A comparative study on the regulation of exploitative abuses between Korea and European Union : EU경쟁법 상 착취남용의 규제에 관한 연구

Mouendji, Stevens Lomba 경북대학교 대학원 2014 국내석사

The companies increasingly compete between them in aim to offer the best products and services on the market, even their commercial activities on the international level are dominated by a strong competition on market. A company can take advantage of this freedom and adopts behavior against the competition law on the market. The competition law insures a function of regulation and prohibits any practices which have for object or effect to prevent, restrict or falsify the free competition on market. The main purpose of this study is to make a comparison on the regulation of exploitative abuses between Korea and European Union. To achieve this goal, firstly we describe in a general view the competition laws. Secondly, we present previous reports related to the competition laws in Korea and in the European Union (EU). Lastly, we highlight the most exploitative abuses that take place in the areas of competition laws precisely in Korea and in EU, by comparing the price abuses, the limiting production and the harming consumer interests through some cases study. The analysis made through the studied cases of exploitative abuse in both systems, shows that the European Court of Justice and Korean Competition Authority have played a major role to reduce the abusive practices through goals of free and fair competition on the market. Especially, since the implementation of the competition law in the EU (1957) and in Korea (1980), more precisely the Article 102 TFEU and Article 3-2 of the MRFTA, which regulate abuse of market dominance. The most abusive practices which they dealt with were the price abuses, the limiting production and the harming consumer interests. Indeed, the numbers of cases on excessive pricing, limiting production and the harming consumer interests in the EU and Korea have been relatively limited so far, only few cases until now remain. This limitation, through some cases study it is strongly due to the corrective measures took by the Authorities. The history of the development of South Korea in general and his economy particularly have attracted much attention around the world. Nowadays, it is placed among the developed countries. Some call the miracle economic. Korea is known as a country of successful economic development. The latter has entrained the implementation of several structures. The Korean Competition Authority (KFTC) and the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA) in 1980 regulate the different situations of abuse of dominant position, Cartels, Mergers, Unfair Business practices. Most competition laws systems, in the world resemble European Union competitions laws including. Korean competition laws. So, the way Korean competition laws regulate abuses of dominant position precisely, exploitative abuses is similar or identical to the European Union competition laws does according to the Articles 3-2 of the MRFTA and Article 102 TFEU. Key words: Exploitative abuses, European Union, Korea, dominant position 오늘날 최상의 제품과 용역을 시장에 제공하기 위한 기업 간 경쟁이 심화되고 있으며, 더욱이 국제무대에서의 기업 활동은 치열한 경쟁을 낳고 있다. 대기업은 시장지배력의 이점을 이용하여 시장에서 경쟁법을 위반한다. 경쟁법은 시장의 자유경쟁을 방해, 제한, 조작하는 의도나 영향력의 행사를 규제•금지하고 있다. 이 연구에서는 한국과 EU간의 착취남용 규제를 비교하고자 하였다. 이 연구목적을 달성하기 위하여, 첫째, 경쟁법을 일반적인 관점에서 개관하였다. 둘째, 한국과 EU의 경쟁법에 대한 선행연구를 살펴보았으며, 마지막으로 사례연구를 통해 가격남용 비교, 생산제한, 그리고 소비자 이윤 침해 측면을 비교함으로써 한국과 EU의 경쟁법 영역에서 발생하고 있는 착취남용에 대해 집중 조 두 체제에서 착취남용에 대한 사례연구 분석을 통해, 유럽재판소와 한국 공정거래위원회(KFTC)가 시장의 자유롭고 공정한 경쟁을 위하여 남용적 관행을 규제하는 역할을 한다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 특히, EU와 한국에서 경쟁법, 보다 정확히는 유럽연합 기능에 관한 조약(TFEU) 102조와 독점규제법 제3조 2항이 실행된 이후부터 시장지배적 남용행위를 규제하였다. 이들이 관심을 갖는 최대의 남용 관행은 가격 남용, 생산 제한, 그리고 소비자 이윤 침해이다. 실제로, 과도한 가격책정, 생산 제한 그리고 소비자 이윤 침해에 대한 한국과 EU의 사례가 비교적 적어서, 현재까지 단지 극소수의 사례들만 남아있다. 몇몇 사례연구를 통해 살펴보았을 때, 그 원인은 두 기관이 실시한 강력한 교정조치에 기인한 것으로 보인다. 한국의 사회전반에 걸친 발전뿐만 아니라, 특히 경제발전의 역사는 전 세계의 큰 관심을 받아왔다. 오늘날 한국은 성공적인 경제 발전을 이룬 국가로 알려져 있다. 이러한 경제발전은 다양한 분야의 발전도 동반하였다. 1980년에 한국 공정거래위원회와 독점규제 및 공정거래법(MRFTA)은 상이한 시장지배적 지위남용 상황, 즉, 담합, 합병, 불공정 기업 행위를 규제하였다. 전세계 대부분 경쟁법은 유럽연합의 경쟁법과 유사하며 한국의 경쟁법도 역시 그러하다. 시장지배적 지위남용의 규제방법, 즉 독점규제법(MRFTA) 제3조 2항의 착취남용 규제는 유럽연합 기능에 관한 조약(TFEU) 102조항과 유사하다.

(An) empirical study on public support in times of crisis and the future of the European Union

이승유 Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Graduate Sch 2017 국내박사

An Empirical Study on Public Support in times of crisis and the Future of the European Union The purpose of this study is to offer an empirical and comparative evaluation of public support for the EU in order to come to an insight regarding the prospects of the future development of European integration in terms of public support. The European Union has experienced a string of unprecedented crises starting from the global financial crisis in 2008. The financial and economic crises developed into a socio-political crisis, which threatens the very foundations on which the EU is built. In times of crisis, public support is a crucial determinant for the EU itself and its policies. The future of European integration is in fact dependent on public attitudes towards the integration project and the amount of legitimacy it is capable of garnering. We define public support here as the subjective, favorable attitude for a political system. Public support is multidimensional with various components. We focus on five factors in this study based on Easton’s System Support Theory and Pippa Norris’s work: General support, Utility, Identity, Trust and Democracy. In this context, this study first examines the changes in public support for the EU before and after the Eurozone crisis. After that, we examine which factors among the five components actually affect public support in times of crisis, both across geographic and socio-demographic lines. Furthermore, this study tracks the evolution of public attitudes regarding the future of European integration and predict the future development of European integration from the point of view of public support. Multiple regression analyses were conducted using data from Eurobarometer between 2004 and 2016, the latest available data at the time of research, to produce a time-series analysis, country analysis, and socio-demographic analysis based on age, education level, and occupation. These tests allow us to see the changes in public attitudes toward the EU pre- and post- crisis based on the five variables. In previous studies on the evolution of public support, it was rare to use data for periods longer than ten years. The results in longitudinal evolution showed that public support fell steadily from 2008, reaching their lowest levels between 2010 and 2014. During this period, positive opinion for the EU dropped below negative one for the first time in the history of European integration. The analysis by country illustrates that public support for the EU was more resilient in Eurozone countries than in non-Eurozone countries. Of the four selected countries, Poland, a proxy for the CEECs and relatively new member of the EU, had the strongest public support for the EU. Germany, a leader of the integration effort since its inception, showed similar levels of support. In contrast, Greece, which experienced the most difficulties since the Eurozone crisis, showed a dramatic decline in support between 2010 and 2014, fluctuating with the progression of the crisis. Finally, the UK, a proxy for the Eurosceptics and intergovernmentalists, shows the lowest support for the EU for the entire span of the relevant research period. Analysis of socio-demographic factors such as age, education level, and occupation found that younger, more educated, and white-collar professional workers were supportive of the Union. These findings were similar to those of previous studies and differed little from what could be observed during the UK’s referendum to exit the EU and the May 2017 presidential elections in France in which we could see a clash between differing attitudes about the EU with Ms. Marine Le Pen the Eurosceptic and Emmanuel Macron the staunch support of the Union. The results of the regression analysis on the relationship between public support for the EU and the five variables, the most influential variable was Democracy, followed by Utility, General support, Trust, and Identity, in that order. Unlike previous studies, which generally indicate utilitarian factors as the most influential followed by identity-related factors, Democracy was the strongest factor across all dimensions: longitudinal evolution, country, and socio-demographics. At this stage, it is meaningful to look into which factors were influential in shaping public support before and after the crisis. The results show that during the pre-crisis period, Utility was most influential determinant of public support. Identity also appeared to be an influential factor along with Trust, justifying the explanation of previous studies. Following the crisis, however, Democracy was the most influential while Identity was less influential than one would expect. There is no study illustrating such significance for the Democracy factor. This means that the Utilitarian factor, ‘specific support’ in the Eastonian lexicon, is not enough to create sufficient legitimacy for the EU in times of crises. Identity, or ‘diffuse support’, has not yet developed sufficiently to give strong legitimacy to the EU as it does for Nation states. Thus, the results suggest that Europeans are most concerned with the democratic aspects of decision-making and want to have say in EU decisions. As for the future of European integration, the analysis on longitudinal attitudes shows that public support changes as the crisis progresses but there is a steadiness to the optimism for the future of the EU. Moreover, analysis on responses to Eurobarometer questions concerning the future of the union indicate that European citizens prefer that integration proceed in union form. A realistic and practical differentiated integration model such as the two-speed integration is preferred. In order for the EU to continue to enjoy public support and secure sufficient legitimacy for its system, its policies, and for its continued developed into the future, it must strengthen its democratic processes by increasing the levels of transparency and giving the people of Europe more say in decisions that influence their lives more and more. These democratic processes will lead to greater trust in European institutions, its policies, and the EU as a whole, which can in turn lead to a stronger sense of belonging to the EU, creating a stronger European identity.

유럽聯合(EU)의 政治的 統合에 관한 硏究 : 政治統合過程과 障碍要因을 中心으로

박옥경 慶熙大學校 大學院 1994 국내석사

The Immigration Policy of the European Union: Is There a Tension between National Citizenship and European Citizenship?

정시영 서울대학교 대학원 2015 국내석사

ABSTRACT Immigration has been considered as one of the most important issue in the European Union since 2000s. Under the Schenghen Agreement, the EU member states agreed on the free movement of people within the European Union. The European Union has been trying to develop a common immigration policy which can be applied to all the member states. The European Convention highlights European citizenship trying to protect the rights of immigrants within the EU territories. However, it seems that there is a tendency of emergence of far-right parties in Western and Northern Europe. This article deals with the factors which have influence on the tension between European citizenship and national citizenship that currently exists in the European Union. The cases of France, Italy, Sweden and Denmark will be added to help understand the concrete situation of immigration and citizenship policies in Europe.

(A) Community Trademark for the Andean Community of Nations (an example in Peru)

Sheelah melina Cuellar Tello 서울대학교 대학원 2018 국내석사

Abstract A Community Trademark for the Andean Community of Nations an example in Peru Sheelah Cuéllar Tello Intellectual Property Law, College of Law The Graduate School Seoul National University The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the possibility to make use of the advantages of European experience in order to constitute an appropriate system in the arena of the protection of trademarks in the Andean countries, especially in the formation of Andean trademark. The currently thesis seeks to provide the advantages to adapt community trademark system of the European Union in the Andean Community of Nations, analysis of the main problems of the protection of trademarks in the ACN, and possible solutions to strengthening the protection of trademarks in the ACN. In Latin America exists the Andean Community of Nations, and this community sought the same goals of the European Union in the arena of Intellectual Property. However, because of political, economic and social circumstances, the Andean Community could not establish a common regulation in trademark like the European Union. Hence, the Andean system is diametrically different from the community trademark of the European Union and has deficiencies which limited the protection of the trademark. The possible solutions of these issues are the harmonization of the intellectual property legislation in the field of trademarks within the CAN, establishment of single entity which regulates the common registration system within the CAN, and the most important, the establishment of community trademark. These steps will lead to the desired economic growth, increase of international trade and a high level protection of the rights granted for trademarks within the ACN. Thus, the research question is whether the adoption of community trademark system (European model) is favourable for protection of trademarks in the Andean region. Keywords: Intellectual Property, Community Trademark, European Union, Andean Community, Peru. Student ID.: 2015-22160

(The) Common European ssylum system : Evolution and issues from the Bosnia-Herzegovina War to the present

김면좌 韓國外國語大學校 國際地域大學院 2009 국내석사

본 연구의 목적은 두 가지이다. 첫째, 현재까지 진행중인 유럽연합의 공동 망명 제도 (Common European Asylum System)의 간헐적인 발전 과정을 역사 비평적으로 재구성해보고 냉전 이후 발발한 보스니아-헤르체고비나 전쟁에서부터 현재까지를 배경으로 유럽연합의 상황과 입장이 공동 망명 제도 구축에 어떠한 영향을 끼쳤는지 살펴본다. 둘째, 이와 같은 역사적 배경을 바탕으로 공동 망명 제도를 평가하고 향후 더 공정한 제도의 확립을 위해 유럽연합 차원에서 어떠한 제도적 조치가 취해져야 하는지 조명해본다. 본 연구는 다음과 같은 문제의식을 '규범적 국제정치 이론'을 통해 고찰해본다. (1) 보스니아-헤르체고비나 전쟁부터 현재까지 유럽연합의 공동 망명 제도는 어떻게 발전해왔는가? (2) 공동 망명 제도 발전의 역사적 배경은 무엇인가? (3) 공동 망명 제도의 확립을 위해 어떠한‘조치’들을 취했는가? (4) 공동 망명 제도는 망명자들의 권익 확보에 중점을 두고 발전했는가, 유럽연합체제를 유지하기 위한 수단으로 발전했는가? (5) 공동 망명 제도는 현재 어느 단계에 와 있는가? (6) 공동 망명 제도는 어떠한 방향으로 나아가야 할 것인가? 본 연구는 먼저 보스니아-헤르체고비나 전쟁에서부터 현재까지의 공동 망명 제도의 발전을 통해 유럽연합의 공동 망명 제도의 발전과정을 살펴본다. 냉전 이후 동유럽은 극심한 인종-민족주의 분쟁으로 인한 전쟁이 일상화됐고 발칸지역, 특히 무슬림권인 보스니아-헤르체고비나는 이러한 분쟁이 가장 극심한 지역이었다. 발칸 지역에서 '인종청소'가 만연하면서 발생한 대량의 난민들은 유럽연합으로의 망명을 시도했지만 유럽연합은 이들에게 충분한 인도적 지원을 제공하지 못했고, 결국 유럽연합 차원의 공동 망명 제도의 필요성이 대두되기에 이르렀다. 1997년의 암스테르담 조약을 시작으로 유럽연합의 공동 망명 제도의 첫 단계인 탐페레 프로그램 (1999)이 시행되었고 2004년에는 두 번째 단계인 헤이그 프로그램이 시작되었다. 한편, 프랑스는 2008년에 이와 관련된 유럽 협정을 제의하기도 했다. 문제는 이러한 단계적 발전이 망명자들의 실질적 권익을 위하는 방향으로 발전해왔는지, 아니면 유럽연합체제의 유지에 초점이 맞춰진 조치였는지의 여부이다. 본 연구는 현재까지도 유럽연합은 공정한 공동 망명 제도를 구축하지 못하고 있으며 따라서 규범적인 입장에서 유럽연합은 연합이 추구하는 가치가 망명 문제에 충분히 반영되도록 대안을 마련해야 함을 지적하고 있다. 공동 망명 제도의 발전과정과 그에 대한 비판적인 접근은 유럽연합의 망명 시스템의 현재 위치를 가늠할 수 있게 해준다. 현재 공동 망명 제도의 세 번째 단계인 스톡홀름 프로그램이 진행 중에 있다. 유럽연합은 그 동안 제기돼왔던 산발적이고 소극적인 정책에 대한 비판을 인식해 적절한 대안을 마련하고자 노력하고 있지만 스톡홀름 프로그램 역시 첨예한 논쟁거리가 될 전망이다. 마지막으로, 본 연구는 이제까지 논의된 사안을 바탕으로 향후 공동 망명 제도의 개선을 위한 방향성을 제안한다. 첫째, 공동 망명 제도는 유럽연합의 모든 가입국 내의 망명자들이 동등한 권리와 지위를 획득할 수 있도록 개정되어야 한다. 둘째, 유럽연합 각 구성원들의 망명자들에 대한 사회적 연대인식의 재고가 필요하다. 셋째, 유럽연합 회원국들은 제도의 시행으로 인한 부담을 적절히 분담해야 한다. 넷째, 구체적인 정책을 통해 통합이 촉진되어야 한다. 다섯째, 공동 망명 제도는 망명 정책의 인도적 측면을 강화해야 한다.

EU시민권에 관한 연구

권재원 연세대학교 대학원 2016 국내박사

유럽연합 문화정책의 현황과 과제 : 유럽 문화정체성 형성의 가능성 검토

권진 연세대학교 대학원 2006 국내석사

As Europe began to respond to the successful integration of European countries after the end of World War II and to globalization that started from the mid-1980s, it recognized the need for a cultural policy that would establish a European identity. Then, with the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the promotion of a European community-level cultural policy began in earnest. From this point of view, it was understood that the aim of European Union’s cultural policy was to find Europe’s common values and identity in the midst of various different countries and cultural backgrounds, strengthen their sense of solidarity, and using this foundation, stand up to the globalization being led by American culture and protect European culture. This paper focuses on examining how such goal of European Union’s cultural policy applies to European cultural programs and what its point of view is. In addition, the possibility of applying the lessons of the European Union’s experience of cultural cooperation to the Northeast Asian region’s cultural community will be discussed.The specific community-level cultural programs that have been or will be carried out were divided into the first period (1994~1999), the second period (2000~2006), and the third period (2006~2013) and examined. The results show that the cultural policy the European Union is pursuing through programs dealing with general culture can be judged to be promoting Europe’s common values and cultural identity, while respecting the diversity and heterogeneity of the European culture, and at the same time, aiming toward a cultural community that has the economic power to respond to globalization through its media industry.This European Union’s cultural policy is being applied to the Northeast Asian region, which has been experiencing cultural conflicts, and is becoming a good example for the region to develop into a truly cooperative body. 유럽은 세계대전 종전 이후 성공적인 유럽통합과 1980년대 중반부터 시작된 세계화에 대한 대응으로써, 유럽적 정체성을 확립하는 문화정책의 필요성을 인식하게 되었다. 이에 1992년 마스트리히트 조약의 체결로 유럽 공동체적 차원의 문화정책이 본격적으로 시행된다. 이러한 측면에서 유럽연합 문화정책의 목적은, 다양한 국가와 문화적 배경 속에서 유럽의 공통된 가치와 정체성을 찾아 연대의식을 강화하며, 이를 바탕으로 미국문화 주도의 세계화에 맞서 유럽문화를 보호하는 것으로 보았다. 본 논문에서는 이와 같은 유럽연합 문화정책의 목표가 유럽적 차원의 문화 프로그램에 어떻게 적용되고 그 시사점은 무엇인지 살펴보는데 초점을 맞추었다. 이와 더불어 유럽연합의 문화협력 경험을 교훈삼아 동북아 지역의 문화공동체의 적용가능성에 대해서도 논의해 보고자 한다.공동체 차원에서 실시되는 구체적인 문화 프로그램을 제1기(1994~199년), 제2기(2000~2006년), 제3기(2006~2013년)로 나누어 살펴본 결과, 유럽연합이 추구하는 문화정책은 일반 문화에 관한 프로그램을 통해 유럽문화의 다양성과 이질성을 존중하면서 유럽의 공통된 가치와 문화정체성을 진흥시키는 동시에, 미디어 사업을 통해 세계화에 대응할 수 있는 경쟁력 있는 문화공동체를 지향한다고 평가할 수 있다.이와 같은 유럽연합 문화정책은 문화적 갈등상황을 겪고 있는 동북아 지역에도 적용하여 화해와 이해를 바탕으로 한 진정한 협력체로 발전하기 위한 좋은 사례가 되고 있다.

국제협력을 통한 거버넌스 증진은 가능한가? : 유럽연합의 유럽근린정책이 ‘동방 파트너십(Eastern Partnership)’ 국가의 거버넌스 증진에 미치는 효과

김훈 韓國外國語大學校 大學院 2021 국내박사

Is it possible to promote governance through international cooperation? This study started from this question. Until now, the issues of ‘international cooperation’ and ‘governance promotion’ have been interesting buzzwords among researchers in the fields of politics, public administration, international relations, regional studies, and international development studies. However, despite such a popular research topic, it is difficult to find a study on the correlation between international cooperation and governance promotion. Accordingly, this study tried to explore the issue of ‘governance promotion through international cooperation’ by taking the EU’s ‘European Neighbourhood Policy(ENP)’ as a research sample. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy on the governance promotion of ‘Eastern Partnership(EaP)’ countries from the perspective of international cooperation. Above all, the focus of this study is to analyze at an empirical level the effects of the EU’s financial assistance, a key means of European Neighbourhood Policy, on the governance promotion of these partner countries, and to illuminate the dynamics of the governance promotion of these partner countries through European Neighbourhood Policy. The results of this study are summarized as follows. First of all, this study analyzed the effects of EU’s financial assistance on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries through quantitative panel analysis, a variable-oriented research method. After setting hypotheses according to the panel analysis model, this study examined the causal relationship between the financial assistance and governance promotion of these partner countries actually implemented by the EU from 2007 to 2018 for the six partner countries, namely Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Belarus, and Azerbaijan. This study basically made the assumption that “the larger the EU’s financial assistance, the higher the level of governance in Eastern Partnership countries”. The independent variable ‘EU financial assistance’ was set through the ‘EU Aid Explorer’ statistical system provided by the European Commission, and the dependent variable ‘Governance’ was set through the ‘Worldwide Governance Indicators(WGI)’ provided by the World Bank. In particular, causal estimation was performed using EU’s financial assistance as an independent variable and six WGI composite indicators as dependent variables in terms of political, administrative, and judicial governance. Based on the panel data for each variable, the hypothesis was tested by estimating the ‘fixed effects model’, ‘random effects model’, and ‘Hausman-Taylor model’. As a result of hypothesis testing, all hypotheses except for the level of ‘Political Stability’ among the six hypotheses showed a significant positive correlation. In short, the assumption was confirmed that “the larger the EU’s financial assistance, the higher the level of governance in Eastern Partnership countries”. The increased financial assistance from the EU has improved the levels of ‘Voice and Accountability’, ‘Government Effectiveness’, ‘Regulatory Quality’, ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Corruption Control’ respectively. This led to the expectation that the financial assistance program of the European Neighbourhood Policy would have a significant policy ripple effect on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries. However, the causal estimation coefficient between EU’s financial assistance and the governance of Eastern Partnership countries derived in this study assumes ‘ceteris paribus(all other things being equal)’, and at the same time implies ‘the mean causal effect’ of the six partner countries. Moreover, besides EU’s financial assistance, there are many factors that influence the improvement of governance in partner countries. Therefore, it is necessary to have an in-depth understanding of the specificity of each partner country that was omitted from the ‘quantitative panel analysis’. Therefore, in this study, the ‘case-oriented’ research method was designed in parallel as a complementary research strategy to the ‘variable-oriented’ research method in terms of methodology, and qualitative case analysis was additionally conducted to capture the specific dynamics surrounding the governance promotion of individual partner countries. In this study, ‘causal process tracing’ based on ‘historical institutionalism’ was set as an alternative case analysis model. And through this model, this study focused on analyzing how the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy(cause) affected the governance promotion(result) of Eastern Partnership countries. The basic assumption of this study is that “the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy contributes to the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries through the ‘Europeanization’ mechanism”. In this case, the ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ unique to each case constrain or facilitate the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries. The ‘causal mechanism’ refers to Europeanization through the financial assistance program, which is a key means of European Neighbourhood Policy, that is, Europeanization through the ‘European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument(ENPI)’ and Europeanization through the ‘European Neighbourhood Instrument(ENI)’. The contextual conditions are set as the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, respectively. In particular, this study selected three countries, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, as the ‘most likely case’ to promote governance through the European Neighbourhood Policy among Eastern Partnership countries, and traced their unique causal mechanism and contextual conditions. This study focused on the ‘case-oriented’ research method instead of the ‘theory-oriented’ research method in order to in-depth analysis of the governance promotion dynamics of Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy. Through the ‘analytic induction’ of ‘explaining outcome process-tracing’, the causal mechanism and contextual conditions surrounding the governance promotion dynamics were examined in detail. As a result of case analysis through causal process tracing, it was confirmed that the dynamics of promoting governance in Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy depended on the unique ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ of each case. The contextual conditions unique to each case, namely the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, acted in layers on the Europeanization mechanism. As a result, the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy has had different effects on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries. Above all, the effect of promoting ‘democratic governance’ through ‘values-based Europeanization’ was rejected without being empirically proven. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the EU’s ‘interests-based Europeanization’ would promote the ‘effective governance’ of Eastern Partnership countries was supported in all cases. When faced with the ‘value-interest dilemma’ surrounding European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU preferred interests-based Europeanization to values-based Europeanization. In addition, when faced with the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the partner country level or the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, partner countries also consistently preferred interests-based Europeanization to values-based Europeanization. In particular, it was found that the promotion of ‘effective governance’ through ‘interests-based Europeanization’ produced unintended consequences that contributed to the regime stability rather than the regime reform of Eastern Partnership countries. As a result of the case analysis, the promotion of ‘effective governance’ through ‘interests-based Europeanization’ of the EU produced a synergistic effect by combining with the expected interests of partner countries. The ruling coalitions of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova each sought political association and economic cooperation with the EU within the contextual conditions surrounding themselves. In this way, they decided that the expected ‘common interest’ with the EU would help them maintain their power and stabilize their regime. At the same time, the asymmetric interdependence with Russia in the post-Soviet space had the paradoxical effect of promoting the ‘interests-based Europeanization’ of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. In the end, the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy had a ‘double effect’ on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries. Values-based Europeanization did not contribute to promoting democratic governance in Eastern Partnership countries. The EU’s ‘transformative power’ to promote democratic governance by transferring and disseminating universal values ​​such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law to partner countries, was nothing more than a rhetorical policy discourse. On the other hand, interests-based Europeanization was found to have contributed to promoting effective governance in Eastern Partnership countries. In fact, since the early days of European Neighbourhood Policy, interests-based policy cooperation programs have maintained an overwhelming level among the EU and its partners. This was consistent with the interests of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. For example, in the process of negotiating ‘Association Agreement(AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area(DCFTA)’, the EU proposed a non-political and functional ‘sector-specific conditionality’ instead of ‘political conditionality’. Accordingly, these partner countries have chosen the ‘Association Agreement(AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area(DCFTA)’ as institutional alternatives to realizing political association and economic cooperation with the EU. As the mutual strategic interests between the EU and the partner countries were aligned, interests-based Europeanization had the effects of enhancing the administrative governance of the partner countries. After all, the governance promotion in ‘Government Effectiveness’ and ‘Regulatory Quality’ level produced ‘unintended consequences’ in favor of regime stability rather than regime reform of the partner countries. This study was attempted to explore the problem of correlation between international cooperation and governance promotion, which has been relatively under-researched. The academic significance of this study is as follows. The theoretical agendas implied by the issue of promoting governance through international cooperation are diverse. Among them, the epistemological agendas that this study particularly focused on were ‘value’ and ‘interest’. This study focused on tracing how the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy oriented toward ‘shared values’ was transformed into ‘shared interests’ in the process of policy cooperation with Eastern Partnership countries. The goal of the European Neighbourhood Policy at the beginning of its inception was to build a ‘value community’ by transferring and disseminating universal values ​​such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law to partner countries. Through the ‘ring of friends’ formed in the post-Soviet space, the EU and partner countries pursued mutual common values ​​to achieve stability, security, and prosperity in neighbouring regions. Accordingly, the EU envisioned the democratic governance of partner countries through values-based Europeanization from a policy ideological level. However, in the process of actual policy cooperation, this concept was diluted. The specific policy cooperation program between the EU and partner countries was led by the logic of interests-based Europeanization instead of values-based Europeanization. As the contextual conditions surrounding the Europeanization mechanism, namely the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, acted in layers, the Europeanization that guaranteed mutual strategic interests between the EU and its partners prevailed. The EU and its partners pursued ‘common interests’ in politics, economy and security rather than ‘common values’ such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. So far, the problem of ‘value’ and ‘interest’ in epistemology has been a key theoretical agenda surrounding the explanation of social phenomena. This agenda was also no exception in the debate between ‘rationalism’ and ‘constructivism’ over European Neighbourhood Policy. Regarding EU’s external policy, including European Neighbourhood Policy, rationalism adopts the ‘logic of consequence’ based on the rational interests of the actors, whereas constructivism adopts the ‘logic of appropriateness’ based on the normative values of the actors. However, as confirmed through this study, it is difficult to explain European Neighbourhood Policy with only one logic, either rationalism or constructivism. The dynamics of promoting governance in Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy showed that values-based Europeanization and interests-based Europeanization coexisted and competed with each other according to the contextual conditions of each case. As a result of tracing the causal process, the rationalist ‘interest’ and constructivist ‘value’ elements were not dichotomized in the causal mechanism surrounding the European Neighbourhood Policy, but acted in a complex way, causing a chain effect. This constitutes a multi-layered point of contact between rationalism and constructivism, which looks at international cooperation from a theoretical point of view. In this regard, the ‘causal process tracing’ model applied in this study shows the possibility to build a theoretical ‘middle ground’ that alleviates and integrates the conflict between rationalism and constructivism over the governance promotion through international cooperation. In addition, this study adopted a ‘variable-oriented’ research method and a ‘case-oriented’ research method as a complementary research strategies to improve the validity and robustness of hypothesis testing in terms of methodology. First, in order to empirically verify the effects of EU’s financial assistance on the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries, a variable-oriented research method called ‘quantitative panel analysis’ was conducted. Through this, the causal regularity between European Neighbourhood Policy and the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries was estimated from an empirical level. Then, this study conducted ‘causal process tracing’ as a case-oriented research method to identify the governance promotion dynamics of Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy. This allowed us to capture the unique peculiarities of each partner country. Particularly this study has contributed to exploring the causal complexity between cause and result by paying attention to the ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ unique to each case, and opening the previously closed ‘black box of causality’. In short, the combination of the ‘variable-oriented’ research method and the ‘case-oriented’ research method adopted in this study provides methodological usefulness in understanding the causal complexity of specific social phenomena and simultaneously grasping the causal homogeneity and heterogeneity.

(The) EU’s identity as a global actor : Focusing on the external mechanism

신의찬 한국외국어대학교 국제지역대학원 2024 국내박사

제2차 세계대전이 종료된 후, 유럽통합의 가장 큰 목적은 유럽 내에서 평화와 안정을 확립하는 것이었다. 초기 회원국들은 미국의 지원을 바탕으로 경제적 통합과 정치적 협력의 틀을 구축함에 따라 역내 평화와 안정에 노력을 기울였다. 특히 유럽은 경제적 통합을 통해 강력한 경제 공동체로 성장하면서 대외적 영향력을 증대시켰으며 유로화의 도입과 역내 공동시장의 형성은 국제 경제 무대에서의 EU의 역할을 강화시켰다. 탈냉전 시기를 거치면서 유럽통합은 새로운 국면을 맞이했다. 1993년 유럽연합(EU)의 탄생과 공동외교안보정책(CFSP)이 주요 축으로 자리잡게 되면서 유럽 차원의 대외정책이 본격적으로 작동하기 시작했다. 또한 기존회원국에 더해 중동부 유럽 국가들의 가입이 가속화되면서 연합 차원의 국경 확대와 영향력이 강화되었다. 나아가 2009년 발효된 리스본 조약에 의해 EU에 법인격이 부여되었고, 초국가성을 바탕으로 외교안보고위대표(HR) 및 EU 대외관계청(EEAS) 등을 신설하여 제도적 발전을 거두었다. 그러나 2010년대 이후, 유럽은 다양한 위기를 경험하였다. 내부적으로 EU는 재정 위기, 이민 위기, 브렉시트(brexit)를 겪으면서 통합의 위기를 겪었다. 대외적으로 EU는 러시아의 크림반도 합병, COVID-19 팬데믹 확산, 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁에 대해 효과적으로 대처하지 못했다. 나아가 미중 경쟁의 심화와 함께 인도-태평양 지역의 중요성이 부상함에 따라 EU는 새로운 지정학적 해석과 전략을 필요로 하는 상황에 놓이게 되었다. 그리고 이러한 위기와 도전 속에서 EU는 대외적 역량을 강화하기 위한 비전과 수단을 지속적으로 발표하고 있다. 이러한 차원에서 본 연구는 글로벌 행위자로서 EU의 정체성은 무엇인가? EU의 대외정체성은 규범권력으로 정의할 수 있는가? 라는 질문을 바탕으로 EU의 대외적 정체성과 글로벌 행위자로서의 특성에 대해 분석하고, 나아가 전통적으로 규범권력에 기반한 목표 및 가치를 반영하는 EU의 주요 정책들을 분석하는 것을 목표로 한다. 첫째, 본 연구는 EU의 대외적 정체성에 관한 연구 질문을 기반으로 EU의 대외적 정체성에 관한 선행연구를 진행한다. 또한 이를 바라보는 이론적 틀로써 역사적 제도주의와 합리적 선택 이론을 활용한다. EU는 지속적인 통합과 확장을 거치며 국제사회의 주요 행위자로서 입지를 공고히 하는 작업을 진행했다. EU는 전통적인 국가의 주권 영역을 탈피한 새로운 국제 행위자로서의 고유성을 보유하고 있다. 이를 바탕으로 규범권력으로의 대외적 역량을 행사하고, 이를 정책적 틀 안에 반영하고 있다. 둘째, 본 연구는 지정학 개념을 바탕으로 새로운 지정학적 환경에 따른 EU의 통합 및 발전 과정을 분석한다. 또한 외교안보, 경제, 자원 및 에너지 등을 포함하는 전통적인 경성권력과 문화, 가치, 정치 체제, 기술, 등의 커뮤니케이션을 포함하는 연성권력, 그리고 가치, 규범, 제도에 기초하여 국제적 규범, 표준, 규칙을 제정하거나 영향을 주는 능력을 포함하는 규범권력 개념을 구분한다. 이를 통해 EU의 대외정책 역량 분석에 대한 기반을 제공한다. 셋째, 본 연구는 EU의 대외정책 분야 중 전통적으로 하드파워 이슈로 간주되는 외교안보, 경제 정책에 대한 연구를 진행한다. EU는 내부의 통합 과정에서 규범의 전파를 바탕으로 내부적 결속을 다졌으며 탈냉전 이후 EU는 CFSP 및 CSDP를 발전시키며 대외 안보 역량을 강화하였다. 또한 근린정책을 바탕으로 지정학적 전략 및 정책을 시행하는 과정에서 전략적 자율성을 강화하고 있다. 경제 분야에서는 국제무역 구조를 설정하는 과정에서 무역과 지속가능한 발전이라는 개념을 적극적으로 도입하고 있으며 FTA를 포함한 무역협정, SIAs 등을 통해 규범 및 제도의 표준화를 추구하고 있다. 넷째, 본 연구는 EU의 대외정책 분야 중 소프트파워 이슈로 간주되는 기후변화, 디지털, 이민 정책에 대한 연구를 진행한다. 기후변화 정책 분야에서 EU는 유럽 그린딜을 바탕으로 기후변화 문제에 적극적으로 대처하고,이를 국제적 규범으로 확산시키기 위한 법제화 과정을 진행중이다. 또한, 기후변화 정책과 연계하여 유럽의 경쟁력 강화를 위한 정의로운 전환에도 힘쓰고 있다. 디지털 분야에서 EU는 상호주의적 주권의 개념을 통한 초국가적 규범 설정에 노력을 기울이고 있다. 디지털 정책을 통한 유럽의 디지털 역량 강화와 함께 디지털 규범의 확산을 통해 대외관계에서 주도권을 확보하려는 전략을 펼치고 있다. 한편, EU는 2015년 유럽 이민 위기를 기점으로 이민 문제를 안보적 관점에서 접근하고 있다. 이를 바탕으로 국경통제 및 제도적 강화를 통해 대외관계의 중요한 축으로 이민 정책을 설정하고 있다. 다섯째, 인도-태평양 지역의 지정학적 중요성이 커지고 있는 가운데, 본 연구는 유럽의 새로운 지정학 전략과 연계하여 EU의 대외적 정체성 강화와 규범의 확산의 측면을 분석하기 위해 한국과의 관계를 연구 사례로 선정한다. EU에게 있어 한국은 정치, 경제, 안보 분야에서 긴밀한 파트너십을 형성하고 있는 주요국이며 인도-태평양 지역에서 EU가 추구하는 대외 전략을 공유하는 국가이다. 이러한 차원에서 한-EU FTA를 중심으로 양자 간 협력 관계를 분석함에 따라 EU가 제시하는 대외적 규범 및 영향력을 효과적으로 살펴볼 수 있다. 종합하면 EU는 웨스트팔리아 체제 이후 국제사회의 행위자성을 바탕으로 하는 전통적인 근대국가의 정체성을 넘어서는 새로운 주체로서 지위를 확보하였다. 평화와 안정이라는 가치를 추구하기 위해 시작되었던 유럽통합은 초국가성을 바탕으로 회원국들의 주권이 점차 EU로 이양되어 가는 과정으로 이어졌다. 이를 바탕으로 EU는 독립적이고 능동적인 글로벌 행위자로서 회원국들을 대표하고, 지정학을 포함하여 EU 차원의 대외 전략을 설정하고 실행하고 있다. 또한, EU의 대외전략 및 정책이 추구하는 가치와 규범이 적용되는 범위가 확장하고 있다는 점에 주목할 만하다. 전통적으로 EU의 대외전략 및 정책이 규범권력의 틀을 중심으로 발전되었으며 인권, 법치주의, 민주주의 등을 포함한 연성 이슈들에 집중되었다. 그러나 갈등과 협력이 공존하는 국제사회의 현 구조와 유럽이 처한 지정학적 위기 등과 맞물려 지정학, 외교안보, 경제 분야 등 경성 이슈들과 중첩되는 분야들이 증가하고 있다. 그 결과, EU는 가치와 규범의 확산을 기반으로 한 EU의 대외적 정체성을 경성이슈와 관련한 대외전략 및 정책에서도 적용하는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. After the end of the Second World War, the primary goal of European integration was to establish peace and stability within Europe. Early Member States, with the support of the US, focused on building a framework of economic integration and political cooperation to contribute to intra-regional peace and stability. As Europe became a powerful economic community through economic integration, the adoption of the euro, and the formation of a common market, the European Union (EU) strengthened its influence on the international economic stage. The post-Cold War era marked a new phase for European integration. With the establishment of the EU in 1993 and the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), European-level foreign policies began to operate significantly. The enlargement of the union, particularly with the inclusion of Central and Eastern European countries, accelerated, expanding the EU's borders and influence. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty, enacted in 2009, granted a single legal personality to the EU that enable to represent Member States in international relations, and institutional development through the establishment of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) and the European External Action Service (EEAS). However, starting in the 2010s, Europe experienced various crises. Internally, the EU faced challenges such as financial crises, immigration crises, and Brexit, leading to a crisis in integration. Externally, the EU struggled to effectively address events like the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia–Ukraine war. Additionally, amidst the deepening rivalry between the US and China and the rising importance of the Indo-Pacific region, the EU found itself in a situation requiring a new geopolitical interpretation and strategy. In response to these challenges, the EU has consistently announced visions and means to strengthen its external capabilities. In this context, this study aims to analyze the identity of the EU as a global actor, addressing questions such as: What is the EU’s external identity as a global actor? Does the EU’s external identity embrace normative power? The study further aims to analyze key policies of the EU that traditionally reflect goals and values based on normative power. First, the study conducts a review of previous research on the external identity of the EU based on research questions related to the EU's external identity. Theoretical frameworks such as historical institutionalism and rational choice theory are applied to inform the analysis. Throughout continuous integration and expansion, the EU has solidified its position as a major international actor. The EU possesses a unique identity as a new international actor beyond the traditional sovereignty of states. Building on this, the EU exercises external capabilities as a normative power, reflecting this in policy frameworks. Second, the study analyzes the process of integration and development of the EU in the context of a new geopolitical environment. The analysis distinguishes between traditional hard power, encompassing areas such as foreign policy, economy, resources, and energy, and soft power, including culture, values, political systems, technology, etc. The study further differentiates the concept of normative power, which involves setting international norms, standards, and rules based on values, norms, and institutions. This differentiation provides a foundation for analyzing the EU's external policy capabilities. Third, the study delves into research on traditionally considered hard power issues in the EU's external policy field, such as foreign and security policy and economic policy. Through internal integration, the EU has strengthened its external security capabilities by developing the CFSP and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). In the economic field, the EU actively incorporates the concept of sustainable development into setting international trade structures, pursuing standardization of norms and institutions through trade agreements, sustainable impact assessments (SIAs), etc. Fourth, the study explores soft power issues in the EU's external policy, such as climate change, digital policy, and immigration policy. In the area of climate change policy, the EU actively addresses climate change issues based on the European Green Deal, seeking to legislate the process for spreading international norms. In the digital field, the EU focuses on setting supranational norms through the concept of reciprocal sovereignty. Since the European immigration crisis in 2015, the EU has approached immigration issues from a security perspective, establishing immigration policy as a significant aspect of external relations through border controls and institutional strengthening. Fifth, with the increasing geopolitical importance of the Indo-Pacific region, the study selects the relationship with Korea as a case study to analyze the strengthening of the EU's external identity and the spread of norms. For the EU, Korea is a major political, economic, and security partner that shares the external strategy pursued by the EU in the Indo-Pacific region. Through the analysis of the Korea–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as a focal point, the study effectively examines the norms and influence presented by the EU in external relations. In conclusion, the EU has moved beyond the identity of a traditional modern state actor since the Westphalian system, securing a position based on international agency. The European integration, initially initiated to pursue values such as peace and stability, evolved into a process where the sovereignty of Member States gradually shifted to the EU under a supranational system. Building on this, the EU represents Member States as an independent and proactive global actor and formulates and executes EU-level external strategies, including geopolitics. Moreover, the values and norms pursued by the EU's external strategies and policies are expanding. Traditionally, the EU's external strategies and policies developed around the framework of normative power, focusing on issues such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. However, in response to the current structure of the international society, where conflicts and cooperation coexist and the geopolitical crises facing Europe, the EU is increasingly applying values and norms to external strategies and policies related to issues beyond normative power, such as geopolitics, foreign and security policy, and the economy.