The Need to Expand Opportunities for Inter-Korean Engagement in International Sports Governance

- Taking the 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games as an Opportunity -

Jin-hwan Choi

Visiting Research Fellow

Institute of Far Eastern Studies

Kyungnam University

1. The Question of "Statehood" Resurfaces in Nagoya

Even before the opening ceremony, the 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games have attracted attention because of controversy surrounding North Korea. While Japan has, in principle, restricted entry by North Korean nationals, it granted an exception for the Games, stating that it would separate its sanctions policy from participation in international sporting events. However, what came to the forefront even before the Games began was not the competition itself, but an issue of nomenclature.

Sports organizations affiliated with the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon) held a press conference with Japanese journalists and requested that they use “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)” instead of “North Korea,” the term conventionally used by the Japanese media. They explained that the Asian Games Organizing Committee (the Organizing Committee) was already using this designation and that doing so was consistent with established norms of international sports governance.

The naming issue has also become a point of contention in South Korean society. Last May, during the visit to South Korea by the My Hometown Women’s Soccer Team, a press conference was interrupted over the naming issue. Similar controversies had previously arisen at press conferences for the 2022 Hangzhou Asian Games and the women’s soccer qualifiers for the Paris Olympics in February 2024. At the weightlifting press conference for these Games, a South Korean reporter rephrased a question using “Chosun,” but the North Korean side ultimately did not respond. North Korea has historically been highly sensitive to issues of national identity—as reflected in its official name, flag, and national anthem—at international sporting events.

This sensitivity to “national identity” applies equally to South Korea. During a men’s field hockey match at these Games, the North Korean national anthem was played instead of the South Korean national anthem, prompting the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee to demand an official apology from the Organizing Committee and assurances that such an incident would not recur. We, too, had no choice but to respond sensitively to this mix-up of national anthems. This symmetry—where both sides remain sensitive to each other’s national names and anthems in international sporting settings—provides a starting point for understanding the controversy we face today.

2. A Sense of Déjà Vu from 60 Years Ago: National Name

The approval South Korea received from the IOC in 1947 under the name “Corée Olympic Committee (KOC)” was provisional and contingent on the participation of athletes from the North as well. However, as the two Koreas established separate governments, endured a war, and became permanently divided, that condition could never be met. Subsequently, the IOC recommended the formation of a unified Korean team as a means of granting North Korea Olympic eligibility. When this effort failed because of South Korea’s opposition, the IOC approved an independent National Olympic Committee (NOC) for North Korea in 1963. At that time, North Korea began participating under the designation “North Korea,” starting with the 1964 Winter Olympics in Innsbruck, while South Korea continued to use “Korea” as before.

North Korea did not accept this designation. It repeatedly demanded that the IOC use its official national name, stating, “The name of our team is clearly the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). We have no other name besides this.” This demand was ultimately approved, with “DPRK” adopted as North Korea’s official designation at the IOC Session in Warsaw in June 1969. North Korea subsequently began participating in the Olympic Games under its official national name(DPRK), starting with the 1972 Sapporo Winter Olympics and the Munich Summer Olympics. At the same time, the IOC decided to retain South Korea’s official designation as “Korea.”

This practice continues through the Aichi-Nagoya Games. The Republic of Korea’s official English name is “Republic of Korea,” and it is referred to as such by international organizations such as the United Nations. At Olympic opening ceremonies, “Republic of Korea” has been used since the 2008 Beijing Games. The Republic of Korea’s official designation as a member of the OCA (Olympic Council of Asia) is also “Republic of Korea.” The term “Korea,” which was historically used for unified teams or joint entries, continues to be used at the opening ceremonies of Asian Games held outside China, as it was again in Nagoya.

From North Korea’s perspective, South Korea’s use of “Korea” could be perceived as a de facto monopoly on the name. In contrast, South Korea tends to view “Korea” simply as a longstanding historical and international convention for referring to the country. It is precisely at this point that a gap in perception arises between the two Koreas.

3. The Need for Mutual Respect

Throughout the 1960s, the status of South and North Korea in international sporting events shifted from an imbalance toward greater equilibrium. However, the legacy of the Cold War continues to influence the issue of nomenclature. South Korea hesitates to use the name “Chosun” because of the territorial provisions and unification-oriented clauses in its Constitution, while North Korea, having defined inter-Korean relations as relations between “two hostile states” since 2023, refers to the South as “Hanguk” or “Taehan Minguk”(the Republic of Korea).

Regardless of the underlying motives, however, the asymmetry—where one side uses the other’s official name while the other does not—is clearly evident even in the international sports arena. As was the case in the 1960s, the more the two Koreas seek to deny each other’s existence, the more the international arena highlights the other’s “statehood” as a distinct issue. Moreover, the principle of recognizing and respecting the other side’s system is already reflected in various inter-Korean joint declarations and agreements, including the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement.

Of course, it is also a reality that, because of the gap between constitutional provisions and political realities, as well as long-standing perceptions of hostility, there is significant resistance within South Korean society to referring to North Korea as “Chosun.” Therefore, it may be more constructive to approach this issue not as a matter of values—“let us call the other side by the name it prefers”—but as a matter of norms—“let us use the name registered with international organizations.” International sports governance constitutes a distinct institutional sphere, and within that sphere, South and North Korea participate as separate entities.

Whose "statehood" was acknowledged within the international sports community some 60 years ago, North Korea has long been registered and referred to under the official designation “DPRK.” The principle that both South and North Korea should use their officially registered names in international sporting events is therefore a norm governing the conduct of international competitions, distinct from the question of political or legal recognition of statehood.

In Aesop’s fable “The Fox and the Stork,” the fox serves the stork a meal in a shallow dish, while the stork later returns the favor by serving the fox a meal in a long-necked vessel. In the end, both leave having frustrated the other. Likewise, if an invitation is extended in a vessel bearing a name that the other party cannot accept, the invitation may ultimately be interpreted not as an invitation to engage, but as a refusal to do so.

4. Utilizing International Sports Governance

Given this reality, we should take note of the fact that North Korea is actively participating in international sports governance. The visit to South Korea by the Naegohyang Women's Football Club in May and North Korea’s participation in the Asian Games in Japan—a country with which it does not have diplomatic relations—can be viewed as efforts by North Korea to expand its presence within the international sports community. Utilizing the space and opportunities provided by international sports governance to broaden the scope of inter-Korean contact could serve as a meaningful starting point for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. To this end, I would like to propose several points that warrant careful consideration and implementation.

First, we should establish clear principles regarding the names and designations used in international sporting settings. Journalists often encounter DPRK officials in official settings such as press conferences. Rather than relying solely on government guidelines, it would be more appropriate for the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee or associations of sports journalists to establish such principles in the form of “Practical Guidelines for Covering International Competitions.” The simpler the guidelines, the better.

The basic principle should be that, at international competitions, both South and North Korea use the official names registered for the event. Of course, simply changing the way we address one another will not immediately open the door to dialogue. As seen at the recent weightlifting press conference, even when the question was rephrased using "Chosun" instead of "Bukhan" (North Korea), no response was received. A name is not a sufficient condition for dialogue. However, it is clearly a necessary condition. If we do not address the other side by name, dialogue cannot even begin. This issue of nomenclature should therefore be approached separately from constitutional and political debates and in accordance with the norms of international sports governance.

Second, inter-Korean exchanges should expand the scope of contact through small, incremental steps. In particular, we need to respond constructively when North Korea extends an opening. Providing assistance based solely on our own judgment, without a request from the North, could have the opposite effect. During the recent Asian Games, the Olympic Committee of the DPRK sent an email to the Secretary General of the Asian Canoe Federation requesting to borrow competition canoes; the Secretary General happened to be South Korean.

Under the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, contact with North Korean residents is subject to reporting requirements. Accordingly, he did not handle the matter directly but forwarded the email to the Organizing Committee, and the loan was approved following the committee’s review. In this way, while international sports governance operates as an institutional network connecting organizations, it also serves as a highly significant arena because it creates opportunities for people from South and North Korea to interact.

Third, within the framework of international sports governance, we should consider measures to provide greater flexibility regarding the reporting obligation for contact with North Korean residents. Current laws and regulations require contact with North Korean residents to be reported seven days in advance, and failure to report can result in a fine. There are cases in which reporting is exempted, such as contact that is naturally recognized as part of the purpose of an international event attended with government approval. However, it remains unclear precisely what constitutes an “acceptable” scope of contact, and the reporting obligation resumes if that scope is exceeded.

Coincidentally, in September, the Ministry of Unification announced its support for an amendment to the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act that would remove the provision allowing authorities to reject contact reports. Encounters between South and North Korean athletes and officials at training facilities, athlete villages, or stadiums during competitions held in third countries are often spontaneous and unplanned. While such accidental contacts can be reported retroactively, the process is cumbersome, and given the considerable room for interpretation regarding what constitutes “acceptable” contact, athletes and officials are likely to exercise caution when such encounters occur. The reason a photograph of South and North Korean female gymnasts taken together at the 2016 Rio Olympics moved so many people was precisely because the encounter was accidental and spontaneous.

5. In Conclusion

Having made these suggestions, the question “Why should we be the ones to take the first step?” naturally comes to mind. Even I find it difficult to provide a definitive answer. However, when we consider the painful history of inter-Korean relations—marked by division, war, and countless political conflicts since liberation—does it really matter who takes the first step? The first scene of “Ping-Pong Diplomacy,” which helped open U.S.-China relations in 1971, also took place in Nagoya.

During the World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, when American player Glenn Cowan boarded the Chinese national team’s bus, it was Chinese player Zhuang Zedong who extended a hand first. If he had asked, “Why should we be the ones to reach out first?” that historic moment might never have occurred. South and North Korea stand as separate entities on the international sports stage. Yet the same language and culture continue to connect people on both sides, and peaceful coexistence serves the interests of everyone. Is that not reason enough to extend a hand first?