http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Wilfried Loth (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
The German Question and its European Solution
Wilfried Loth 한국외국어대학교 EU연구소 2015 EU연구 Vol.- No.39
The German question was not only about re-unification of two opposite German states embedded in the bi-polar constellation of the Cold War. It was more generally the question of a balance between German sovereignty as a nation state and peace in Europe. In order to solve this problem the establishment of federal structures on the European continent was needed. In the context of the Cold War the German question reveals itself as decisive for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the core of supranational community building after World War II. European Integration as a means to contain Germany was confirmed by the Rome Treaties and the Franco-German Treaty of 1963. The hardness test of the European Community based on an understanding between France and the Federal Republic came when the Soviet hegemony on Eastern Europe began to be dissolved and the bi-polar order came to a sudden end in 1989/90. Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s announcement of postponing the political decision on the monetary union for another year, along with its incorporation into a more comprehensive reform project containing many pitfalls, was perceived in Paris as a covert rejection and the beginning of the end of the European Community. When at the end of November 1989 Kohl did perceive this he gave in on the issue of committing to the monetary union. Thus, Kohl and French President François Mitterrand not only succeeded in preventing the European unification process from being compromised by German re-unification, but were even able to give fresh impetus to this process.
-
빌프레드 로스(Wilfried Loth),정소정(번역자) 서울대학교 아시아연구소 2015 아시아리뷰 Vol.5 No.1
냉전은 권력정치(power politics)와 안보, 패권에 대한 문제만이 아닌, 산업발전의 여러 단계에서 경제와 사회를 어떻게 조직해야 하는가에 대한 서로 다른 이론들 간의 갈등이기도 했다. 물론 이념과 신념체계가 냉전을 형성하는 데 가장 큰 기여를 했지만, 사회 갈등 역시 광범위하게 냉전의 경과와 결과를 결정하는 데 중요한 영향을 끼쳤다. 냉전시기에는 자본주의에 대한 마르크스주의자들의 도전에서 시작해 다양한 사회적 개념이 출현했지만, 특별히 대중적으로 선호하는 모델이 부상하지는 않았다. 그러나 장기적으로 보자면, 집단주의적 중앙계획경제는 커다란 비용에도 불구하고 저개발 사회들을 근대화하는 데에는 어느 정도 강점을 보였다. 반면에 자유시장경제는 적어도 국가가 운영하는 사회복지제도와 일국적, 국제적 수준의 계획을 일정한 정도 수용한 이후에 훨씬 더 높은 생산성을 보여주었다. 정치적 자유가 생산성과 혁신에 유리하게 작용했다는 점이 20세기의 가장 중요한 교훈일 것이다. The Cold War was not only about power politics, security and hegemony―it was also a conflict between differing theories of how to organize economies and societies at the various stages of industrial development. Ideologies and belief systems helped define the Cold War front lines, but social conflict also largely determined its course and outcome. Beginning with the Marxist challenge to the capitalist system, multiple social concepts emerged during the course of the Cold War without any clear popular model emerging. In the long run, however, collectivist and centrally-planned economies exhibited some strengths in modernizing less developed societies albeit at great costs. Oppositely, free-market economies showed greater productivity, at least after having accepted state-run systems of social welfare and a certain degree of planning at the national and international levels. That political freedom favoured productivity and innovation ought to be one of the major lessons of the twentieth century.
KCI
KISS연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
