this light, trade, territory, and history sensitivities have affected security coordination, cooperation, and, consequently, the trilateral coordination with America. For the United States, cooperation with allies like ROK and Japan is critical in securing the power balance against the significantly expanding Chinese hegemony and reaffirming America’s impact in the Indo-Pacific region, especially regarding the North Korean threat and other non-traditional security issues.[2]. To recalibrate the trilateral coordination and relationships, America’s approach should get based on a respectful partnership that fosters a win-win situation for Japan and ROK. This essay aims to delve into America’s role and policy options regarding the two allies and the welfare of the Indo-pacific region.

Background of the Trilateral Association

East Asia is a dynamic region where contemporary global trade and security intersect[3]. In this light, a fractured Japan-ROK bilateral linkage weakens America’s alliance in the East-Asia region and has significant implications for American trilateral defense cooperation. When juxtaposed with other bilateral linkages, the list of grievances associated with South Korea and Japan is not long. However, it has remained significantly unchanged since the two East Asia nations signed a Treaty on Basic Relations in 1965 and normalized their relationship. In the contemporary world, Seoul and Tokyo still feud over South Korean-controlled islets dubbed the Dokdo by the Koreans and Takeshima by the Japanese. Moreover, the ROK government has constantly argued that the Japanese government never acknowledged adequately and apologized for the colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945[4]. Still, Japan’s handling of the ‘comfort women’ issue, which revolves around women forced to offer sex to Japanese soldiers under comfort stations, has proven fraught. While the acrimony over the matters keeps rising, leaders in the two neighboring nations have been unable to prevent disagreements from reaching other facets of the bilateral linkage. For instance, numerous opinion polls depict that majorities in the two nations view the other negatively. At other times, domestic politics have negatively impacted the bilateral relationship’s strides, consequently negatively impacting the trilateral linkage with the United States. In ROK, for instance, the opposition party (Democratic Party) asserts that Yoon’s deal and talks associated with the forced labor compensation issue is the most humiliating moment for Seoul.[5]. On its part, Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party remains skeptical of South Korea and can refuse the bilateral proposals.

Nevertheless, the ROK-Japan linkage has undergone notable integration and expansion since the normalization pact around five decades ago. In this light, Seoul and Tokyo cooperate across multiple fields, including joint disaster management/relief planning, coordination with North Korea, and even regional security. Moreover, the American alliances/linkage between the two nations has also evolved from the 1990s with a unique focus on regional, global, and even non-traditional security problems.[6]. ROK and Japan’s populations also possess more exposure to one another than before the 1960s. Moreover, the current leaders are willing to build on their ties. Conversely, greater cooperation and contact have also facilitated significant suspicion and mistrust between ROK and Japan. For instance, the latest disputes have revolved around the compensation of former ROK-forced employees. These rifts corrode the regional power balance and weaken America’s position as an ally of both (Japan and South Korea). Notably, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that two Japanese entities should compensate the forced laborers. The ruling challenged the Japanese government’s stance that the 1965 agreement (Claims Agreement) thoroughly settled all the claims.[7]. It saw Japan retaliating through the imposition of export controls linked to chemicals essential for ROK’s semi-conductor sector. Seoul and Tokyo’s inability to settle on a lasting solution jeopardizes trilateral coordination and cooperation. This puts Northeast Asia’s stability at risk and contradicts America’s goals of a stable region. Foreign policy is often compared to sequence of moves in a chess game.[8]. In this regard, American foreign policy strives to expend significant efforts at preventing, containing, and settlement of the disputes revolving around the two allies. The chronic friction between ROK and Japan reduces Washington’s impact in the East Asia region by promoting the trilateral linkage to operate less expansively and efficiently than it would otherwise.[9]. Besides, it fosters opportunities for North Korea and China to exploit the prevalent differences between the three players. Nations are almost threatening to challenge others’ unfair trading practices constantly whereby entities like the World Trade Organization come in handy in dispute resolution[10].

Core Issues in the ROK-Japan Relations

Several factors exacerbate the Tokyo-Seoul linkage. These get discussed in the following section.

  • Comfort Women-This is a Korean grievance that dates to the last era of Japan’s colonization of the former during World War 2. In this light, the sexual abuse of women from Japan’s occupied nations, including the Philippines, China, Dutch East Indies, and Korea, is an increasingly painful memory, significantly since it got repressed for almost half a century. It was only in 1990 that the first batch of South Korean females lifted this veil of shame. Notably, the Koreans constantly demand a sincere apology from the Japanese government and that Japan should also be open to legal responsibility for the historical harm. Most women in the comfort cohort have often lamented that the Park Chung-hee government underrepresented them in accepting the Japanese reparations and that their grievances remain unmet.[11]. On its part, Japan remains adamant that the San Francisco Treaty (1951) and the normalization treaty (1965) settled all the post-war compensation issues. Moreover, Japan repeatedly asserts that it apologized and acknowledged the historical injustices[12]. The comfort women issue also gained visibility in America due to the strong Korean-American activists. The former secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, even instructed the State Department to refer to comfort women as sex slaves to Japan’s dismay. Liberalism tends to possess a universalistic strand linked to the emphasis on individual rights. Therefore, every individual, including workers, possesses natural rights that should not be violated.
  • Territorial Issue-ROK and Japan are also conflicted over the islets in the East Sea (Sea of Japan). These are known as the solitary islands or Dokdo in Koreans and Bamboo Islands or Takeshima in Japan. Notably, Korea stipulates that it discovered the islets first and strives to depict sovereignty and control over them as Ulleungdo’s appendage. It claims it did not repel Tokyo’s annexation of the islets in 1905, which served as part of the Korean conquest. Japan argues that the San Francisco Treaty that outlined how its colonial empire was to get dismantled did not oblige Japan to renounce the islets. It is, therefore, the legal ruler. Control over the islets poses potentially negative economic repercussions. For instance, both nations believe the area is one of the most fertile fishing regions, and gas reserves may lie nearby.[13]. Provocations on both sides continue, with the most recent being Japan’s revision of its curriculum, obliging high school teachers to describe the islets as a facet of its territory.
  • Wartime Compensation-The two nations also conflict over the forced labor of the Korean laborers during the colonial era. In 2018, ROK’s Supreme Court ruled that the affected Japanese entities should offer compensation to the victims. It consequently triggered a heated legal-political battle between the two nations. In this regard, the Japanese government perceives the ruling as a challenge to the 1965 treaty deemed the foundation for the post wat relations. The ROK government found itself in a dilemma as it needed to fathom whether to respect the ruling or the 1965 treaty. This diplomatic impasse spilled over into issues of security and the economy. For instance, Japan’s cabinet decided in 2019 to tighten the export control tariffs and delist ROK from its preferred trading partners.[14]. It negatively impacted ROK’s semi-conductor industry. Consequently, Korea retaliated by threatening to exit the bilateral ROK-Japan military intelligence-sharing agreement.

Theoretical Linkages

Contemporary alliance theories assert that states facing a common enemy strive to align to aggregate their resources and capabilities. ROK and Japan have been entangled in quasi-alliances amidst common enemies like China and North Korea. The alliance typically exists under the stewardship of America. The common partner for the two East Asia nations is a significant deterrent against regional security threats and, simultaneously, a cork in both nations’ militarism. For instance, Japan made minimal efforts to craft overseas military/war bases due to its constitutional constraints linked to the anti-militarism rhetoric. Japan, therefore increasingly depended on the American Pacific bases/fleet to secure the sea lines of communications. On the other hand, South Korea had a minimal choice and relied on the United States due to perceived security threats from North Korea. Moreover, internal balancing, for instance, through nuclear weapon development by South Korea, remains thwarted by America. Japan’s and ROK’s security dependence on the United States emerges as a core identity norm of the middle-power nations. According to (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2018), global politics oblige new levels of political integration as a response to significantly rising interdependence.

Activism alongside security dependency also serves as an inalienable standard linked to a middle-power nation’s security and diplomatic behavior. Small and middle powers tend to hedge among the great powers during the eras of power shift. In the 21st century, for instance, ROK and Japanese leaders engaged in proactive diplomatic initiatives linked to hedging in the quest to secure leeway from depending on America and, at the same time, socialize China within the multilateral security frameworks.[15]. In addition to sustaining an effective alliance with America, ROK strived to accommodate China’s influences and role in the East Asia region while disseminating a community spirit in the Asian nations. South Korea significantly promoted the East Asia Study Group and the East Asian Vision Group.[16]. On the other hand, Japan has strived to pursue open regionalism. It sought to spearhead the process linked to the ASEAN Plus Six, also dubbed the East Asian summit, by inviting other states like India, New Zealand, and Australia. Moreover, Japan strived to push ahead with regional institution building after the region’s 1997-1998 financial crisis. These actions by ROK and Japan align with the activism norm that tends to get employed by the middle powers to compensate for aspects like the loss of autonomy hence offering multilateral solutions, for instance, to economic and security issues. The liberal international relations theory asserts that the actors in global politics tend to be nations or private groups that organize collective action to foster varying interests under constraints imposed by conflicting values, material scarcity, and societal influence variations.[17].

Impact of the ROK-Japan Relations to America and America’s Role (Objective and Normative)

In the post-world War 2 period, the nation-to-nation linkage between Japan and Korea got delayed until the former gained sovereignty in 1952. On the other hand, Korea gained independence in 1948, fostering a significant American occupation in the region. Only after the end of America’s occupation in South Korea did the nation’s official policy start to form. In this light, the first South Korean president was renowned for promoting an anti-communist agenda and hence anti-Japan rhetoric to gain political mileage domestically. Nevertheless, the bilateral frictions in the formative era did not only result from historical animosity. The reason is that after the Korean War started in the early 1950s, the common threat from the communist neighbors became significantly visible to both ROK and Japan. Consequently, the United States re-engaged in the Korean peninsula by assuming an influential stance. This was bound to foster both positive and negative impacts in the process of the ROK-Japan bilateral reconciliation. For instance, America’s actions were positive in the sense that it pressures both Japan and ROK to start the normalization talks and played a go-between role. On the other hand, a negative aspect emerges from the fact that America entered into a peace treaty with Japan and forty-seven other nations during the Korean War. The occupation of Japan would end in 1952, and Japan, therefore, re-entered the global scene as America’s ally in the region. On its part, ROK wanted America to maintain its earlier role and policy linked to demilitarization and democratization toward Japan.

In the years following the Korean War, however, America has strived to encourage the reconciliation of ROK and Japan. In 2007, for instance, America passed a resolution that urged Japan to formally apologize to ROK for the coercion of numerous women to work as sex slaves during World War 2. While it is symbolic, it depicts that America is willing to address the historical injustices between the two East Asia nations. The strengthening of the alliance in the region remains President Biden’s highest administrative foreign policy. The key to this goal is striving to bridge the gap between Japan and South Korea. While Washington understandably is careful not to appear as a meddler or depict favoritism, it has a rigid role of shaping the course of events within the East Asia region. Notably, Biden has illustrated a positive gesture in America’s role by vising Tokyo and Seoul. It highlighted the allies’ role when it comes to the American Indo-Pacific Strategy.

The partial estrangement by ROK and Japan impacts America in many ways. For instance, closer relations between the two East Asia nations would expand options for dealing with the North Korean threat. This is where the trilateral cooperation is presently occurring, with American, Japanese, and ROK officials frequently meeting to discuss the threat since the 1990s[18]. Conversely, the United States has constantly pushed for greater institutionalization and integration of the three’s efforts. An epitome is that the 2014 agreement among the three to share intelligence data on North Korea is less extensive than the possible types of collaboration that defense analysts can attain. The strength of ROK-Japan also impacts the core aspect of the American and ROK shared strategy on North Korea. It revolves around persuading Chinese leaders that they can gain much by pressuring North Korea rather than supporting it. The implication is that cementing the greater trilateral and bilateral cooperation among Japan, US, and ROK can signal to China that the North’s behavior is prompting the region’s security environment to go towards strategies that counter China’s long-term strategy. Besides, enhanced ties and cooperation between Tokyo and Seoul could improve America’s capability and capacity to deal with regional threats, for instance, by redistributing military responsibilities and roles among its allies.[19].

The ROK, America, and Japan can cooperate in multiple other areas, including countering narcotics, proliferation, and terrorism, engaging in peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, and even cyberspace security[20]. The United States, nevertheless, has the role of acting as an honest mediator or broker by tamping down varying tensions and facilitating progress. If these preliminary steps emerge fruitful, America can engage in more concerted diplomatic efforts to find a lasting solution to the issues between the two nations. From the 1960s to the present, America has put in numerous efforts to try and foster closer linkages between ROK and Japan with minimal success. At this point, America’s option is to minimize its involvement in the ROK-Japan disputes. The approach gets linked to the belief that the two nations’ common economic and security interests will assist in containing any bilateral issues. Also, there exists a risk of America coming out as a patriarchal power if it asserts itself more directly/dominantly between the disputes. Moreover, America would risk a damaging relationship with one or both allies. A non-interference approach through patient diplomacy is viable. However, it would leave the trilateral linkage more prone to external shock and unlikely to evolve the domestic dynamic in any of the two nations. Contemporary domestic and social tensions make it extremely difficult for both sides to compromise.[21]. Through the patient diplomacy approach, America can only strive to incentivize the partners to move towards more rigid bilateral and trilateral ties.

Another option for the United States is to engage in shuttle diplomacy. Shuttle diplomacy revolves around a mediator acting as the go-between and, therefore, must gather data from all the disputants. The mediator, in this case, serves as a conduit for relaying the questions and answers and offering suggestions to move the conflict toward resolution in private.[22]. In the ROK-Japan conflict, America can act as a referee through the shuttle diplomacy policy strategy. Moreover, it can adopt public or private exhortations. The referee mandate should not be accusatory. However, America can sometimes recognize or even reward certain moves by the allies[23]. The referee role is, therefore, a minimalist approach that strives to prevent and even mitigate words or actions that can worsen bilateral linkages. An epitome of this is that both Japan and South Korea’s previous administrations have strived to engage in restrained stances over the islet.

The third option linked to America’s role in the ROK-Japan issues revolves around quiet diplomacy. According to Banim et al. (2017), quiet diplomacy entails one nation striving to impact the behavior of another through discreet actions or negotiations. In this light, quiet diplomacy operates behind the scenes and often relies on backchanneling instead of public talks. It may also encompass crafting strategic partnerships and deal-making. This shows that quiet diplomacy involves more carrots than sticks or, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words, speaking softly but carrying a big stick. America can enhance the ROK-Japan linkage by expanding or institutionalizing the trilateral relationship. It would make the United States play the role of a commissioner. In this regard, America would have Japan and Korea’s media, elites, and government focus on the areas of common interest like trade, economy, and regional stability instead of the points of tension. The trilateral meetings, for instance, can strive to identify yet publicize how cooperation can advance every nation’s individual global or regional interests.[24]. The quiet diplomacy approach is unique yet beneficial because cooperation continues amid bilateral disputes.

Key Stakeholders and Their Roles in the Policy Process

The core stakeholders include Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States of America. In this light, Korea has in the past adopted a hostile notion towards Japan. For instance, Japan has constantly been framed as an aggressor that should be aware of historical crimes and injustices. On its part, Japan has maintained a relatively low-key strategy in East Asian foreign policy after the end of world war 2 and the Korean War. However, Japan has, in the recent past strives to view South Korea as a partner and not a country to be meddled with. In this regard, South Korea has significantly adopted democracy and developed to become the globe’s 15th-largest economy. Both ROK and Japan have therefore strived to tailor their foreign policies towards cooperation despite a few conflicts and setbacks. For instance, Japan supported ROK financially during the Asian financial crisis and even during the co-hosting of the 2002 world cup. Moreover, K-pop music and Korean TV content are popular in Japan. Focusing on the United States, it has served as a key stakeholder and strong proponent linked to restored ROK-Japa ties. Since the normalization process in 1965, America has strived to work behind the scenes to foster rapprochement. Moreover, America has maintained a symbolic stance of reconciliation whereby it urges both sides to resolve the varying issues of conflict. In addition to President Biden’s visit, the Secretary of State dubbed, Antony Blinken, Deputy Secretary named Wendy Sherman, and the Defense Secretary dubbed, Lloyd Austin, have strived to meet with the Japanese and South Korean counterparts both trilaterally and bilaterally which would foster greater cooperation on mutual economic and security goals. The latest trilateral talks got scheduled for April 14th, 2023, between the American assistant Secretary of Defense linked to the Indo-Pacific Security Affairs named, Ely Ratner, who hosted ROK Deputy Minister for National Defense Policy named, Heo Tae-keun and Japan’s Director General for Defense Policy named Masuda Kazuo.[25]. Under their American host, the three defense officials asserted that they would enhance their trilateral security cooperation and remain vigilant in the quest to deter the North Korean threat. The three also discussed the security issue whereby the importance of stability and peace, especially in the Taiwan Strait, got underscored. Moreover, the three discussed the regularization of the anti-submarine and missile defense exercises, which reinforces the allies’ power against North Korea. At the meeting, America retorted yet expressed its full support for ROK and Japan’s commitments to strengthen collaboration and communication. This includes leveraging GSOMIA (the Bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreements towards stability in the region. Besides, America reiterated its commitment to defend the ROK and Japan, whereby it is backed by a diverse range of defensive capabilities.

In the quest to enhance the bilateral and, consequently, trilateral linkages, the Japanese president should schedule to visit South Korea. It would underscore the point that the recent visit by the South Korean president to Japan was from a point of genuine partnership. Moreover, Japan, ROK, and America should strive to foster more frequent yet formal consultations. The institutionalization would ensure that ROK and Japan never have a chance of shutting down bilateral communication. Besides, Japanese entities should quietly contribute to the voluntary fund geared towards workers’ compensation. All three stakeholders should understand that historical and territorial disputes are complex and therefore oblige long-term commitment. By being aware of the inflammatory nature of the issues, the nations can effectively avoid politicizing them in nationalistic yet antagonistic ways.[26].

Recommended Role and Policy

The best option for the United States regarding ROK-Japan relations is quiet diplomacy. The current Biden regime has strived to articulate the essentiality of enhancing bilateral and trilateral cooperation and relations. In this light, acts like the visit by Biden to Tokyo and Seoul ensure that both understand their role in the overall American Indo-Pacific Strategy. America is understandably cautious to avoid getting perceived as meddling with East Asia affairs. Nevertheless, the quiet diplomacy policy could ensure that Tokyo and Seoul pursue economic and security cooperation while also tackling historical disputes. Both ROK and Japanese governments can commit to having a joint fund in dealing with the wartime workers’ compensation issue. Notably, the current ROK regime is already taking this route by committing to compensate the victims. Japan has chipped in by asserting that its organizations and businesses would voluntarily add to the fund while promoting civil society exchanges among diverse groups like non-governmental entities and cultural, academic, and religious entities in both nations.[27]. America, on its part, is already implementing quiet diplomacy where it hailed both Japan and South Korea for their Indo-pacific strategies and continues to engage the defense officials from both ROK and Japan. The latest meeting hosted by the American assistant Secretary of Defense linked to the Indo-Pacific Security Affairs is the epitome of the active policy steps that America is significantly taking to resolve the East Asia issues between ROK, Japan, and other nations.

In this light, ROK and current Japanese leaders recognize the imperative associated with closer ties. An epitome is that North Korea’s frequent ballistic missile tests, China’s military assertiveness in the East Asia region, and the war in Europe have all fostered security deficits for both nations that oblige heightened coordination and cooperation. The United States can complement this by institutionalizing the trilateral linkage between the three. For instance, after almost no activity during the previous ROK administration, military exercises among the three have already resumed. Moreover, an almost near-constant pace is linked to the trilateral policy meetings. The outcome has been favorable, with all three nations giving a joint statement linked to a shared vision for the Indo-pacific region[28].

Overall, ROK and Japan, in the recent past, have made significant goodwill gestures. An epitome is that ROK has already dropped the demands for Japanese entities to compensate the war laborers, and issues have been debated for many years. On its part, Japan plans to end restrictions placed on technology exports on ROK in 2019. Nevertheless, bilateral and trilateral cooperation, as aided by the United States, for instance, through the quiet diplomacy policy, remains a work in progress. All the leaders face potential domestic political concerns.[29]. For instance, the current administrations’ ratings in ROK and Japan are not strong. Domestic politics, therefore, remain too volatile, and there is the fear of the lack of a lasting solution that can weather future regimes.[30]. Conversely, optimism is linked to the fact that the nations have propagated the ROK-Japan bilateral talks in recent months. It ensures that America is shielded from domestic criticism in both and hence can give every side accountability regarding bilateral linkage success. From May 2022, the three nations have engaged in multiple high-level meetings. Moreover, they have closely coordinated the response to North Korea’s nuclear tests. It has consequently prevented North Korea from leveraging and exploiting potential cracks in the trilateral linkage. The nuclear threats, Chinese hegemony, and the bilateral historical issues continue to be the glue that ensures that the trilateral relations remain intact. Besides, the three are coordinating an economic security and stability dialogue associated with mitigating the issues that link to supply chains, emerging technologies, data transparency, and even regional trade. Japan and South Korea are set to benefit. However, policy divergences and different perceptions regarding China among the three allies could weaken their unity. An epitome is that Japan engages in stronger rhetoric and consequently takes bold steps as a response to the increasing Chinese assertiveness and influence. On its part, South Korea has taken a more conciliatory tone intending to maintain an effective economic linkage with China. Nevertheless, America follows Japan and strives to outcompete rivals like China through different security strategies.


This essay aimed to delve into America’s role in the ROK-Japan bilateral talks linked to regional stability and historical/cultural issues. In this light, the analysis depicts that the United States has several policy options, hence defining its role in fostering a resolution to its allies’ conflicts. Nevertheless, the quiet diplomacy policy is the most viable as it would ensure strengthened bilateral and trilateral linkage. Notably, the three nations should take the opportunity and goodwill from the current regimes to accelerate the trilateral agenda further. While significant levels of work are underway, much remains to get done. Enhancing the trilateral cooperation and resolving the bilateral issues would send a powerful message to players like Russia, China, and North Korea. It would make these understand that the regional web of like-minded partnerships and alliances is already tightening. Institutionalizing yet expanding the trilateral security exercises is critical as it would facilitate deepened data sharing, awareness, and preparedness. Across the diplomatic level, increased cooperation would ensure that Japan and America involve ROK extensively in the regional efforts linked to supporting the rules-based global order. An epitome would be ensuring that ROK participates in discrete decisions and elements revolving around emerging technology, climate, and infrastructure. In summary, the Biden government has ample opportunity to incentivize the partners towards stronger bilateral and trilateral ties.


A Greenlaw, Steven, and David Shapiro. [eTextbook] Principles of Microeconomics 2e. 2017.

Aum, F. “Mended Ties between Japan and South Korea Would Boost Regional Security.” United States Institute of Peace, July 28, 2022.

Bae, Jeeho. “Reshaping US–South Korea–Japan Trilateral Relations.” From Trump to Biden and Beyond: Reimagining US–China Relations (2021): 91-109.

Banim, Guy, Eva Pejsova, Bernt Berger, Jakob Bund, Matthieu Burnay, Marta Hermez, Stine Lehmann-Larsen et al. “better than cure: the EU’s quiet diplomacy in Asia.” (2017).

Cha, Victor, and Christopher Johnstone. “Japan and South Korea Turn the Page.” RealClearWorld. CSIS, March 10, 2023.

Deacon, Chris. “(Re) producing the ‘history problem’: memory, identity and the Japan-South Korea trade dispute.” The Pacific Review 35, no. 5 (2022): 789-820.

Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. “Liberal world: The resilient order.” Foreign Aff. 97 (2018): 16.

French, Erik, Jiyoon Kim, and Jihoon Yu. “The US Role in South Korea-Japan Relations: From Johnson to Biden.” The Diplomat, January 14 (2021).


Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

Mearsheimer, John. “The rise & fall of the liberal inter-national order.” Notre Dame International Security Center (2018).

Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics.” International organization 51, no. 4 (1997): 513-553.

Rich, Motoko, and Choe Sang-hun. “Japan and South Korea Make Nice, but Can It Last?” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 17, 2023.

Rozman, Gilbert. “Joint US-Korea Academic Studies.” Korea Economic Institute of America 25 (2014).

Sakaki, Alexandra. “Japan-South Korea Relations-a downward spiral: More than” just” historical issues.” (2019): 7.

Son, Key-Young. “Middle Powers and the Rise of China:‘Identity Norms’ of Dependency and Activism and the Outlook for Japan–South Korea Relations vis-à-vis the Great Powers.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 15, no. 1 (2014): 91-112.

US Department of Defense. “Joint Statement of the 13th Defense Trilateral Talks.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2023.

Vanhoonacker, Sophie, and Patrice Wangen. “Graham T. Allison, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” In The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. OUP Oxford, 2015.

Yeo, Andrew. “South Korea-Japan Rapprochement Creates New Opportunities in the Indo-Pacific.” Brookings. Brookings, March 17, 2023.

[1] Rich, Motoko, and Choe Sang-hun. “Japan and South Korea Make Nice, but Can It Last?” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 17, 2023.

[2] French, Erik, Jiyoon Kim, and Jihoon Yu. “The US Role in South Korea-Japan Relations: From Johnson to Biden.” The Diplomat, January 14 (2021).

[3] Bae, Jeeho. “Reshaping US–South Korea–Japan Trilateral Relations.” From Trump to Biden and Beyond: Reimagining US–China Relations (2021): 91-109.

[4] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[5] Deacon, Chris. “(Re) producing the ‘history problem’: memory, identity and the Japan-South Korea trade dispute.” The Pacific Review 35, no. 5 (2022): 789-820.

[6] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[7] Aum, F. “Mended Ties between Japan and South Korea Would Boost Regional Security.” United States Institute of Peace, July 28, 2022.

[8] Vanhoonacker, Sophie, and Patrice Wangen. “Graham T. Allison, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” In The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. OUP Oxford, 2015.

[9] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[10] A Greenlaw, Steven, and David Shapiro. [eTextbook] Principles of Microeconomics 2e. 2017.

[11] Rozman, Gilbert. “Joint US-Korea Academic Studies.” Korea Economic Institute of America 25 (2014).

[12] Ibid et al., 23

[13] Rozman, Gilbert. “Joint US-Korea Academic Studies.” Korea Economic Institute of America 25 (2014).

[14] Ibid et al, 15

[15] Son, Key-Young. “Middle Powers and the Rise of China:‘Identity Norms’ of Dependency and Activism and the Outlook for Japan–South Korea Relations vis-à-vis the Great Powers.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 15, no. 1 (2014): 91-112.

[16] Son, Key-Young. “Middle Powers and the Rise of China:‘Identity Norms’ of Dependency and Activism and the Outlook for Japan–South Korea Relations vis-à-vis the Great Powers.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 15, no. 1 (2014): 91-112.

[17] Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics.” International organization 51, no. 4 (1997): 513-553.

[18] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[19] French, Erik, Jiyoon Kim, and Jihoon Yu. “The US Role in South Korea-Japan Relations: From Johnson to Biden.” The Diplomat, January 14 (2021).

[20] Rozman, Gilbert. “Joint US-Korea Academic Studies.” Korea Economic Institute of America 25 (2014).

[21] Sakaki, Alexandra. “Japan-South Korea Relations-a downward spiral: More than” just” historical issues.” (2019): 7.

[22] Banim, Guy, Eva Pejsova, Bernt Berger, Jakob Bund, Matthieu Burnay, Marta Hermez, Stine Lehmann-Larsen, et al. “better than cure: the EU’s quiet diplomacy in Asia.” (2017).

[23] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[24] Banim, Guy, Eva Pejsova, Bernt Berger, Jakob Bund, Matthieu Burnay, Marta Hermez, Stine Lehmann-Larsen, et al. “better than cure: the EU’s quiet diplomacy in Asia.” (2017).

[25] US Department of Defense. “Joint Statement of the 13th Defense Trilateral Talks.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2023.

[26] Manyin, Mark E. Managing Japan-South Korea Tensions. Discussion Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations., et al. 2016.“US-South Korea Relations.” CRS Report, April 26. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

[27] Yeo, Andrew. “South Korea-Japan Rapprochement Creates New Opportunities in the Indo-Pacific.” Brookings. Brookings, March 17, 2023.

[28] Cha, Victor, and Christopher Johnstone. “Japan and South Korea Turn the Page.” RealClearWorld. CSIS, March 10, 2023.

[29] Rich, Motoko, and Choe Sang-hun. “Japan and South Korea Make Nice, but Can It Last?” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 17, 2023.