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 : ( James Macintosh ) (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
A Confidence-Building Framework for the Korean Peninsula
( James Macintosh ) 한국국방연구원 1995 The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis Vol.7 No.1
Due to its primary success in the CSCE, confidence building is seen to be an attractive security management option, one with a relevant history of success, apparent technical (i.e., transparency) value, and little obvious risk. As security relations on the Korean peninsula enter a new and dynamic period, interest in confidence building is greater than ever. However, if analysts and policy makers are to employ the confidence-building approach to its greatest effect, they will need to have a sound understanding of what confidence building actually is and how it works. Unfortunately, conventional confidence-building thinking can lead to limited or distorted understanding of the phenomenon and how it functions. This may lead policy makers (1) to exaggerate what specific confidence-building measures can accomplish in the short-term; (2) to under appreciate some modest risks if conditions are not appropriate; and, perhaps most important, (3) to overlook the importance of some less-well-appreciated aspects of the confidence building process. This article provides an introduction to a more conceptually-oriented understanding of the confidence-building process. Contrary to more modest (conventional) conceptions of the phenomenon, this article argues that confidence building is a potentially powerful security management approach that, when employed successfully, can facilitate-and perhaps even initiate-fundamental transformations in perceptions of threat and hostility in security relations. The transformation view argues that confidence building-that is, the processes of exploring, negotiating, and implementing a confidence-building agreement-ean, by its very nature, help to alter the way leaders, policy makers, and publics see potentially hostile neighbors. However, the initial conditions primarily broad fatigue, uncertainty, and all enduring concern about the material and moral costs of maintaining security-must be right for this to occur. Ideally, these fundamental changes in security perceptions come to be institutionalized in a genuine security regime reflecting the content of CBM agreements and the implicit rules of behavior associated with them and their negotiation. Efforts to develop confidence building agreements when the initial conditions are inappropriate and/or when the nature of the process is imperfectly understood can lead to disappointing or even dangerous results. Without the possibility of transformation, confidence building efforts can, at best, achieve modest increases in "transparency" but also risk exaggerating existing suspicions or masking hostile acts. The logic of the article`s position is quite straightforward. Although generating increased transparency-the essence of many conventional understandings of confidence building can be valuable, the actual process of developing, negotiating and implementing a confidence-building arrangement constitute an equally--or perhaps even more-important component of the over-all confidence-building process. It is this collective, cooperative process that facilitates the fundamental positive transformation of a security environment. Process matters perhaps as much as content in confidence building, so a fascination with developing specific CBM solutions to tough security problems may not be as important as is assumed conventionally. The actual process of developing a confidence-building agree-ment can be at least as important in helping to change the way participants see each other as can the transparency and constraint that result from the implementation of the agreement.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
