25 research outputs found
μλ¬Έ
κ·Όλ νκ΅μ κ΅μ μ μΉν μ°κ΅¬λ μ§μ , μμ μΈ λ©΄ λͺ¨λμμ λ§μ μ±κ³Όλ₯Ό κ±°λμ΄ μλ€. λ€μν μ΄λ‘ κ³Ό μμ κ° λ
Όμλκ³ μ μ±
μ μΈ λ°©λ©΄μ μ°κ΅¬λ νλ°νκ² μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ§κ³ μλ μ€μ΄λ€. νμ§λ§ μ΄λ¬ν λ°μ μ΄ κ΅μ μ μΉνμ λͺ¨λ μμμμ κ³ λ₯΄κ² λνλκ³ μλ κ²μ μλλ©°, μΈκ΅μ μ±
μ¬λ μΆ©λΆν λ°μ λ λΆμΌλΌκ³ 보기λ νλ κ²μΌλ‘ μκ°λλ€. κ·Έκ²μ΄ κ°λ νλ¬Έμ , νμ€μ μΈ μλ―Έμλ λΆκ΅¬νκ³ 1948λ
μ΄ν κ° μκΈ° λνλ―Όκ΅μ μΈκ΅μ μ±
μνμ λν μλ°ν μμ¬μ μμ κ³Ό λΆμμ κ·Έλ€μ§ νλΆνκ² λ±μ₯νμ§ μμλ€. λμ μ λλμ ν¨κ» μ±λ¦½ν λνλ―Όκ΅ μ λΆλ κ΅μ μ νκ²½μ λ³νμ λ°λΌ λ€μν μΈκ΅μ μ±
μ κ°μ λͺ¨μ΅μ λ³΄μ¬ μκ³ , λλ‘λ νμμ μ°¨μμ λμμ΄ μ²΄μ μ μ νμ μμκ³Ό μΆ©λνλ κ²½μ°λ μμλ€. νμ§λ§ μ΄λ¬ν κ° μ λΆμ μΈκ΅μ μ±
κ²°μ κ³Ό μν κ³Όμ κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ κ·Έ κ²°κ³Όμ λν λΉκ΅μ , νΉμ ν΅ν©μ μΈ μ°κ΅¬λ νλ°νκ² μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ§μ§ λͺ»νλ κ²μ΄λ€. μΈκ΅μ μ±
μ¬ μ°κ΅¬λ κ΅μ μ μΉνκ³Ό μμ¬ν μ¬μ΄μ ν¨κ³Όμ μΈ νμ μ κ²°ν©κ³Ό λλΆμ΄ κ΅μ μ μΉν λ΄λΆμ λ€μν μ΄λ‘ μ , λ°©λ²λ‘ μ λ
Όμλ₯Ό νμλ‘ νλ€. νμμμ 체μ μ¬μ΄μ ꡬμ±μ μΈ μ‘΄μ¬λ‘ μ λν 주체-ꡬ쑰μ λ¬Έμ (agent-structure problem)μ κ³ λ €, κ΅λ΄μ μΉμ κ΅μ μ μΉμ μ°κ³λ₯Ό νμνλ λ―Έμμ΄λ‘ κ³Ό κ±°μμ΄λ‘ μ κ²°ν© κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ μ보 μμκ³Ό μ μΉκ²½μ μμ μ¬μ΄μ μνΈμμ©μ κ³ μ°°νλ μμμ μΉμ νμμ μΉμ μ°κ²°μ΄ κ·Έλ¬ν μμ μ ν΄λΉνλ€. λ³Έ νμ μ§λ μ 8νΈμμ μ΄μ κ°μ ν΅ν©μ μ κ·Ό(intergrative apporach)μ ν΅ν΄ μ΄μΉλ§ μ λΆ λμΈμ μ±
μ μ£Όμ λ₯Ό λ€λ£¬ λ° μμλ€. μ΄λ² νΈμμλ λμΌν μ κ·Όλ²μ μ¬μ©ν΄μ λ°ννΈ μκΈ° λ°μ ν¬ μ λΆμ λμΈμ μ±
μ΄λΌλ μ£Όμ λ₯Ό κ²ν ν΄ λ³΄κ³ μ νλ€
Detente and Park Chung Hee's Strategic Reponse: Is He a Offensive Realist?
λ°ννΈμ λ°μ ν¬λΌλ μ°κ΅¬μ£Όμ λ 주체-ꡬ쑰 λ¬Έμ λ₯Ό ν΅ν νκ΅μΈκ΅μ μ±
μ λΆμμ μ’μ μ¬λ‘λ₯Ό μ 곡νλ€. 체μ μ μ νμ μμΈμ΄ ν¨κ» κ·Έμ λν νμμμ μΈμκ³Ό λμ κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ κ·Έκ²μ΄ κ°μ Έμ€λ ꡬ쑰μ μΈ κ²°κ³Όλ₯Ό ν¨κ» μ΄ν΄λ³Ό μ μλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄ κΈμμλ λ°ννΈ μκΈ° λ°μ ν¬μ μ λ΅μ μ νμ 곡격μ /λ°©μ΄μ νμ€μ£Όμμ μ΄λ‘ μ λ
Όμμ 견μ§μμ νκ°ν΄ λ³΄κ³ μ νλ€. μ΄ λ
Όλ¬Έμ λ¨Όμ μ΄μ λν μ΄λ‘ μ λ
Όμλ₯Ό μμλ³Έ ν λ°ννΈμ κΈ°μκ³Ό μ κ°κ³Όμ μ μμ¬μ μΌλ‘ κ³ μ°°νκ³ κ·Έκ²μ΄ 보μ¬μ£Όλ νμ€μ£Όμμ μΈ‘λ©΄μ κ³ μ°°νλ€. κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λ°μ ν¬μ λμμ μμκ³Ό κ·Έκ²μ΄ κ°μ Έμ¨ κ²°κ³Όλ₯Ό λΆμν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ μ΄λ‘ μ μ§λ¬Έμ λν λ΅μ ꡬνκ² λ κ²μ΄λ€. λ°μ ν¬μ μ λ΅λ¬΄κΈ° κ°λ°μ ν΅ν λ
μμ μΈ κ΅°μ¬λ ₯ μ¦κ°μ μλκ° κ³΅κ²©μ νμ€μ£Όμμ μ
μ₯μΈμ§ μλλ©΄ λ°©μ΄μ νμ€μ£Όμμ μ
μ₯μΈμ§λ₯Ό νλ¨νλ κ²μ μ©μ΄νμ§ μμ κ²μΌλ‘ 보μΈλ€. 체μ μ νμ μκΈ°μ μμ΄ λ°μ ν¬μ μ°μ μ μΈ λͺ©νλ μ£Όνλ―Έκ΅° μ² μ μ μ§μ λΆνμΌλ‘λΆν°μ λ€μν μνμ μ΅μ μμΌλ©°, μ΄λ μΈλΆμ κ· νκ³Ό λ΄λΆμ κ· νμ λͺ¨μμ΄λΌλ νμμ μ§μ μΈ κ²μ΄μλ€. μ΄λ¬ν λ§₯λ½μμ λ³Ό λ λ°μ ν¬ μ λΆμ μ μ±
μ λ°©μ΄μ νμ€μ£Όμκ° μ§μ νλ νΉμν 쑰건νμμμ κ΅κ°μ ννλ‘ λ³΄λ κ²μ΄ μ μ νλ€. νμ§λ§ κ·Έλ¬ν λ
Έλ ₯μ΄ λ―Έκ΅μκ² κ³΅κ²©μ μΌλ‘ μΈμλμκ±°λ λλ΄μ μΈ μ νμ μ΄λν μ μμμ κ°μ°μ± λν μ‘΄μ¬νλ€κ³ λ³Ό μ μλ€.
The subject of detente and Park Chung hee is providing a relevant case for the analysis of Korean foreign policy with the framework of agent-structure problem. We can examine the factors of systemic changes, actors perception and response towards them, and structural consequences of the agents reaction. In this article, Park Chung Hees strategic choices in the detente period will be analyzed in the context of theoretical debates, between offensive and defensive realism. Firstly, it examines the content of theoretical debates, the origins and evolving process of detente and realistic aspects of them. Secondly, it answers the theoretical question through the analysis of Park Chung Hees responses and their consequences. It is not easy to determine whether Parks attempt to increase military capabilities through the development of strategic weapons was the posture of offensive realism or that of defensive realism. Parks imminent objective in the era of systemic transition was to stop the US troop withdrawal and to deter various types of security threat from North Korea. Basically, it had status quo orientation through the maintenance of internal and external balances. From this point of view, it is correct to argue that Parks policies was the state behavior under special conditions as defensive realism points out. However, it was also possible for the attempt to be perceived offensively to the United States and to be a cause of domestic instability
μλ¬Έ
μ¬ν΄λ μ λΆ μ립 60μ£Όλ
μ΄ λλ ν΄μ΄λ€. κ²½μΆ νμ¬μ ν¨κ» μ§λ 60λ
μ μμ¬λ₯Ό λμ΄μΌ λ³΄κ³ κ·Έλ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ 21μΈκΈ° νλ°λμ νμ¬μ λ―Έλλ₯Ό κ°λ ν΄ λ³΄λ νλ¬Έμ λ
Έλ ₯μ΄ νμν λμΌ κ²μ΄λ€. νμ§λ§ μ μκ³Ό κ²½μ μ±μ₯, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λ―Όμ£Όνλ‘ μ΄μ΄μ§ μ°λ¦¬μ μμ¬λ λ―Όμ‘±κ³Ό κ΅κ°, μ μΉμ κ²½μ , μ§λ³΄μ 보μλΌλ νλ μ¬μ΄μμ ν©μ μλ λ
Όμμ λμμ΄ λμ΄ μ¨ κ²μ΄ μ¬μ€μ΄λ€. μ΄μ κ°μ λ립μ λ
Όμμ μμμ΄μ κ·Έ μ€μ¬μ μλ κ²μ΄ λ°λ‘ 1곡νκ΅μ΄κ³ κ·Έ μμ₯μ΄μλ μ΄μΉλ§ λν΅λ Ήμ΄λΌκ³ ν μ μλ€. μ΄μΉλ§μ 건κ΅μ μλ²μ§λ‘ μμνλ μͺ½κ³Ό λ
μ¬μ νμ μΌλ‘ λΉννλ μͺ½μ΄ 곡μ νλ λΆλΆμ΄ μλ€λ©΄ μλ§ κ·Έμ κ·Έμ μλμ κ΄ν 체κ³μ μ°κ΅¬μ λΆμ¬μ λν μ§μ μΌ κ²μ΄λ€. κ²°κ΅ λ
Όμμ κ·κ²°μ μ΄λ νΈμμ μ’ λ μ€μ¦μ μ΄κ³ ꡬ체μ μΈ μλ£λ₯Ό ν΅νμ¬ κ°κ΄μ μΈ μ£Όμ₯μ μ μν μ μλκ°, μλλ©΄ μ΄ μκΈ°μ λν μλ°λ 견ν΄λ₯Ό μμ°λ₯Ό μ μλ κ· ν μ‘ν λ
Όμκ° κ°λ₯νκ°μ λ¬λ € μλ€. μ΄λ² νΈμ 1곡νκ΅μ κ΄ν κΈ°νμ μ΄λ¬ν λ¬Έμ μ μμμ μΆλ°νμλ€. μ¬μ€μ μλ κ·Έλλ‘ λλ¬λμΌλ‘μ¨ λ
μμκ² ν΄μμ κΆνμ μ£Όκ³ μ νλ κ²μ΄λ€
μλ¬Έ
λμ μ κ΄ν μ°κ΅¬λ λμ μ μ’
μΈ μ΄ν μ€νλ € νλ°νκ² μ§νλκ³ μμΌλ©°, κ·Έ λ°©λ²λ‘ κ³Ό λ΄μ© λ©΄μμ λ€μν μΈ‘λ©΄μ λ³΄μ¬ μ£Όκ³ μλ€. μ§κΈκΉμ§ λμ μ μ£Όλ‘ μ λ½μμ μμλ λ―Έκ΅κ³Ό μλ ¨μ λ립, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λ―Έμκ°λ±μ μΈκ³ν κ³Όμ μ°¨μμμ μ°κ΅¬λμ΄ μλ€. νμ§λ§ μ΅κ·Όμ μμ¬νκ³Ό μΈλ₯νμ μμ
λ€μ λ―Έμ μκ΅ μ¬μ΄μ μ‘΄μ¬ν μ 3μΈκ³μ κ΄μ , κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ κΈλ‘λ² μμ€μ λμ μ΄ μλ μ§μμ λμ μ μ°¨λ³μ±μ κ°μ‘°νλ κ²½ν₯μ 보μΈλ€. μ΄ κ°μ μ°κ΅¬μμ κ°μ‘°λλ μμΈ μ€ νλλ μ΄μ μ μλ―Όμ£Όμ μμ¬μμ μ°μμ±κ³Ό λ¨μ μ μΈ‘λ©΄, μ¦ νμλ―Όνμ κ³Όμ κ³Ό λμ μ λ±μ₯ κ°μ μ°κ΄μ± λ° κ·Έ μνΈμν₯μ΄λΌκ³ ν μ μλ€. μ΄λ κ°μ
κ³Ό νλͺ
μ¬μ΄μ κ΄κ³λΌλ μ μΉμ¬ννμ μ£Όμ μλ κ΄λ ¨λλ€
Second Image Diversified: Democratic Peace Theory and Northeast Asia
21μΈκΈ° μΈκ³μ μΉμ λ³νλ κΈ°μ‘΄ κ΅μ μ μΉνμ μΈμμ μ νμ΄ νμν¨
μ 보μ¬μ£ΌμμΌλ©°, μ΄λ 체μ μμ μ μ€μνλ λ¬Έμ ν΄κ²°μ΄λ‘ μ λμ΄μλ
λ©νμ΄λ‘ μ νꡬλ₯Ό μꡬνκ² λμλ€. μ΄λ¬ν μ μμ λ¨μ μμ€μ λ³ν
λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄μ 체μ μμ€μ μ ν κ°λ₯μ±μ λͺ¨μνκ³ κ·Έλ₯Ό μ€μ§μ μΈ μ μ±
λͺ©
νμ μ°κ²°μν€κ³ μλ λ―Όμ£Όννλ‘ μ κΈ°μ‘΄μ μ΄λ‘ κ³Ό μ°¨λ³μ±μ κ°λλ€.
νμ§λ§ μμΈλ¬ μ€μν μ μ κ·Έλ¬ν μ κ·Όμ΄ κ°λ μ μ€μ±μ λ¬Έμ λΌκ³ ν
μ μλ€. 21μΈκΈ°μ μλ‘μ΄ λ³΄νΈμ±μ λλ³νλ λ―Έκ΅μ λ―Όμ£Όννλ‘ μ μ₯
κΈ°μ μΈ μ λ§μμμ κΈμ μ μΈ κ²°κ³Ό λμΆμ κ°λ₯μ±μλ λΆκ΅¬νκ³ μ€λ¨κΈ°
μ μΌλ‘λ λλΆμμμ μ μνμ κ³κΈ°λ‘ μμ©νκΈ°μλ νκ³λ₯Ό κ°λλ€. μ΄
λ ννΈμΌλ‘ λ―Έκ΅μ μμ μ£Όμκ° κ°λ νμ€μ£Όμμ μμ±μ κΈ°μΈνλ©°, λ€
λ₯Έ ννΈμΌλ‘λ λλΆμ κ΅μ κ΄κ³μ κ° λ¨μκ° λ³΄μ¬μ£Όλ νΉμμ±μ κ·Έ μ
μΈμ λκ³ μλ€. λ°λΌμ λλΆμμμλ μμκ΄κ³, μΌλ³Έ, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ νλ°λμ
μμ 2μ°¨μ μμ§μ λν λμμ λͺ¨μμ΄ μꡬλλ©°, μ΄λ νμμ μ§μ μ
νμ λ¬Έμ μ μ μ μΆ©μν¬ μ μλ μλ‘μ΄ μ μΉμ μ§μμ λν κ³ λ €λ₯Ό μ
λ―Ένλ€κ³ ν κ²μ΄λ€.
Changes in the 21st century world politics show that previous paradigms of
international relations need to be reconsidered, and for that purpose, meta-theoretic
inquiries beyond problem-solving theories emphasizing system stability are required. In
that respect, democratic peace theory, which pursues a possibility of system-level
transformation through unit-level changes and relates the attempt with substantial policy
objectives, can be differentiated with other theories. However, the matter of relevance is
another important aspect to be analyzed. American thesis of democratic peace
representing a new standard in the early 21st century world politics has its limits in
inducing virtuous cycle in Northeast Asian international relations even though it may have
long-term potential. On the one hand, the fact is due to realistic characters of American
liberalism, and on the other hand, it is originated from the peculiarities of units in
Northeast Asian international relations. Therefore, we should think about the possibilities
of second image diversified in Taiwan strait, Japan, and the Korean peninsula, and it
means serious consideration of political orders which can solve the problems of status-quo
and transformation at the same time
λ―Όμ£Όμ ννλ‘ κ³Ό λ―Έκ΅μ 21μΈκΈ° μ λ΅
λ―Όμ£Όμ£Όμκ° λΉκ΅μ μΉνμ ν΅μ¬ μ£Όμ λΌλ©΄ ννλ κ΅μ μ μΉνμ κ°μ₯ μ€μν μ°κ΅¬ λμμ΄λ€. μμλ₯Ό κ²°ν©ν λ―Όμ£Όμ νν(democratic peace)"μ λ
Όμλ λμ μ΄ν κ΅μ μ μΉνκ³μμ νλ°ν λ
Όμμ λμμ΄ λμ΄ μ€κ³ μλ€. νμ§λ§ λ―Όμ£Όμ ννλ‘ μ΄ 21 μκΈ° μ΄μ κ°λ λ λ€λ₯Έ μλ―Έλ κ·Έκ²μ΄ λ¨μν μ΄λ‘ μ κ·ΈμΉλ κ²μ΄ μλλΌ μΈκ³μ μΉμ κ°μ₯ μ£Όμν νμμμΈ λ―Έκ΅μ μΈκ³μ λ΅μ ν λλ₯Ό μ 곡νκ³ μλ€λ μ μ΄λΌ ν μ μλ€. μ μ μλ μΌκ·Ήμ²΄μ μ μκΈ° (unipolar moment)λ₯Ό λ§κ³ μλ€κ³ μμΉνλ λ―Έκ΅μ λμΈμ μ±
μ΄ μ΄μ±λ κΆλ ₯μ λΆν¬κ° μλ κ΄λ
μ λΆν¬μ μ‘°μ μ μν΄ κ΅μ 체μ μ μμ κ³Ό ννλ₯Ό λͺ¨μνκ³ μλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄ κΈμ μ΄μ κ°μ λ―Όμ£Όμ ννλ‘ κ³Ό κ·Έμ κΈ°λ°ν λ―Έκ΅μ 21μΈκΈ° μ λ΅μ΄ κ°λ μ΄λ‘ μ , μ μ±
μ μΈ μλ―Έλ₯Ό κ³ μ°°ν΄ λ³΄κ³ μ νλ€. λ
Όλ¬Έμ 첫 λΆλΆμμλ λ―Όμ£Όμ ννλ‘ μ μμ μ£Όμμ ν¨κΆ(liberal hegemony)"μ μ£Όμ μ μ°κ²°μμΌ μ΄ν΄λ³΄κ³ , λ λ²μ§Έ λΆλΆμμλ λμ κΈ°μ νλμ κΈ°, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ ν΄λ¦°ν΄ νμ λΆμ λΆμ νμ λΆμ κ±Έμ³μ λνλλ μ΄λ¬ν λ
Όμμ μ°μμ±κ³Ό λ³νμ λͺ¨μ΅μ κ΄μ°°νλ € νλ€. μΈ λ²μ§Έλ‘λ λμ μ μ’
μΈκ³Ό μΈκ³νλ‘ μ‘°κ±΄ μ§μμ§λ 21μΈκΈ° κ΅μ μ보μ λ¬Έμ λ€, νΉν 9.11γ
[λ¬ μ¬κ±΄κ³Ό μ΄μ€λΌμ-νλ μ€νμΈ μ¬νλ‘ λνλλ μλ‘μ΄ κ°λ± μμμ λν ν΄κ²°μ±
μΌλ‘μ λ―Όμ£Όμ ννλ‘ μ΄ κ°λ μμΉλ₯Ό κ²ν ν κ²μ΄λ€
System, Relations, Complexity/Compound, Triangular Relationship β Theory and Practice of Region
μ§μμ λν κ΄μ¬μ΄ μ¦λλκ³ μλ μ§κΈ, νκ΅μ νκ³κ° μ΄μ λν μ΄λ‘ κ³Ό μ€μ²μ νꡬμ μμ΄ μ΄λ μ λ λ
Έλ ₯μ κΈ°μΈμ΄κ³ μλκ°λ λΆλͺ
νμ§ μλ€. μ΄ κΈμ μ΄λ¬ν λ°μ±μμ μΆλ°νμ¬ λμμμ νΉμ λλΆμμμμ μ§μμ μμ€μ 체μ λ₯Ό μμ νκ³ , μ΄μ λν κ°λ
μ κ²ν μ κ·Έλ₯Ό ν΅ν νκ΅μ κ΅κ°μ λ΅ λͺ¨μμ μν μλ‘ μ κ³ μ°°μ κ·Έ λͺ©νλ‘ νλ€. μ΄λ 체μ , κ΄κ³, 볡μ‘μ±/볡ν©μ±, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ μΌκ°κ΄κ³μ λν λ€μν μ¬νμ΄λ‘ μ λ
Όμμ κΈ°μ‘΄μ κ΅μ μ μΉμ΄λ‘ , μΈκ΅μ μ±
λ‘ μ μ°κ²°μν€λ λ°©μμΌλ‘ μ§νλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄λ‘ μ μΌλ‘ λ³Ό λ μ΄λ¬ν λ
Όμλ μ°λ¦¬λ‘ νμ¬κΈ μ€λͺ
μ΄λ‘ κ³Ό κ·λ²μ΄λ‘ , κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ λΉνμ΄λ‘ μ κ²°ν© κ°λ₯μ±μ κ²ν νκ²λ νκ³ μλ€. κ΄κ³μ λν κ³ μ°°μ λν κΈ°μ‘΄ κ΅μ μ μΉνμ λΆμμμ€ λ΄μ§λ μ‘΄μ¬λ‘ μ λ
Όμμ 보μμ μΈ μ΄λ‘ μ , μ€μ²μ λ
Όμλ₯Ό μ 곡νλ€. μ¦ κ±°μμ λ―Έμ, 주체μ ꡬ쑰μ μλΆλ² λ΄μ§λ λ¨μν μνΈκ΅¬μ±μ λ
Όλ¦¬λ₯Ό 극볡ν μ μλ λ¨μ΄λ₯Ό λ°κ²¬ν μ μλ κ²μ΄λ€. κ·Έ νλμ μλ‘ μ§μ체μ μ νμ±μ λν κ°λ
μ /κ²½νμ κ²ν , κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ μ΄μ μ°κ΄λ κ·λ²μ μ§ν₯μ±κ³Ό μ λ΅μ λͺ¨μμ λ
Όμλ₯Ό ν΅ν©μν€λ κ²μ΄ κ°λ₯νλ€κ³ λ³Ό μ μλ€. μ€μ²μ μΌλ‘ λ³Έλ€λ©΄ μ΄λ λμμμ/λλΆμ μ§μ체μ λ₯Ό νμ€μΌ μΌκ°κ΄κ³λ₯Ό μ€μ¬μΌλ‘ λΆμνλ©΄μ, μΈ κ΅κ°κ° 곡μ νλ κ·μΉμ μκ°ν΄ λ³΄κ³ κ·Έμ κ΄λ ¨λ νκ΅μ μν μ κ°λ νλ κ²μ μλ―Ένλ€. μ΄λ λΉλμΉμ κΆλ ₯ ꡬ쑰μμ No. 3μ νμμκ° μ¬νμ 체μ μ κ΅¬μ± κ³Όμ μμ μ΄λ»κ² ν¨κ³Όμ μΌλ‘ κ·λ²κ³Ό μ λ΅μ μ°κ²°μν¬ μ μλκ°μ λ¬Έμ μ ν΄λΉνλ κ²μ΄λ€.It is not clear how much attention Korean scholars have paid to the theory and practice of region, which is a frequently discussed subject these days. Starting from this reflection, this paper assumes the regional-level system in East or Northeast Asia, carries a conceptual review of it. and attempts to deliberate Koreas national strategy through the review. The project tries to combine social theories dealing with the concepts of system, relations, complexity, and triangular relationship with the existing international relations theories and foreign policy analyses. Theoretically speaking, this kind of work makes us to think about the possibility to connect explanatory theories to normative and critical theories. Consideration of relations also provides us with the ground to complement existing level-of-analysis and ontological debates in international relations. In other words, it helps us to overcome the dichotomy between micro and macro, or between agent and structure, and the simple logic of co-constitution. As an example, we can think about the ways in which we integrate conceptual/empirical analyses with normative orientation and strategic pursuit in the matter of regional system formation. Practically speaking, it means the inquiry of the East Asian/Northeast Asian regional system based on the triangular relationship among China, Japan, and Korea, the investigation of the rules that three countries can share, and the search for Koreas role on them. This connotes the pending question for No. 3 actor to effectively link norm and strategy in the process of social system building
λ―Έκ΅ λμμμ μ μ± μ μμ¬μ κ³ μ°°: μλ―Όμ£Όμ, λμ , νλμ
μΈκΈ°λ§μ μ΄λ₯΄λ¬ μ§λκ° λ°±λ
μ λν νκ³ μ μλ‘μ΄ λ°±λ
μ λν μ λ§μ΄ νν΄μ§λ κ²μ μ΄μ©λ©΄ μμ°μ€λ¬μ΄ μΌμΌ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄λ κ΅μ μ μΉνμ΄λ μΈκ΅μ¬ λΆμΌμ μμ΄μλ μμΈλ μλλ©°, μ§λ 20μΈκΈ°λ₯Ό βλ―Έκ΅μ μΈκΈ° (the American Century) "λΌκ³ λΆλ₯΄λ λ―Έκ΅ νκ³ λ΄μμλ λμ±μ΄ νλ°ν λ
Όμκ° μ§νλλ κ²μΌλ‘ 보μΈλ€. 20μΈκΈ°μ κ²½νμ΄λ 21μΈκΈ°μ μμΈ‘μ 견μ§μμ λ³Ό λ μΈκ³μ μΉμ μμ΄μ λ―Έκ΅μ λμΈμ μ±
μ΄ κ°λ μλ―Έμ λν κ³ μ°°μ μ°λ¦¬μκ²λ λ¨μν νλ¬Έμ κ΄μ¬μ λμ΄μλ μ€μν νμ€μ μμ κ° μλ μ μλ€. 21μΈκΈ° λ―Έκ΅ λμΈμ μ±
μ μ€μ¬ λμμ μ΄λ μ§μμ΄ λ κ²μΈκ°? λ―Έκ΅ μΈκ΅μ μ λ½ μ°μ μ£Όμμ μμμ μ°μ μ£Όμμ μμμ κ°κΈ° λ€λ₯Έ κ΅λ΄μ μΉμ κΈ°λ°μ κ°μ§ κ²μΌλ‘ κ°μ£Όλκ±°λ, μκΈ°μ μμ μ λ°λΌ λ³νμ λͺ¨μ΅μ 보μ΄λ κ²μΌλ‘ νμ
λμ΄ μλ€. νμ§λ§ μλ‘μ΄ μΈκΈ°κ° μμμ ννμμ μλλ‘ μ μλκ³ λμμμκ° κ°λ κ²½μ μ , μ보μ μν μ΄ νλλλ©΄μ λ―Έκ΅ λμΈμ μ±
μ μμμμ λν λΉμ€μ μ μ μ¦κ°νκ³ μλ€. λ°λΌμ λ―Έκ΅μ λ λμμμ μ μ±
μ ν₯ν λ―Έκ΅κ°μ λ΅κ³Ό μΈκ³μ μΉ κ΅¬μμ κ°μ₯ ν΅μ¬μ μΈ λΆλΆμ μ°¨μ§νκ² λ¨ κ²μ΄κ³ , μ΄μ λν μ΄ν΄λ λ¨μν νμ¬μ μ μ±
λΆμμ μ°¨μμ λμ΄μλ μ’ λ ν¬κ΄μ μΈ μμ¬μ κ²ν λ₯Ό νμλ‘ νλ κ²μ΄λ€.λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ 1997λ
λ νκ΅νμ μ§ν₯μ¬λ¨ λνλΆμ€μ°κ΅¬μ κ³Όμ μ°κ΅¬λΉμ μν΄ μ°κ΅¬λμμ
Decision-Making Process of U.S. Removal of North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List: A Neoclassical Realistic Approach
λ―Έκ΅κ³Ό λΆνμ ν
λ¬μ§μκ΅ ν΄μ λ¬Έμ λ₯Ό λκ³ μ€λ κΈ°κ° λ°κ³ λΉκΈ°κΈ°λ₯Ό λ°λ³΅νκ³ , λ§μΉ¨λ΄ 2008λ
10μ 11μΌ λΆμ νμ λΆλ ν
λ¬μ§μκ΅ λͺ
λ¨μμ λΆνμ μμ ν κ²μ 곡ννλ€. λΆμ 1κΈ° νμ λΆμ 보μμ μ΄κ³ κ°μμ μΈ λλΆ μ μ±
μ κ³ λ €νμ λ, λΆμ λν΅λ Ήμ λΆν ν
λ¬μ§μκ΅ ν΄μ κ²°μ μ μλΉν ν₯λ―Έλ‘κ² λ€κ°μ¨λ€. λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ μ μ±
κ²°μ κ³Όμ , ꡬ쑰, νμμλ€μ λ©΄λ°ν μ΄ν΄λ³΄λ©΄μ, λΆμ νμ λΆμ νλμ λν κ²°μ μμΈμ΄ 무μμ΄μλκ°λ₯Ό λ°νκ³ μ νλ€. μ΄λ¬ν μ§λ¬Έμ λ΅νκΈ° μν΄ μ κ³ μ μ νμ€μ£Όμλ₯Ό μμ©νμ¬, λΆμ νμ λΆμ μ μΉμ κΆλ ₯κ³Ό μ μ±
κ²°μ μμ μΈμμ΄λΌλ λ κ°μ λ³μλ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ μ΄ μ¬λ‘λ₯Ό λΆμν΄ λκ° κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄ μ°κ΅¬μ λ°λ₯΄λ©΄ 첫째, κ·Ήμμμ μ μ±
κ²°μ μλ€λ‘ ꡬμ±λ, κ΅μ§μ (localized)μ΄κ³ λ°°νμ μΈ μ μ±
κ²°μ κ³Όμ μ λΆμ νμ λΆλ‘ νμ¬κΈ κ°ν μ μΉμ κΆλ ₯μ κ°λλ‘ νμΌλ©°, λμ§Έ, μ΄λ¬ν νΉμν μ μ±
κ²°μ ꡬ쑰 μμμ ν¬λ¦¬μ€ν νΌ ν(Christopher Hill) λ―Έ κ΅λ¬΄λΆ λμμμννμ λ΄λΉ μ°¨κ΄λ³΄μ μ νμ μΈ λλΆμΈμμ΄ λΆνμ ν
λ¬μ§μκ΅ ν΄μ κ²°μ μ μ€μν κΈ°μ¬λ₯Ό νλ€.The United States and North Korea had been in a tedious tug-of-war over the inclusion of North Korea in the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, until the Bush administration, in October 2008, officially delisted the country. Considering how conservative and aggressive the policy on North Korea was during the first term of the Bush administration, Bushs decision to withdraw North Korea from the list was remarkable. This paper, by tracing down the decision-making process. its structure, and participants, aims to search for the determinants of the Bush administrations decision. In the theoretical framework of Neoclassical Realism, it will analyze the case through two variables, Bush administrations political power and decision-makers perceptions. First, a localized and exclusive decision-making process granted the Bush administration strong political power. Second, withing such distinctive decision-making process, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hills moderate and conciliatory perception on North Korea substantially contributed to the final decision to remove North Korea from the terrorism list