Sustainable Exchange and Cooperation Process in Exhibition and Convention: Applications for the Korean Peninsula From the Leipzig Trade Fair in Germany

Abstract

This study aims to examine the exchange and cooperation process by applying the role and possibility of exhibitions and conventions to the Korean Peninsula as a means of fostering exchange and cooperation in divided countries. To this end, we examine the case of the Leipzig Trade Fair in Germany, an advanced country in the exhibition and convention industry that has successfully navigated its own division. The study reveals that in the case of East-West Germany, the trade fair continued to be held for different purposes. However, in the end, it served as a space where political and economic contacts took place, functioning as an essential conduit for human and material traffic and communication. Additionally, it played an important role in adjusting and alleviating existing conflict structures. The hosting of exhibitions and conventions, which facilitates interactions among people, becomes a critical starting point for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, serving the purpose of creating economic benefits by promoting trade and transaction. These economic benefits lay the foundation for mutual trust and growth, mitigating conflicts and fostering a process of exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions that ultimately leads to peaceful inter-Korean relations.

Keywords

exhibitions and conventions exchange and cooperation Leipzig Trade Fair (Leipzig Messe)East and West Germany North and South Korea

Introduction

Even countries with similar experiences as divided nations, such as the relationship between East and West Germany and China and Taiwan, show various exchange and cooperation forms depending on the historical background and environment (Butler & Mao, 1996; Jonsson, 2006; Rhee, 1993). In a divided country, exchange and cooperation are the primary means to pursue common interests. Furthermore, they play an essential role in restoring homogeneity through reconciliation by alleviating distrust and antagonism caused by division and building mutual trust (Allport, 1955; Chung et al., 2016). As such, exchange and cooperation are one of the functionalist approach strategies utilized by divided countries and have been empirically proved as a critical way to achieve national prosperity and reconciliation simultaneously (Hancock & Welsh, 2019).

In 2018, a meeting with President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un seemed to be an opportunity for a breakthrough (C. W. Park, 2021). However, the inter-Korean deadlock following the breakup of the North Korea-U.S. summit in Hanoi in 2019 led to the destruction of the inter-Korean Liaison Office of Gaeseong Industrial Complex in June 2020 (Masterson, 2020). North Korea insists on “the principle of cooperative projects” that promote existing economic support from an equal standpoint between the two Koreas and strongly rejects the expression of “unilateral aid” (C. W. Park, 2021). The Gaeseong Industrial Complex, which used to symbolize economic cooperation between the two Koreas, was closed due to the ‘5.24 measures,’ and inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation are calling for a new paradigm different from the previous one (C. Park & Kim, 2019).

Compared to East-West Germany, inter-Korean relations have not been able to progress, and even preliminary meetings have not yet taken place (C. K. Lee et al., 2012). Therefore, cooperation that enables human and material exchange is needed, which can be called the first step in exchange and cooperation. The exhibition and convention is gaining attention as a field that facilitates such cooperation. The exhibition and convention encompass trade fairs (exhibitions, events), conventions, and conferences, forming a comprehensive industry that covers both domestic and international events and conferences (Schlentrich, 2008). In particular, various countries worldwide are competitively fostering high-value-added industries that enhance the hosting region and the country’s competitiveness (Hai-sen, 2004; B. S. Kim et al., 2018).

In the divided countries mentioned above, it is empirically hard to find cases where they promoted the exhibition and convention as the object of direct exchange and cooperation. However, in the German case, which focused on the gradual and phased exchange and cooperation process, exhibitions and conventions through trade fairs played an essential role in integrating East and West Germany (Rudolph & Wüstenhagen, 2006). Although the primary attributes of exhibitions and conventions are meetings and dialogue, which are the core of exchange and cooperation, the two Koreas have grown them for different purposes (C. W. Park, 2021). Therefore, this study intends to suggest that exhibitions and conventions can serve as a platform and window for exchange and cooperation by discovering common needs that meet the two Korea’s interests, even though exhibitions and conventions have developed respectively in the North and South. In other words, it is meaningful to examine the possibility that exhibition and convention can be used as a clue for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula, where even communication does not take place, focusing on meetings and dialogue, which are prerequisites for exchange and cooperation.

Of course, since the background and circumstances of the times have changed so much, there can be various discussions on whether the practices of 40 to 50 years ago can still be applied today. However, even after a considerable amount of time has passed, valuable and diverse contacts have been and are being attempted through exhibitions and conventions in inter-Korean relations. As a prime example, in 2004, KINTEX, one of Korea’s largest venue owners and exhibition organizers, proposed to North Korea to hold the inter-Korean Joint Product Exhibition. To this end, in August 2004, KINTEX personally visited the North Korean delegation in Dandong, China and discussed it. Also, in 2006, there was an attempt to hold an exhibition jointly with inter-Korean and overseas organizers as the object of direct exchange and cooperation. From 2005 to 2007, as part of economic exchange and cooperation, North Korea invited South Korean businesspeople to visit North Korea’s Pyongyang International Trade Fair. In 2018, which is relatively recent, the existing KINTEX and the Korea Exhibition Organizers Association (KEOA) tried to exchange and cooperate with North Korea in exhibitions and conventions. They met four times in about a year, and for short-term results, discussions such as a visit by a South Korean observer to North Korea and holding joint inter-Korean events were conducted. As such, the processes that occurred decades ago in Germany are intermittent but continuous on the Korean Peninsula, and the effectiveness of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation of exhibitions and conventions exists in that it is still in progress (C. W. Park, 2021).

Therefore, this study examines exhibitions and conventions’ role and function in exchange cooperation between East and West Germany and applies them to the Korean Peninsula to derive a sustainable inter-Korean exchange and cooperation process in the exhibition and convention. As a research method, by looking at the German exchange and cooperation process and the Leipzig Trade Fair case (Leipzig Messe), we will derive the analytical framework and implications of the German exchange and cooperation process in exhibition and convention. Then we will apply it to present a sustainable inter-Korean exchange and cooperation process.

Theory Background and Literature Review

Exchange and Cooperation of the Divided Countries and East-West Germany

In integration theory, exchange is the first integration stage, referring to non-political interaction relationships between actors, including attempts and maintenance of contact (Wiener, 2019). Cooperation is expressed as the action or process of working together to the same end (Tuomela, 2013). In summing up the meaning of such exchange and cooperation, exchange and cooperation between divided countries can be defined as the exchange of acts to achieve a common purpose between two or more actors or activities that create a positive effect through joint efforts (Jonsson, 2006).

The theories of functionalism and neo-functionalism in integration theory have been universally applied, asserting that gradual exchange and cooperation between countries in a divided situation can lead to ultimate unification (Dosenrode, 2010; Galtung, 1968; Gehring, 1996). In general, integration theory is a framework used to explain the process and outcome of uniting two or more social groups or states with relatively similar characteristics in a peaceful manner (Galtung, 1968; Wiener, 2019). From a liberal perspective, the integration theory of functionalism and neo-functionalism places emphasis on cooperation through market and socio-cultural exchanges (Maher, 2021). Complex interdependence increases through multidimensional cooperation in the national, social, and institutional aspects (Choi, 2016), and these low-political issues can escalate into high-political issues (political and military). This possibility of spillover is the core of functionalism and neo-functionalism (Haas, 1958; Mitrany, 1966; Nicoli, 2020; Pollack, 2001). In short, cooperation on the non-political and non-military levels and interdependence create common interests, which, in turn, lead to a diffusion effect, enabling political integration (Haas, 2008). This integration theory has been widely used to explain the process of European integration or German unification (Dietz, 2006; Goetz, 1995; Hendriks, 1991; Jeffery & Paterson, 2003; Siebert, 1991).

Even after Germany divided into East Germany and West Germany, internal conflicts continued to exist. Due to the “Hallstein Doctrine,” the fundamental principle of West Germany’s foreign policy in the 1950s and 1960s, adequate exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany were not achieved in the political, economic, social and cultural sectors (Schmidt, 2003). Nevertheless, East and West Germany maintained exchanges and cooperation for 20 years after the division (Levcik & Stankovsky, 2017). In September 1951, trade between East and West governments was exempted from internal trade tariffs, giving them virtually the same domestic distribution status. Germany had already established traffic and communication exchanges, including human and material exchanges, even before the General Traffic Agreement (1972.5.8.) was signed in 1972. Human exchanges and freedom to travel enabled tourism exchanges, ultimately leading to unification.

Besides, West German Prime Minister Billy Brandt steadfastly promoted the “Eastern Policy (Ostpolitik)” (Cordell & Wolff, 2007). In particular, by expanding the scope of contact for exchange and cooperation with East Germany in various forms, the government continued to implement policies aimed at facilitating changes in East Germany. Brandt’s Eastern Policy is still highly regarded because it began with the recognition that realistic conditions should be created, rather than expecting immediate reunification outcomes (Fink, 2006).

In December 1972, as a result of the New Eastern Policy, the two Germans signed a Basic Treaty that partially recognized East Germany’s existence. This marked the beginning of exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany (Vanderwood, 1993). Following the signing of the Basic Treaty, exchanges expanded into almost all fields, inevitably leading to increased human exchange (Plock, 2019). This growth in exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany, particularly the expansion of human exchanges, played a pivotal role in resolving mutual distrust and restoring homogeneity. Subsequently, in 1973, East and West Germany simultaneously joined the United Nations, and East German residents visited West Germany in large numbers by establishing the Resident Representative in 1974. This set the stage for the historic fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, driven by a combination of protests demanding freedom of travel and reform in East Germany (Bruner, 1989).

The Nature of Exhibition and Convention as a Means of Exchange and Cooperation

The exhibition and convention presuppose meetings between people (Smagina, 2017). Historically, the origin of the exhibition (messe) is known as the beginning of exhibitions and conventions, a market formed by meetings of people attending church, which is the Latin word for “Missa” on a specific day (Rodekamp, 2005). The convention is also etymologically composed of the Latin word “con,” meaning “together,” and “vene,” meaning “to come.” As such, exhibitions and conventions are based on human contact, meetings between people, and exchange and cooperation through personal contact is the most realistic and necessary factor in North and South Korea.

The possibility of exchange and cooperation is high in the field of exhibitions and conventions, as it falls within the economic domain and is a service industry with fewer conflicts of political interests between the parties (Hai-sen, 2004). The impact of exhibition and convention participants on the local economy is more significant than that of general tourists (Jin & Yoon, 2018). The ripple effect on related industries is also significant due to the nature of a complex industry where several sectors are intertwined (McCartney, 2008; Schlentrich, 2008). These characteristics of exhibitions and conventions bring economic benefits to the parties, serving as a driving force for exchange and cooperation in accordance with their needs.

According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1998), when tourism is considered the movement of people with purpose and motivation, all activities related to exhibitions and conventions become tourism. In particular, from the perspective of exchange and cooperation, tourism is a vital force for peace (D'Amore, 1988; Jafari, 1989). Tourism exchanges based on peaceful attributes are the most basic means of realizing human exchange substantially beyond physical exchange (Becken & Carmignani, 2016; Farmaki, 2017; Khalilzadeh, 2018). This vitalization of human exchange effectively resolves mutual hostility and builds trust relationships (Chen et al., 2016; Pratt & Liu, 2016). As such, exhibitions and conventions promote inter-Korean cooperation and resolve conflict factors, which is eventually the same as the essence of tourism (S. S. Kim et al., 2016). Therefore, the various attributes of exhibitions and conventions can serve as an effective means of exchange and cooperation in divided countries.

Methodology

A comparative analysis is used as a study method by comparing the phenomena and characteristics of the research subject. An illustrative comparison, which analyzes cases or features found in the subject or object to be compared in a descriptive manner, is adopted among the comparative analysis methods. Under the assumption that exhibitions and conventions can play a role in the exchange and cooperation of divided countries, this study sets the Leipzig Trade Fair case between East and West Germany as the subject of comparative analysis, which experienced division and exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions.

The Leipzig Fair’s characteristics and the patterns and process of exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany are reviewed through literature. In particular, this examination delves into the background of East and West Germany regarding the fair, the purpose of the exchange and cooperation despite the existing conflicting factors, and strategies for conflict resolution. It also encompasses the description and organization of the actual subjects of exchange and cooperation, as well as the effects and significance achieved through exhibitions and conventions.

However, a study that applies a single case of East-West German exchange and cooperation of exhibitions and conventions to the Korean Peninsula is inevitably very peripheral and fragmentary. In addition, it cannot be considered an objective study, and there is a risk of making sweeping generalization fallacies. Therefore, to conduct a systematic case study, this research specifically examines the various aspects of exchanges and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions between East and West Germany, taking into account the respective time periods and international contexts. In particular, it comprehensively reviews the global order centered on the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II and the current international situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula, conducting a parallel analysis as part of the comparative study.

By systematically comparing and analyzing the similarities and differences between the German exchange and cooperation process and the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, we have reviewed the potential for exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions and have subsequently presented future directions. This involves a comparison of the exchange and cooperation situations and systems between the two Germanies and the two Koreas, with the aim of applying the insight gained from the Leipzig trade fair case to the Korean Peninsula. Specifically, this study intends to focus on several key aspects including historical backgrounds, internal and external conflict dynamics, the purpose and practical subjects of exchange and cooperation, as well as the effects. Subsequently, taking cues from the situation in East and West Germany, specific elements and contents for exchange and cooperation suitable for the Korean peninsula situation will be organized to establish a process for exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions. Finally, this research seeks to present a comprehensive discussion on the roles, functions, and possibilities of the exchange and cooperation process facilitated by exhibitions and conventions in divided countries.

Case of German Exchange and Cooperation Through Leipzig Trade Fair

Leipzig Trade Fair and East-West Germany

Leipzig is a cultural and tourism city located in eastern Germany and has been a representative exhibition and convention city since the Middle Ages (Rodekamp, 2005). Leipzig held an early form of a trade fair in the city center in 1165 and played a pivotal role in the trade fair industry throughout Europe as it progressed into modern times (C. W. Park, 2021; Wohlfarth, 1997). After Germany was divided into East and West, Leipzig incorporated socialism under Soviet control. Nevertheless, Leipzig continued to operate as a significant trade center in Eastern Europe due to the Leipzig Trade Fair, which took place biannually (Bathelt, 2001). Leipzig Trade Fair was one of Leipzig’s representative industrial trade fairs with a history of about 850 years (Lampe, 1993) and one of the most visited events in Eastern Europe (Gross, 2012). Therefore, it served as one of the few exchange zones bridging the gap between East and West Germany, facilitating trade connections between Eastern and Western Europe (CIA, 1955; Lampe, 1993). In particular, the Leipzig Trade Fair, which evolved alongside economic growth, rapidly expanded across the European continent, introducing a new trend aiming to display products for the first time globally, unlike the previous trade fairs that primarily concentrated on sales (Rodekamp, 2005; Schoop, 2005). The trade fairs’ growth has been a critical factor in cities’ growth and development (Grimm, 1995). Internally, it became a major driving force for the regional economy of Leipzig and later played an essential role in the cooperation and trade exchange of East and West Germany (Grundmann, 1996).

Leipzig Trade Fair persisted even after World War II and the subsequent division (Kryuchkov & Kryuchkov, 2019). However, it became the object of high-level politics involving the U.S. military, Western powers, and Soviet Union as a result of the division. In particular, due to the United States and the Soviet Union’s influence, hosting the event itself was often uncertain or disrupted (CIA, 1954). For example, there was a case in which West German companies could not participate in the fair due to the lack of permission from the U.S. to operate trains, despite the Soviet Union’s approval of Western companies’ participation in the Leipzig Fair.

The East German government provided both material and moral support to elevate its political status domestically and internationally at the central government level and successfully held the fair for economic growth (Kryuchkov & Kryuchkov, 2019). Particularly, the German Socialist Unity Party (known as the East German Communist Party) in East Germany utilized the fair to promote the excellence of the East German regime and achieve economic benefits (CIA, 1954). Thus, East Germany employed the Leipzig Trade Fair as a political tool orchestrated by the regime. During the preparation for the fair, the East German security agency and the police became involved. However, despite the control of the East German security agency and the police, human exchanges in East and West Germany for the Leipzig Trade Fair persisted, beyond the reach of East German authorities.

Regarding the use of the Leipzig Trade Fair as a political means by the East German government, the West German government called for refraining official figures, such as the head of the West German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (GCCI), from participating in the Leipzig Trade Fair, without preventing West German companies from participating in it. The business groups in West Germany sought the government’s official stance on the Leipzig Trade Fair, but government officials avoided making comments that could entail political responsibility. In this process, individual companies could continue participating in the Leipzig trade fair to establish a relationship with East Germany. In other words, the West German government continued to pursue a two-sided policy: officially opposing the East German regime while implicitly allowing economic relations without incurring political costs (Rudolph & Wüstenhagen, 2006).

In September 1960, the two countries’ relationship deteriorated due to the mandatory issuance of passports for West Germans in East Germany. As a result, voices calling for a boycott of the Leipzig Trade Fair started emerging in West Germany. The West German government requested the cancellation of their participation in the Leipzig Trade Fair, but Krupp and some companies, including the GCCI, remained committed to participating. In December 1960, East and West Germany reached an agreement and released a joint statement, allowing West German companies to participate in the fair. However, East and West Germany’s relationship deteriorated significantly with the establishment of the Berlin Wall in 1961. West Germany froze economic contacts in response to this action and implemented a boycott of the Leipzig Trade Fair. The West German Government even intervened with economic organizations in West Germany to discourage participation in the spring fair in 1962. Since then, West German companies’ participation in the fair has been primarily restricted by the West German government. However, individual companies and steel-related companies, led by the GCCI, have continued to express their willingness to participate. The Berlin crisis and the Leipzig Trade Fair boycott presented significant impediments to East and West German trade, particularly in the private sector. Besides, it posed challenges in facilitating meeting between East and West German residents through the fair, a unique characteristic of the Leipzig Trade Fair.

Exchange and Cooperation of Leipzig Trade Fair Between East and West Germany

Despite these political upheavals, the Leipzig Trade Fair continued to serve as an essential gateway for West Germany and Western countries to make inroads into East Germany. The Frankfurt Economic Administration’s participation in the Leipzig Trade Fair despite the Berlin Crisis in 1948 exemplifies West Germany’s efforts to continue mutual exchange and cooperation. The East German Bureau of Fair Trade, which oversaw the Leipzig Fair, took further steps by establishing official branches in Western countries since the mid-fifties and deploying East German residents as staff. Furthermore, they set up consignment offices in nearly all major West German cities and the Western occupation zones. Many of these consignment offices collaborated with West Germans associated with the GCCI, with a remuneration paid by the East German Bureau of Fair Trade. This implies that West Germany actively took part in certain promotion and marketing activities of the Leipzig Fair held by East Germany during the period of division.

West German companies devised various business projects to reconnect their East European partners and customers, who had been cut off due to the West government’s boycott. Notably, West German pharmaceutical companies, such as Bayer, took the initiative by visiting Leipzig hospitals in person to promote their products through participation in the fair. The staff, temporarily hired by the Trade Fair Bureau in East Germany, assumed the role of booth assistant at the fair. This was a significant shift, as West Germany and Western countries had previously been somewhat distrustful of these staff members. However, by the late 1980s, the exhibiting companies even provided the specific booth employees’ names to the Bureau and requested their assignment at the fair. This development signified that as companies continued to participate in the fair, they were able to establish a trust-based relationship with the booth operating staff, primarily comprised of female college students in East Germany (Rudolph & Wüstenhagen, 2006).

The Leipzig Trade Fair occupied a central role in facilitating private meetings between East and West Germany. Despite the challenges posed by the Berlin Crisis and the strict border controls between East and West Germany, the Leipzig Fair stood as a critical exception. The fair’s passcard granted individuals the right to stay in Leipzig and move to other East German cities. This allowed residents who had migrated from East Germany to the West to revisit East Germany under the pretext of participating in the Leipzig Fair. Additionally, it provided them with the opportunity to visit their relatives and acquaintances in the East.

Meanwhile, these people placed a significant burden on arranging accommodation during the fair, and it also posed challenges for the administration of the East German authorities (CIA, 1954). The state-run travel agency in East Germany handled accommodations for exhibitors and visitors at the Leipzig Fair. It was a challenge for the East German authorities to provide sufficient accommodation for everyone attending the fair (Kryuchkov & Kryuchkov, 2019). Thus, there was a need to revitalize lodgings that utilized Leipzig residents’ homes to compensate for the shortage of accommodations, such as hotels. During this process, a black market for accommodation cards emerged, offering lodgings that were difficult to obtain. It was believed that the Leipzig Fair brought economic benefits to both East and West Germany.

Some Leipzig residents went beyond providing accommodation during the fair; they acted as comprehensive guides, offering services such as meals, shopping assistance, and pub guidance. Some even facilitated arrangements for prostitutes for foreign participants. Aside from the substantial contracts made at the fair itself, the ripple effects outside the fairgrounds became increasingly important for Leipzig residents. Naturally, West Germany’s foreign currency, loans, and supplies through the Leipzig Fair heightened East Germany’s economic dependence on West Germany. Consequently, the Leipzig Trade Fair served as an excellent opportunity to foster mutual understanding by facilitating direct contact between East and West German residents.

Implications of Exchange and Cooperation in Exhibition and Convention Between East-West Germany

Under the German division, the exhibitions and conventions served multiple purposes. They acted as a medium of exchange and cooperation, a political object in themselves, and at times, contributed to conflict within the political landscape (Rudolph & Wüstenhagen, 2006). Nevertheless, the hosting of exhibitions and conventions and the continued interactions between East and West Germany played a crucial role in addressing some of the underlying causes of conflicts (C. W. Park, 2021). Thus, this study seeks to identify clues for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation by examining the functions and roles of exhibitions and conventions in facilitating exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany. As a result, the exchange and cooperation process in exhibitions and conventions between East and West Germany and its implications are as follows.

First, despite the division and differing goals, East and West Germany, along with neighboring countries, jointly endeavored to continue hosting the fair. West Germany aimed to expand its presence into Eastern Europe, including East Germany, while East Germany utilized the fair to enhance its political status, promote its regime, and stimulate economic growth. Regardless of their specific objectives, exhibitions and conventions held great significance in creating an environment where human contact and fostering exchange and cooperation between East and West.

Second, various conflict factors were contingent on the political situation during the fair. For instance, at the beginning of the division, the Leipzig Fair became a high-priority political target of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, resulting in uncertainties surrounding its organization and participation. Furthermore, the West German government did not adopt a clear stance regarding East Germany’s political exploitation of the fair, given its relationship with East Germany. However, it also urged companies to abstain from participating in the fair.

The second Berlin crisis, initiated in 1958 when Khrushchev’s insisted on making Berlin a demilitarized zone, lasted nearly 3 years. By 1961, tensions escalated during the Berlin crisis, accompanied by economic hardships and political persecution, leading to a significant increase in the number of residents fleeing from East Germany to the West. The mass exodus of the residents, many of whom constituted East Germany’s productive population, had a detrimental impact on the East German economy. Consequently, the East German government set up the Berlin Wall to curb this exodus. With the erection of the Berlin Wall, the East and West German relationships deteriorated rapidly, and West Germany implemented measures to freeze economic contact with East Germany. In response, West Germany pushed for inducing boycotts, absences, and even the fair’s cancellation at the government level. This stance acted as a hindrance to the fair’s unique function, which facilitated exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany. From the standpoint of West Germany, which did not want to impose a trade embargo on East Germany, boycotting the fair served as both a protest against the establishment of the Berlin Wall and an effective way to avoid unnecessarily exacerbating relations at the same time (Beschloss, 2016).

Third, the West German government pursued a dual-pronged policy that considered political relations with East Germany and participation in fairs separately, despite the prevailing political circumstances. It formally opposed the East German regime and utilized the fair as a political tool, but it tacitly allowed economic relations without incurring political costs, such as participation in the fair. The effectiveness of this approach was also partially confirmed, as West German companies also achieved success at the fair. In particular, following the signing of the Basic Treaty, it became a critical venue for meeting between economy-related politicians and business representatives from East and West Germany, as well as for trade and commodity transactions.

Fourth, one of the crucial reasons why exchange and cooperation through the fair were remained possible was the unwavering willingness of West German companies to participate. While the West German government maintained an ambiguous stance toward the companies’ involvement, the companies’ dedication and willingness, particularly those affiliated with the GCCI, played a central role in sustaining ongoing exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany. This persistence was particularly evident after the establishment of the Berlin Wall in 1961, which led to participation restrictions as part of the West German government’s boycott policy. However, participation continued through a Joint Resolution issued by the GCCI and the West German Steel Industry Association in support of their involvement in the Leipzig Trade Fair. Even when the political situation led to the participation cancellation in the fair, some West German companies remained steadfast in their commitment, promoting agreements to be reached between, East and West Germany to address the issue.

Fifth, exchange and cooperation facilitated by the fair did not solely rely on a unilateral effort from of West Germany. The Leipzig Trade Fair Bureau of East Germany also took steps to establish branches in West Germany and other Western countries to promote and carry out marketing activities. The inclusion of West German individuals hired to assist with promotional and marketing activities underscores that exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions extended into the daily lives of both East and West Germans.

Sixth, exhibitions and conventions facilitated various forms of contact between East and West German residents. As previously mentioned, this encompassed various interactions between East and West German residents, including the West German employees hired by the East Germans, booth operators, lodging facility staff, and various service workers for West German participants. Consequently, as more trade fairs were held, human trust between East and West residents grew, with some interactions even evolving into personal meetings. Figure 1 illustrates the implications of exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions between East-West Germany, as derived from the Leipzig Trade Fair.

Figure 1.

Implications of exchange and cooperation in exhibition and convention between East-West Germany from the Leipzig Trade Fair.

Application of German Exchange and Cooperation in Exhibition and Convention to the Korean Peninsula

Comparison of Exchange and Cooperation System Between East-West Germany and North-South Korea

Various models have been discussed concerning the exchange and cooperation among the divided countries, but the German model is widely considered when examining the conditions on the Korean Peninsula (Hart-Landsberg, 1996; Kelly, 2011; J. Lee, 2000; Noland, 1996; Rhee, 1993; Wolf, 1998). In the German model, there are notable similarities between the gap separating East and West Germany and North and South Korea, including factors such as national territory, population size, and GNP. Furthermore, the pattern of unilateral support led by West Germany bears a resemblance. Besides, the legal status of these divided regions is similar, as they both emerged as products of the Cold War following World War II. They also share commonalities in their international status as independent countries that joined the United Nations simultaneously and exhibit certain unique internal relations (Vanderwood, 1993).

One of the primary reasons why the Korean Peninsula pays close attention to Germany’s unification is that Germany has achieved democratic and peaceful unification through continuous efforts to foster understanding and various forms of exchange and cooperation (Wolf, 1998). The outcome of East and West Germany could have entirely different results depending on who played the leading role in the exchange and unification process during their division. Germany could not rule out the integration by physical forces by one side. Nevertheless, Germany’s own peace process has become a valuable precedent for the Korean Peninsula through. However, it is worth noting that West Germany did not fully regain its external sovereignty until reunification. The outcome of World War II and the involvement of the four major Allied powers played a pivotal role in determining the final confirmation authority for German unification, making their consent and support imperative. The German unification holds even greater significance for the Korean Peninsula situation, as it shares similarities with Germany’s situation, being under the influence of the four major powers involved in the six-party talks.

Nevertheless, despite these similarities, there are also significant differences between Korea and Germany. After World War II, the victorious Allied Powers, including the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union divided Germany into four zones of occupation. The Soviet Union occupied Germany’s eastern region and introduced a communist system, while the Western coalition established a liberal democracy system in the West. Germany was divided by the former Soviet Union and the United States as a war criminal and defeated country in World War II, as part of the post-war condemnation process. On the other hand, the Korean Peninsula was divided as a result of efforts to restor national sovereignty and territory that had been invaded during Japanese colonial rule. It further suffered the Korean War called “the tragedy of national mourning” (K. J. Park, 2013). Since the Korean War in 1950, the hostile military confrontation has persisted, marked by the presence of the military demarcation line, which has kept the two sides entirely separated (C. W. Kim & Lee, 2014).

As a result, East-West Germany and North and South Korea held different perspectives on each other. Even after the respective division, West Germany pursued reunification by recognizing East Germany as a single country rather than a separate entity. Besides, due to Berlin’s unique administrative structure, limited human and material exchanges were possible even before the conclusion of the Basic Treaty (Yang, 2008). On the other hand, there has been minimal exchange between the two Koreas since the onset of their division.The Cold War ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which persisted even after the division, obstructed opportunities for exchange and cooperation. While Germany signed the Basic Treaty through the Eastern policy and expanded the exchange scope, the two Koreas have struggled to establish mutual trust due to various unforeseen circumstances (Jang, 2004).

From a consequential point of view, German reunification may appear to have occurred accidentally, rapidly, and dramatically. However, a closer examination reveals that it resulted from the West German policy toward East Germany and active international efforts (Yang, 2008). The West German government played a critical role in inducing change among East German residents through increased East and West contacts. The West German government’s active and agile exchange and cooperation policy proved highly effective in this process. Furthermore, from the functionalist standpoint, the significant economic power of West Germany and the preemptive advantage in system competition can be regarded among the main contributing factors (Leaman, 1988). Therefore, it can be argued that West Germany established a long-term foundation for reunification based on the functionalist approach rather than system integration through negotiation, which aligns with the institutional approach (Hancock & Welsh, 2019). Therefore, the exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany, driven by West Germany's persistent efforts, played a crucial role in expanding human exchange. This process should also serve as a vital premise for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation (Matthews & Richter, 1991).

Furthermore, the response of East Germany to the efforts of the West German government was also critical. Currently, South Korea is knocking on the door of exchange and cooperation with North Korea, but the lack of a response contrasts with the situation in Germany. While it is true that the foundation for reunification in Germany was primarily laid by West Germany, it should not be overlooked that East Germany actively responded to West Germany’s initiatives for peaceful reunification (Park, 2013). This fundamental driving force is rooted in the lower-level interactions between East and West German residents, and exchange and cooperation played a significant role in integrating values and structures. Therefore, continuous exchange and cooperation, serving as a facilitator for achieving unification, effectively minimize the pain of division on both sides and preserve the homogeneity of the nation.

Sustainable Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Process of Exhibition and Convention

In terms of exchange and cooperation, the Korean Peninsula lags behind Germany in the context of exhibitions and conventions. Various conflict factors exist, including the North Korean nuclear issue, political and military tensions, such as sanctions against North Korea, and complicated international relations surrounding the Korean Peninsula (C. W. Park, 2021). Despite several crises arising from the political upheaval between East and West Germany, they also displayed a strong determination to continue hosting the fair, and these efforts eventually became a clue to problem resolution. Through the organization of exhibitions and conventions, exchange and cooperation gradually led to human and material exchanges, significantly impacting the economies and markets of both East and West Germany. However, it is important to note that German exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions were primarily driven by the private sector, particularly at the corporate level, rather than at the government level. The West German government expressed skepticism regarding companies’ participation in the Leipzig Fair as East and West German political relations deteriorated. However, despite the government’s sanctions, West German companies persisted in participating in the fair, using it as a bridgehead to advance into East Germany and achieving sustainable performances. Throughout this process, the exhibitions and conventions created natural interactions between East and West Germany, laying an essential foundation for the eventual German reunification (Rudolph & Wüstenhagen, 2006).

While the exchange cooperation of exhibitions and conventions initially began from an economic and industrial perspective, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of human exchanges (C.W.Park, 2021). Such human interactions and cooperation can serve as an initial step towards the eventual establishment of free travel between the two Koreas. However, unlike the German situation, the current lack of institutionalized free travel between the two Koreas makes it challenging to rely solely on the civilian sector’s role. Therefore, while recognizing the importance of civilian involvement in exchange and cooperation, it's essential to acknowledge that the private sector’s role in the current inter-Korean relations is limited. In this context, the role of the inter-Korean authorities becomes more prominent. Given the circumstances, there is growing need for “Collaborative Governance Building” that involves both inter-Korean authorities and ensures active civilian participation. This collaborative approach can help facilitate and strengthen exchange and cooperation efforts on the Korean Peninsula.

Collaborative governance, in theory, aligns with liberal thinking, as it seeks to address national, social, and institutional issues through multidimensional collaborative interactions. However, what sets collaborative governance apart from general governance is that the actors involved do not necessarily pursue a common purpose, but rather than work together to achieve different purposes. In particular, collaborative governance primarily aims at managing and resolving conflicts (Murdock et al., 2005; Tang & Mazmanian, 2008), making it a crucial component in the process of fostering sustainable inter-Korean exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions.

The key stakeholders of the inter-Korean exchange and cooperation through exhibitions and conventions include the North Korean authorities, the South Korean government, and the private sector. In North Korea, the organization is substantially unified around the ruling party, while in South Korea, it is necessary to differentiate the roles of the government and the private sector. Unlike the situation in Germany before its division, where exhibitions and conventions continued to be held with significant progress in mutual exchanges and trade agreements, the current inter-Korean relationship lacks many institutional agreements. Therefore, the authorities must play a crucial role in creating conditions for exchange and cooperation. Given the need for continuous exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions, it is appropriate to apply a collaborative governance approach that emphasizes close communication and networks between the relevant parties, including government authorities and the private sector.

One of the reasons the Leipzig Trade Fair continued even under division was that East and West Germany could achieve their respective goals through the fair. Just as collaborative governance does not require stakeholders to achieve their common objectives, this continuous exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany have been the driving force. Likewise, even if the purpose of exchange and cooperation between the two Koreas differ, it can still be possible if it aligns with their interests. For South Korea, it could be a process leading to inter-Korean integration, while North Korea might engage in exchange and cooperation to attract foreign currency and alleviate current sanctions. Regardless of the differing objectives, enabling human and material communication between the two Koreas could be meaning ful (Park, 2021). In the current situation where inter-Korean exchange and cooperation are virtually cut off, exhibition and convention would serve as the first step in renewing the inter-Korean ties and opening a new channel for dialogue and collaboration.

In the German Leipzig Fair case, the exhibition and convention played a crucial role in mediating and alleviating political conflicts between East and West Germany. The fair served as a platform to help stakeholders from both sides achieve their respective goals, even as political conflicts, such as the Berlin crisis, also continued to arise during the process. Companies in the private sector took on a central role in mediating and resolving these conflicts. West German companies’ willingness to participate in the fair and their continued expression of interest served to draw agreement between East and West German authorities and facilitate institutional settlement. Essentially, the mere act of company’s participating in the exhibition and convention itself became a key factor in conflict resolution, as it aligned with the interests of both parties. Through this ongoing process, various forms of contact between East and West residents continued to contribute to long-term unification efforts.

The exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions between two Koreas may encounter various conflict situations due to differing purposes and objectives, similar to the East-West German case. Drawing from the East-West German experience, it’s possible that some of these conflicts can be resolved through exhibitions and conventions. Much like how West German companies’ participation and the continued holding of the fair played a catalytic role in conflict resolution, economic interdependence can strengthen as transactions between the two Koreas are facilitated through exhibitions and conventions, helping stakeholders achieve their respective goals (Choi, 2016). Inter-Korean exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions can serve as a practical means of fostering human and physical contact, reconciling differences, and mitigating conflicts by promoting inter-Korean business relations. Ultimately, hosting exhibition and convention, as Leipzig did, can lead to an increase in the income of North Koreans and provide them with exposure to open economies, potentially contributing to building sustainable trust and peaceful relationships. This process can expand mutual understanding and help resolve hostility. A comparison between East-West Germany and the North-South Korean exchange and cooperation process in exhibitions and conventions is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of Exchange and Cooperation Process in Exhibitions and Conventions between East-West Germany and North-South Korea.

Countryprocess	East and West Germany		North and South Korea
Background of exchange and cooperation in E&C	. E&C in East Germany was held before the division, Global E&C Developed Countries . Mutual traffic and human/material transactions were possible after the division . Pursuing continuous exchange and cooperation after the conclusion of the Basic Treaty		. Relatively low level of development in the E&C industry . Blockade of exchange and cooperation opportunities due to ideological confrontation after the division . Mutual distrust due to continuous hostile relationships
Conflict factors	. E&C: Political Subject and Use among U.S., Soviet Union and East-West Germany) . Berlin Wall Establishment, first, second Berlin Crisis		. North Korean Nuclear Issue, Sanctions against North Korea . Inter-Korean Political & Military Tensions . Complex International Relations such as North Korea-U.S./U.S.-China/North Korea-Japan
Purpose of exchange and cooperation in E&C	. The Difference Purpose of East-West Germany		. The Difference Purpose of North-South Korea
	W.G.	. Utilizing the bridgehead for entering the East German and Eastern European markets . Constant traffic with East Germany	S.K.	. The process leading up to unification and integration . Strengthening economic interdependence through inter-Korean economic exchanges and business creation
	E.G.	. Enhancing Political Status . Regime Propaganda . Economic Growth. Contact of W.G. Companies	N.K.	. Regime Propaganda and Solidarity . Means to resolve sanctions against N.K. for economic and practical purposes . Acquisition of foreign currency . Channels for the inflow of advanced technology, information and products . Foreign economic exchange and cooperation
Subject of exchange and cooperation in E&C	W.G.	. Active attitude centered on Private/Enterprise (GCCI, Steel Industry Association) . Government-Passive, Negative → Active	S.K.	. Government Sector : Comprehensive Supporting Organization . Private Sector : Substantive exchange and cooperation subject
Subject of exchange and cooperation in E&C	E.G.	. Government & Trade Fair Bureau . East German residents directly associated with the E&C	N.K.	. Monolithic . The centralized organizational system of the party(government) and private sector
Effect of exchange and cooperation in E&C	. W.G. Government : Justification of continuous exchange and cooperation . W.G. Enterprise : Continuous participation by verifying the economic performance and effectiveness . E.G. Government : Means of conflict mediation to achieve objectives . E.G. Residents : Creating additional income, Understanding . W.G. culture → Expansion of human/material contact and traffic in various forms		. Realistic alternatives for human and material contact and travel attempts . Foundation for expanding inter-Korean business . Inter-Korean conflict mediation and mitigation measures . Understanding the open economy . Mitigating military tension . Expanding mutual understanding and resolving hostility . Creating North Korea’s industrial infrastructure . Increasing in North Korean income → Building mutual trust between the two Koreas, . Forming a peaceful relationship

Note. E&C = Exhibition and Convention; W.G. = West Germany; E.G. = East Germany; S.K. = South Korea; N.K. = North Korea.

Discussion and Conclusion

Exchange and cooperation in the exhibitions and conventions within divided countries are influenced by various factors, including the intentions and purposes of the involved actors, compromises, and negotiation processes. In the case of East and West Gremany, the process of exchange and cooperation in the exhibitions and conventions saw various political efforts aimed at resolving conflict situations and focusing on the economic approaches. However, exhibitions and conventions were not systematically discussed or treated as a central government-level object of exchange and cooperation between East and West Germany. There was not clear policy implementation targeting specific regions or specific exhibitions and conventions. Instead, exhibitions and conventions were often held at the local level, such as the Leipzig Trade Fair, resulting in continuous exchange and cooperation between two German states.

Therefore, an important implication derived from the German experience of exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions is the possibility of continuous human and material traffic and interaction between divided countries. The Leipzig Fair case exemplifies how ongoing exchanges, interactions, and communication between East and West Germany played a crucial role in bridging the gap and fostering mutual understanding In short, the sustainable inter-Korean exchange and cooperation process in exhibition and convention involves a comprehensive assessment of the role of the exhibitions and conventions and their expected outcomes as a means of exchange and cooperation in a challenging context.

Principal players involved in Inter-Korean exhibitions and conventions are motivated by different purposes and intentions, often in the face of internal and external conflicts. This initial attempt at exchange and cooperation makes the beginning of the formation process. Through the implementation of various collaborative governance projects, which involve actions and interactions, it becomes possible to reconcile and alleviate conflicts and establish mutual trust. This trust-building process, in turn, facilitates exchange and cooperation across different sectors and expands various business opportunities with North Korea. In simplified terms, this process can be represented as follows: “Initiating exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions to achieve specific goals—Identifying the existence of conflict factors—Conflict resolution and mitigation—Establishment and Stabilization,” aligning with the principles of collaborative governance. The continual repetition of this process forms the foundation for exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions, playing an essential role in promoting peaceful inter-Korean relations and integration.

This study carries significant academic implications as it has explored the relatively under-researched topic of exhibitions and conventions as a subject of independent inquiry, specifically in the context of exchange and cooperation within divided countries. It has introduced a novel perspective that has not been previously attempted so far, analyzing the dynamics of exhibition and convention exchange and cooperation in the context of German reunification and applying these insights to the Korean Peninsula to derive implications and processes. As a result, the research findings reveal that exhibitions and conventions played a multifaceted role under East and West Germany, serving as spaces for political, economic, and interpersonal interactions, as well as channel for comprehensive communication and mobility. This expansion of human and physical exchanges emerged as a critical foundation for reconciliation and conflict alleviation within the existing East and West German divide, ultimately contrivuting to the path towards reunification.This sustainable Korean Peninsula exchange and cooperation process in exhibitions and conventions can be represented by Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Sustainable Korean Peninsula exchange and cooperation process in exhibitions and conventions.

Likewise, the role of exhibitions and conventions in inter-Korean exchange and cooperation can be expected through the case of East-West Germany. Exhibitions and conventions can serve as effective channels for human traffic and communication, as well as a means of enhancing North Korea’s self-sustainability and creating economic benefits through inter-Korean transactions (Park, 2021). Therefore, this research differentiates itself by approaching the the exchange and cooperation of exhibitions and conventions from an economic perspective with service industry characteristics, rather than viewing them as simple events. Thus, it will lay the foundation for mutual growth by promoting trade and transactions between the two Koreas, ultimately contributing to peace and unification by alleviating and offsetting inter-Korean conflicts.

This study examined the applicability of conflict adjustment and mitigation functions to the Korean Peninsula, focusing on German exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions While the German case offers valuable insights due to its status as a divided country with advanced exhibition and convention capabilities, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of generalizing from a single case study. Furthermore, the lack of prior research on inter-Korean exchange and cooperation in exhibitions and conventions underscores the need for further exploration in this area. Therefore, future studies should aim to investigate the exchange and cooperation of exhibitions and conventions in a complex manner and provide a specific step-by-step roadmaps through diverse research approaches. Additionally, this study primarily emphasized South Korea’s leading role in exchange and cooperation. However, considering that exchange and cooperation involved a negotiation process based on the intentions and objectives of all parties involved, future studies should also focus on the North Korean perspective regarding exchange and cooperation in exhibitons and conventions. This balanced approach can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dyanmics at play in inter-Korean relations within the context of exhibitions and conventions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Chang Won Park

Ji-Yeon Lee

Bong-Seok Kim

References

Allport

G. W.

(1955). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Bathelt

(2001). The rise of a new cultural products industry cluster in Germany: The case of the Leipzig media industry. IWSG.

Becken

Carmignani

(2016). Does tourism lead to peace? Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 63–79.

Beschloss

(2016). The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963. Open Road Media.

Bruner

M. S.

(1989). Symbolic uses of the Berlin Wall, 1961–1989. Communication Quarterly, 37(4), 319–328.

Butler

R. W.

Mao

(1996). Conceptual and theoretical implications of tourism between partitioned states. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 25–34.

Chen

C. C.

Lai

Y. H.

Petrick

J. F.

Lin

Y. H.

(2016). Tourism between divided nations: An examination of stereotyping on destination image. Tourism Management, 55, 25–36.

Choi

J. K.

(2016). Crisis stability or general stability? Assessing Northeast Asia's absence of war and prospects for liberal transition. Review of International Studies, 42(2), 287–309.

Chung

J. Y.

Chen

C. C.

Lin

Y. H.

(2016). Cross-strait tourism and generational cohorts. Journal of Travel Research, 55(6), 813–826.

10.

CIA. (1954). Information report. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000700160061-5.pdf

11.

CIA. (1955). Information report. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A005900120001-6.pdf

12.

Cordell

Wolff

(2007). A foreign policy analysis of the “German Question”: Ostpolitik revisited. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(3), 255–271.

13.

D'Amore

. (1988). Tourism - the World's peace industry. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 35–40.

14.

Dietz

(2006). Aussiedler in Germany: From smooth adaptation to tough integration. In Lucassen

Feldman

Oltmer

(Eds.), Paths of integration. Migrants in Western Europe (1880-2004) (pp. 116–136). Amsterdam University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kdns

15.

Dosenrode

(2010). Federalism theory and neo-functionalism: Elements for an analytical framework. Perspectives on Federalism, 2(3), 1–28.

16.

Farmaki

(2017). The tourism and peace nexus. Tourism Management, 59, 528–540.

17.

Fink

(2006). Ostpolitik, 1969-1974: The European and global response. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Galtung

(1968). A structural theory of integration. Journal of Peace Research, 5(4), 375–395.

19.

Gehring

(1996). Integrating integration theory: Neo-functionalism and international regimes. Global Society, 10(3), 225–253.

20.

Goetz

K. H.

(1995). National governance and European integration: intergovernmental relations in Germany. Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(1), 91–116.

21.

Grimm

F. D.

(1995). Return to normal? Leipzig in search of its future position in Central Europe. GeoJournal, 36(4), 319–335.

22.

Gross

(2012). Selling Germany in south-Eastern Europe: Economic uncertainty, commercial information and the Leipzig Trade Fair 1920–40. Contemporary European History, 21, 19–39.

23.

Grundmann

(1996). Die Leipziger City im Wandel-zwischen der tradition als Messe-und handelsplatz und aktueller Innenstadtentwicklung (Leipzig's City: Traditional functions and new developments). In Tzschaschel

G. S.

Wollkopf

(Eds.), Leipzig: Ein geographischer Führer durch Stadt und Umland (pp. 30–55). Thom.

24.

Haas

E. B.

(1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950-1957 (No. 42). Stanford University Press.

25.

Haas

E. B.

(2008). Beyond the nation state: Functionalism and international organization. ECPR Press.

26.

Hai-sen

(2004). Study and inspiration on the spatial distribution of oversea MICE industry -taking Germany and Hong Kong as examples. Human Geography, 19(5), 93–95.

27.

Hancock

Welsh

(Eds.). (2019). Models of unification: Integration theory and democratization. German unification. Routledge.

28.

Hart-Landsberg

(1996). Korean unification: Learning from the German experience. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 26(1), 59–80.

29.

Hendriks

(1991). Germany and European integration. The common agricultural policy: An area of conflict. Berg Publishers.

30.

Jafari

(1989). Tourism and peace. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(3), 439–443.

31.

Jang

I. B.

(2004). The role of local autonomy authorities for the tourism exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea: Benchmarks from the German experience. Journal of MICE & Tourism Research, 4(3), 159–182.

32.

Jeffery

Paterson

(2003). Germany and European integration: A shifting of tectonic plates. West European Politics, 26(4), 59–75.

33.

Jin

S. N.

Yoon

Y. S.

(2018). A study on the multilateral cooperation for FDI (foreign direct investment) to MICE industry in North Korea. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Research, 30(6), 259–278.

34.

Jonsson

(2006). Towards Korean reconciliation: Socio-cultural exchanges and cooperation. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

35.

Kelly

R. E.

(2011). The German-Korean unification parallel. . Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 23(4), 457–472.

36.

Khalilzadeh

(2018). Demonstration of exponential random graph models in tourism studies: Is tourism a means of global peace or the bottom line?. Annals of Tourism Research, 69, 31–41.

37.

Kim

B. S.

Lee

E. Y.

Shi

(2018). Legal system of exhibition and convention industry between central and local government: Focused on MICE infrastructure. Ordo Economics Journal, 21(2), 47–73.

38.

Kim

C. W.

Lee

T. S.

(2014). A study on exploring tourism exchange businesses between South and North Koreas through analysing tourism exchange in the process of unification of Germany. Koreanische Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 32(3), 51–71.

39.

Kim

S. S.

Prideaux

Timothy

(2016). Factors affecting bilateral Chinese and Japanese travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 80–95.

40.

Kryuchkov

Y. I.

Kryuchkov

I. V.

(2019). Leipzig Trade Fair in 1950s: Between decision-making and consumption. Humanitarian and Legal Research, 2, 41–46.

41.

Lampe

(1993). Neue Messe Leipzig. http://www.donnerflug.de/diplomarbeit/Lampe_Diplomarbeit_Neue_Messe_Leipzig.pdf

42.

Leaman

(1988). The political economy of West Germany, 1945–85: An Introduction. Springer.

43.

Lee

C. K.

Bendle

L. J.

Yoon

Y. S.

Kim

M. J.

(2012). Thanatourism or peace tourism: Perceived value at a North Korean resort from an indigenous perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(1), 71–90.

44.

Lee

(2000). A millenium hope for Korea: Lessons from German unification. Michigan State University College of Law Journal of International Law, 9, 453–508.

45.

Levcik

Stankovsky

(2017). Industrial cooperation between East and West. Routledge.

46.

Maher

(2021). International relations theory and the future of European integration. International Studies Review, 23, 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa010

47.

Masterson

(2020). Tensions on Korean Peninsula rise. Arms Control Today, 50(6), 38–39.

48.

Matthews

H. G.

Richter

L. K.

(1991). Political science and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 120–135.

49.

McCartney

(2008). The CAT (casino tourism) and the MICE (meetings, incentives, conventions, exhibitions): Key development considerations for the convention and exhibition industry in Macao. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(4), 293–308.

50.

Mitrany

(1966). A working peace system (vol.205). Quadrangle Books.

51.

Murdock

B. S.

Wiessner

Sexton

(2005). Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL case studies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 223–250.

52.

Nicoli

(2020). Neofunctionalism revisited: Integration theory and varieties of outcomes in the Eurocrisis. Journal of European Integration, 42(7), 897–916.

53.

Noland

(1996). German lessons for Korea: The economics of unification (No. 96). Institute for International Economics.

54.

Park

Kim

(2019). Current status of North Korean exhibition industry and strategy for exchange & cooperation in inter-Korean exhibition industry. International Journal of Tourism Management and Sciences, 34(6), 133–155.

55.

Park

C. W.

(2021). An exploratory study on the Inter-Korean MICE industry exchange and cooperation model. Global Business & Finance Review, 26(1), 22–40.

56.

Park

K. J.

(2013). A comparative study of the German 1972 Basic Treaty and Korean 1992 Basic Agreement: A conflict management system approach using a divided nation conflict management model. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 53(2), 99–138.

57.

Plock

E. D.

(2019). The basic treaty and the evolution of East-West German relations. Routledge.

58.

Pollack

M. A.

(2001). International relations theory and European integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(2), 221–244.

59.

Pratt

Liu

(2016). Does tourism really lead to peace? A global view. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1), 82–90.

60.

Rhee

K. S.

(1993). Korea's unification: The applicability of the German experience. Asian Survey, 33(4), 360–375.

61.

Rodekamp

(2005). On the history of trade fairs in Germany and Europe. In Kirchgeorg

Dornscheidt

Giese

Stoeck

(Eds.), Trade show management (pp. 5–29). Gabler. https://link.springer.com/book/9783409143332

62.

Rudolph

Wüstenhagen

(2006). Grosse Politik-kleine Begegnungen: die Leipziger Messe im Ost-West-Konflikt. Vorwärts Buch.

63.

Schlentrich

U. A.

(2008). The MICE industry: Meetings, incentives conventions and exhibitions. In Brotherton

Wood

R. C.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of hospitality management (pp. 400–420). Sage Publications Ltd. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/4912436#page=417

64.

Schmidt

H. I.

(2003). Pushed to the front: The foreign assistance policy of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1958-1971. Contemporary European History, 12(4), 473–507.

65.

Schoop

(2005). History and evolution of trade show models. In Kirchgeorg

Dornscheidt

Giese

Stoeck

(Eds.), Trade show management (pp. 17–29). Gabler. https://link.springer.com/book/9783409143332

66.

Siebert

(1991). The integration of Germany: Real economic adjustment. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), 591–602.

67.

Smagina

(2017). The internationalization of the meetings-, incentives-,conventions- and exhibitions- (MICE) industry: Its influences on the actors in the tourism business activity. Journal of Economics and Management, 27, 96–113.

68.

Tang

S. Y.

Mazmanian

D. A.

(2008). An agenda for the study of collaborative governance (Working Paper). Judith and John Bedrosian Center on Governance and the Public Enterprise, University of Southern California.

69.

Tuomela

(2013). Cooperation: A philosophical study. Springer Science & Business Media.

70.

Vanderwood

D. J.

(1993). The Korean Reconciliation Treaty and the German Basic Treaty: Comparable foundations for unification. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 2(2), 411–432.

71.

Wiener

(2019). European integration theory. Oxford University Press.

72.

Wohlfarth

(1997). Leipziger Messe - Messe und Mehr. In Heribert

Tyll

Helmut

(Eds.), Märkte im dialog (pp. 176–183). Leipziger Messe. https://www.marketingcenter.de/en/research/publications/129469.

73.

Wolf

(1998). Korean unification: Lessons from Germany. Economic integration of the Korean Peninsula. Institute for International Economics.

74.

WTO. (1998). Tourism 2020 vision. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284402687.

75.

Yang

C. S.

(2008). A three-dimensional approach to the unification process of Germany [PhD Dissertation, Dankook University].