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 : 조엘무릭 ( Joel Mouric ) (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
클라우제비츠와 아롱의 시각에서 분석한 한국 사드배치 문제
조엘무릭 ( Joel Mouric ) 한국정치평론학회 2016 정치와 평론 Vol.19 No.-
The decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea has raised criticism, both at the national and international level. Even though Clausewitz lived long before the missile age, and missile defense was in its early years when Raymond Aron wrote his books, lessons may be learned from their theoretical insights. Both authors share a common view on the primacy of the political, Clausewitz insisting that war is political in its essence, and Aron concluding that the political might in turn limit war and prevent escalation. This paper starts with an assessment of the strategic situation in Eastern Asia - in Aron`s words the “diplomatic constellation” -, then discusses the military and political stakes of ballistic missile defense in the Korean context. The wide capabilities and practical limitations of the THAAD system and its AN/TPY-2 radar should not be ignored, nor should be their political implications on the regional and global scales. This analysis is based on the assumption that the Korean conflict, at least since 1951, belongs to what Clausewitz called “the second kind of war”, in which a usually protracted trial of will replaces the swift and violent moves to overthrow the enemy. And this is the strategy, not fully developed in Clausewitz`s On War and later theorized by the German historian Hans Delbruck, that Aron, back in 1962, put forward in Peace and War, a theory of international relations. Applied to the Korean case, the Clausewitzian-Aronian perspective suggests that the deployment of THAAD in the ROK, though not an end it self, may be recommended, mostly on political grounds.
-
조엘 무릭 ( Joel Mouric ) 한국정치평론학회 2017 정치와 평론 Vol.21 No.-
Raymond Aron was both a philosopher and a columnist, a sociologist and an expert in international relations and strategic issues. This disconcerting profile, along with his involvement in the ideological disputes of the Cold War, may obscure the importance of his political criticism and its relevance in the post-Cold War era. This paper deals with the distinctive features of Aron’s political thinking: his criticism of the philosophies of history embedded in the ideologies of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, but also in the European project conceived by Jean Monnet; his pragmatistic liberalism which, most of the time, was closer to Keynes than to Hayek; the constant moderation of his discourse which, whatever his taste for controversies, reflected his high intellectual standards and his vision of the scholar’s duty to enlighten his fellow citizens. The first part describes, in light of recent research, the defining decades of the 1930s and 1940s in which Aron, from Germany to London, developed his political criticism as an answer to the looming “era of tyrannies”. The second part explains the commitment of Raymond Aron in the first ten years of the Cold War, not only as a negative undertaking aimed at defeating communism, but also as a constructive defense of political freedom which included warnings about the flaws of American policies or European in-tegration as well as about the hopelessness of the colonial wars waged by France. The last part defines the legacy of Aron through his criticism of the Western democratic societies.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
