This article examines the utility of the Triple (Humanitarian, Development, Peace) Nexus in linking aid cooperation to peacebuilding by conducting a case study on the Korean peninsula. Since the 1990s, humanitarian and development cooperation in North Korea has raised hopes that such cooperation could contribute to peacebuilding on the Korean Peninsula. However, these aid efforts have been marked by significant fluctuations due to heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula. This study employs a qualitative methodology, including problem-centred expert interviews with former/current officials from the UN, and European aid agencies, who are considered relatively neutral, and the US and South Korean aid agencies, whose countries are main parties in the Korean conflict. Drawing on the interrelated theoretical insights of contact theory and strategic peacebuilding, the findings suggest that aid actors have different strategic advantages and disadvantages in operationalizing the Triple Nexus, according to their positionalities concerning the protracted Korean conflict context. We argue that for the Triple Nexus to represent more than a mere rebranding of contentious efforts to connect aid and peacebuilding, it requires, not only the recognition of potential comparative advantages of different sectors, but also the understanding of strategic advantages and disadvantages of actors with different positionalities.

Click HERE to access the journal website.