학위논문(석사)--서울대학교 대학원 :국제대학원 국제학과(국제협력전공),2019. 8. 이근.This study investigates the determinants of the Five Eyes member
governments responses towards the Confucius Institute. It is shown that
countries took different positions based on its comprehensive threat analysis,
including security and economic risks, from China. The results suggest that
even within the Five Eyes security alliance, member states show a different
level of security concerns towards China. This research used each
governments attitude towards the adoption of Huawei equipment for the
rollout of the 5G network as a measurement to determine the level of the
perceived security threat from China. This study first categorized each country
into three groups using the Huawei Barometer provided by Bloomberg and
explain why and how the perceived level of security threat differs by analyzing
the characteristics of its bilateral relationship with China. And the degree of
containment towards the Confucius Institute was observed by reviewing law
enactments, regular inspections, various governmental reports, media
coverage, and collective actions taken by the public. The results suggest that
the Five Eyes nations response to Confucius Institutes and perceived security
threat represented as Huawei equipment adoption are positively correlated.I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
1. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 2
3. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 8
II. FIVE EYES RESPONSE .......................................................... 11
1. FIVE EYES NETWORK .................................................................... 11
2. BAN IN EFFECT ............................................................................. 13
1-1. United States ......................................................................... 13
1-2. Australia ................................................................................ 27
3. LIKELY TO BAN ............................................................................. 37
1-1. Canada .................................................................................. 37
4. ON THE FENCE .............................................................................. 48
1-1. New Zealand ......................................................................... 48
1-2. United Kingdom .................................................................... 55
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 64
1. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 64
2. LIMITATION ................................................................................... 69
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................... 70Maste
