동ㆍ서독 간 교역의 법적 근거

신용호(Shin Yong Ho) 국제법평론회 2015 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.41

Exchange is absolutely necessary for a divided country to achieve peaceful reunification. To examine the exchange of the East-West Germany Trade, which is a successful model for the exchange, is accordingly valuable. Black marketeering between military occupied areas is the starting point of the East-West Germany trade. Understandably, economic exchange is needed since the one nation, one economic unit is suddenly separated by artificial means. Since the two German governments has become established, they leaded the trade and the amount of trade increased so that by 1989, the last year of the trade, it was 15,309 million VE(DM), which was the 20 times growth of that of the 1950s. This volume could be in Korean currency approximately more than 5 trillion won. East-West Germany Trade was many small businesses from broad range of fields joined, mostly with daily products. Therefore it was politically less affected and was a great help to protect and sustain the national unity. A consistent and determined stance of the German Federal Republic(West Germany) on the East-West Germany trade is that East Germany and West Germany is in legally still existing the whole country(German Empire), so that they are not in a mutually foreign relationship, rather in a special relationship, and all the state institutions have the legal obligations to protect and sustain the nationality and national unity of this whole country and struggle to integrate the government power that is separately exercised in real. Therefore the German Federal Republic struggled to carry out this regardless of economic interests. According to this position, West Germany strived to extend trade between East and West Germany and did not impose tariffs. Furthermore, they explained their position actively to friendly nations (especially EC and GATT member countries) and achieved their understanding. In consequence of the effort of West Germany`s government, 1989/90, when the East-European bloc collapsed, surrounding nations could easily understand the unifications policy of Germany. By the trade between East and West Germany, the Military Government Law (Militärregierungsgesetz) number 53, proclaimed during the Military Occupations Era, has been applied until the reunification of Germany. Although the Western Allies gave German Republic the right of change, German Federal Parliament kept the name and regulations of the Military Government Law number 53. Even when the Law of Foreign Economic was enacted by the German Federal Parliament, it was not applied to the trade between East and West Germany. It is seen as an action to maintain the uniqueness of the trade between East and West Germany. In regards to the unconstitutionality controversy of the Military Government Law number 53, the German Federal Constitutional Court judged that it is hard to apply the Fundamental Law principles to the `general permission and exceptional prohibition` and discretion problem of intendance of permission of rights to freedom. Moreover, Constitutional Court also decided that with the trade between East and West Germany, national agencies should keep the direction of liberalization and an arbitrary regression is not acceptable here. This also has many implications for Korea. Berlin Convention is the international legal convention that becomes the basis of the trade between East and West Germany. This convention includes a broad range of the annex, memoranda, etc through 130 days of conference. It is not always a good treaty when the period of negotiation is long and contents are lot, however, there is no doubt that this convention is formed extremely carefully. Besides, after the convention became effective, both governments have been strived to perform, complement and develop the convention by crossing east and west Berlin every 2 weeks. It is easy to figure out their efforts on the trade between two states. One characteristic of Berlin Convention is the way of payment s

독일 통일과 국내외적 환경요인

김주삼(Kim, Joo-Sam) 한국정치사회연구소 2020 한국과 국제사회 Vol.4 No.6

독일은 1945년 제2차 세계대전 전범국과 패전국이었으나 1989년 10월 9일 베를린 장벽을 무너뜨리고 1990년 10월 3일 공식적으로 통일국가가 되었다. 독일은 1945년 제2차 세계대전 전범국으로 미국, 영국, 프랑스, 소련 4개국으로부터 서독과 동독이 강제로 분단되고 관리되었다. 독일통일 전 서독은 서구 자유민주주의 체제와 시장경제를 도입하여 세계 선진국으로 발전하였으나. 동독은 소련식 사회주의 체제와 계획경제를 도입한 결과 국력면에서 서독에 비해 비교가 안될 정도로 많은 격차를 보였다. 독일통일은 서독이 동독을 흡수한 전형적인 흡수통일방식이었다. 독일통일의 국내외적 환경요인은 국내적으로 동서독이 분단 상황 하에서도 정부와 민간부문차원에서 꾸준한 인적교류와 물적교류를 진행한 것이다. 국제적 요인으로는 첫째, 국제정세가 당시 소련과 동구 사회주의권 국가들의 붕괴와 미소 냉전체제가 종식된 점, 둘째, 미국이 적극적으로 주도한 미국, 영국, 프랑스, 소련, 동서독이 포함된 ‘2+4체제’ 시스템 가동의 성과이다. 셋째, 독일통일은 당시 유럽지역의 나토(NATO)와 유럽연합(EU) 등 정치적, 군사안보적, 경제적 이해관계와 전략적 목표가 일치되었다는 점을 제시할 수 있다. 독일은 통일 후 동서독인 간 사회적·경제적·심리적 갈등이 내재돼 있었으나 시간이 지나면서 이러한 내적 갈등요소들은 하나씩 완화돼 갔다. 이러한 독일통일 갈등요소들은 분단체제인 한반도와 중국 양안의 통일과정에서 반면교사로 삼아야 할 중요한 사례이기도 하다. Germany was a war criminal and defeated nation in the World War II of 1945, but as the Berlin Wall fell on October 9, 1989, it became an officially unified nation on October 3, 1990. It, as a war criminal, was forced to be divided into West Germany and East Germany and managed by four powerful countries of the USA, England, France and Russia. Until the reunification, West Germany introduced liberal democracy system and market economy from the western world and became one of advanced countries while as East Germany introduced socialism and planned economy from Russia, it was remarkably behind in national power in comparison with that of West Germany. As for the reunification of Germany, West Germany assimilated East Germany. Domestically, East and West Germany continued to proceed personal and material exchanges in public and private levels even under the cold war system and division condition. International factors were: First, Russia and socialist nations collapsed and the cold war system in the East and the West terminated; Second, the USA started a multiple system containing England, France, Russia, East and West Germany which were active in Germany reunification and tangible results were achieved; Third, NATO and EU had the same political, military, security and economic interests and strategic goals. There were social, economic and psychological conflicts between West and East Germany after the reunification, but as time lapsed, the internal conflicts were gradually mitigated. South and North Korea, and China and Taiwan should carefully consider such conflicts inherent in Germany s reunification for the process of reunification.

독일통일과정에서 정당의 성격 분석: 동·서독 지배정당을 중심으로, 1945-1990

정주신 한국동북아학회 2015 한국동북아논총 Vol.20 No.2

The aim of this study is to examine the characteristics of ruling parties in East and West Germany in the process of the unification of Germany with an analytic framework of “dialectics of exclusion and integration” in order to answer the question on “how Germany could be unified after 45 years of division.” The research subjects of this study are ‘Christlich-Demokratische Union’(CDU)/‘Christlich-Soziale Union’(CSU) and ‘Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands’(SPD) for West Germany as governing parties in the two party system together with ‘Freie Demokratische Partei’(LDP) that formed a coalition government with one of the above parties, and ‘Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands’(SED), a one party dictatorship in East Germany. First of all, this study progressed discussion on ‘internal situation of East and West Germany’, ‘international political environment’ and ‘political power in East and West Germany’ as correlated factors of the contemporary time in order to select background factors and common agenda for figuring out roles and characteristics of the ruling parties in East and West Germany. More specifically, this study aimed to apply the analytic framework of dialectics of exclusion and integration from the symmetric perspective of division and unification in order to share division and unification of Germany and to establish awareness on them. That is to say, East Germany and West Germany sought strict ‘severance’ or ‘exclusion’ on the one hand, and also sought exchange and cooperation by admitting each other as a destined rival and competitor on the other hand. In particular, the role of governing bodies in the prevalence of exchange and cooperation between East and West, which was embedded, became the defining catalyst in the unification of political parties in East and West Germany. 본 논문의 목적은 “45년간 지속된 분단 상태의 동서독이 어떻게 통일 독일로 통합될 수 있었는가?”라는 물음에 대해 ‘배제와 통합의 변증법’이란 분석틀을 가지고 독일통일과정에서의 동서독의 지배정당을 중심으로 정당의 성격을 고찰하는 데 있다. 본 논문의 연구대상은 서독의 경우 지배정당으로 기독교민주연합/기독교사회연합(CDU/CSU)과 사회민주당(SPD) 등 양당체제와 더불어 그중 한 정당과 연립정권을 구축해온 자유민주당(LDP)이 해당되며, 동독의 경우 지배정당으로 1당 독재의 독일사회주의통일당(SED)이 해당된다. 우선 동서독 지배정당의 역할과 성격을 추출하기 위한 배경적 변수이자 논제의 공통분모를 선별하기 위해서는 동시대적 기간에 발생하고 상호 연관된 변수로서 ‘동서독의 내부적 상황’과 ‘국제정치적 환경’ 그리고 ‘동서독 정권 담당자’ 등 독일정책의 변화에 접목시켜 논의를 전개하고자 한다. 더 구체적으로는 독일 분단과 독일 통일을 공유하고 인식을 정립하기 위해서 분단과 통일의 대칭적 관점에서 배제와 통합의 변증법으로 분석틀을 적용하고자 한다. 요컨대 동독과 서독은 한편으로 철저히 ‘단절’ 내지 ‘배제’하는가 하면, 다른 한편으로는 서로 숙명적인 경쟁 상대자로 인지하면서도 서로 교류와 협력을 꾀한 것이다. 즉 동독과 서독은 서로 배제하면서도 새로운 통합을 규정하는 관계에 있었던 것이다. 특히 동서독 간의 교류와 협력이 우세해지는 과정에서는 잠재되어 있던 지배정당의 역할이 동서독 간 정당통합에 결정적 촉매가 되었다.

유럽원자력공동체(EURATOM)의 창설과 서독의 입장

박상준 서강대학교 유로메나연구소 2020 통합유럽연구 Vol.11 No.1

This article is an analysis of the West Germany’s position on the European Atomic Energy Community(Euratom). West Germany’s position cannot be fully reduced to either ‘the economic’ or ‘the geopolitical(the political)’ and should be explained in multiple ways. Based on this awareness of the problem, Chapter Ⅱ analyzes the process of establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and the international situation of West Germany at the time, especially the confrontation between the United States and France. Chapter Ⅲ analyzes why West Germany has failed to formulate a single and consistent policy by examining at the different economic interests between the industrial groups in West Germany and differences in positions and political conflicts within the government. Finally, Chapter IV describes the historical meaning and evaluation of the European Atomic Energy Community. In conclusion, West Germany’s position on the Euratom could not be maintained single and consistent because ‘the economic’ and ‘the geopolitical(the political)’ worked as a determinant in complex and at the same time. And the economic interests of the economically powerful industrial groups in West Germany have not been directly and unilaterally carried out in the government position. Thus, no matter how the final German position is ultimately favorable to capital, the process until it is determined is a long and arduous process of interaction that seeks an incomplete balance through trial and error. In this sense, West Germany’s position is not the result of rational and conscious efforts, but rather the result of compromises between industrial groups with different economic interests and ministries within the government.

동방정책을 추진하던 독일연방공화국 (서독)의 시각에서 본 한국의남·북관계 1969-72

노명환 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 2008 국제지역연구 Vol.11 No.4

The West Germany (FRG) was intensely interested in the Korean South-North relations, especially at the end of 1960's into the early 1970's. Their prime motivation was the belief that they could glean valuable insight for Ostpolitik from the Korean case. In particular, the West German government estimated that the Red Cross talks and the Joint Communiqué of July 4, 1972, contributed to easing tensions in East Asia in the most spectacular way. Understandably it saw a fruitful comparison in the moves towards détente on the Korean peninsula in the northeast Asian geopolitical context and the broadly European dimension of Ostpolitik. In consequence the West German government was assured that its constructive policy orientation of Ostpolitik was the right one to have championed. According to West Germany the fundamental difference between the German West-East relations and Korean South-North relations from the perspective of the condition of dialogues lay in the fact that, politically speaking, West Germany was prepared to endorse East Germany as a state in the framework of the theory of the "two states in a nation", while for the two Korean governments such mutual recognition was absolutely not on their respective policy agendas. The German concern with the war crime during the Second World War and the strong will of West Germany to participate in post-WWII European cooperation and eventually pan-European supranationalism is all understandable even today. East Germany, alternatively, aimed to establish an independent sovereign state under the tutelage of the Soviet Union. In contrast again nationalism predominated as the central political value in Korea especially after the liberation from Japanese Colonial rule. Dual nationalisms and the distant goal of unification differently conceived still - are the paramount goals in both South and North Korea. 동과 서로 분단된 국가로서 1960년대 말 1970년대 초 동방정책을 실시하고 있던 서독이 남북으로 분단된 남한의 통일정책과 남북관계를 어떻게 바라보았는가? 하는 문제제기가 본 논문의 핵심 주제이다. 이 연구를 위해 필자는 주한 서독 대사관의 관련 당시 기록들을 분석하였다. 초국가주의에 눈을 뜬 서독은 국가주의에 의거한 남과 북의 통일정책을 주시했으며 평화통일을 지향한다는 측면에서 동방정책의 보편성을 확인하고 자 하였다. 주변 강대국들이 한국의 남북관계에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가 하는 측면을 자신의 상황과 비교하면서 관찰·분석하였다.

분단 독일과 통일 독일 : 베를린 장벽의 구축과 해체에 관한 변증법

정주신(Chung, Joo-Shin) 한국정치사회연구소 2021 한국과 국제사회 Vol.5 No.2

이 연구의 목적은 전승4국에 의해 각각 4분할된 전범국 독일의 동서독 분단과 베를린 분할, 소련과 동독 당국에 의한 베를린 장벽의 구축, 그리고 동독 주민들의 여행 자유 개방에 따른 베를린 장벽 해체 등을 통해 동서독의 통일을 고찰하는 데 있다. 연구방법으로는 전승4국과 양독2국 간 쟁점이 되어 온 베를린 장벽의 구축과 해체에 관하여 헤겔의 정(正, These)→반(反, Antithese)→합(合, Synthese) 변증법을 적용하였다. ⓛ 전승4국이 전전(戰前) 회담의 산물인 전범국 독일을 동서독 분단과 동서 베를린 분할을 해 놓은 국제질서하에서 패권을 장악하려는 의미에서의 정(正), ② 그중에서 소련과 동독 당국이 기존 국제질서를 깨고 공산주의 패권을 유지하고자 베를린 장벽을 구축한 의미에서의 반(反), 그리고 ③ 베를린 장벽 해체가 의도되지는 않았지만 동독 주민들의 이주와 이탈을 넘어서 동유럽의 민주화 일환으로 나타난 촛불시위, 동독 SED 대변인 샤보브스키(G. Schabowski)의 기자회견에서의 ‘즉시, 지체 없이’ 국경개방 허용 발언의 말실수 등이 ‘부정의 부정’으로 지양(止揚, Aufheben)되면서 베를린 장벽이 해체되는 수순을 밟게 되는 의미에서의 합(合)인 것이다. 요컨대 미국과 소련 중심의 전승4국은 전범국 독일을 분할하여 패권이란 국제질서를 지속하고자 했으나, 오히려 소련과 동독이 베를린 장벽 구축에 나서면서 그들만의 공산권 체제유지를 강화하고자 했다. 그러나 동서독 여행 자유와 국경개방 시위에 나선 동독 주민들의 자유화와 동독 당국의 개방에 대한 모호한 태도 등이 중첩되면서 베를린 장벽이 해체되기에 이르렀다. 따라서 베를린 장벽의 해체는 독일 통일을 앞당기는 단초가 되었고, 정상적인 통일 독일로 자리매김한 것은 더이상 분단 독일이 지속될 수 없다는 변증법적 논리를 깨우쳐준 사실이 아닌가 한다. The purpose of the current study is to discuss the unification of East and West Germany based on the division of Germany into four parts and the division of Berlin into four parts by the four winning nations, the construction of Berlin Wall by the Soviet Union and East Germany, and the destruction of Berlin Wall by the people of East Germany for Freedom of Travel Open. The methodology was Hegel’s dialectic of These → Antithese → Synthese on the construction and destruction of Berlin Wall which has been at issue by the four winning nations and the two Germanies. In sum, ⓛ These is the four winning nations’ intention to dominate the powers by dividing Germany into east and west and Berlin in half as a result of pre-war talk, ② Antithese is the construction of Berlin Wall by the Soviet Union and East Germany to break the international order and maintain communism, and ③ Synthese is the unintended destruction of Berlin Wall through Aufheben when the people of East Germany’s candle protest as a part of the democratic movement beyond migration and deviation and G. Schabowski’s mistaken remark to open the national borders ‘immediately, without delay’ at a press conference as the spokesperson of East Germany’s SED operated as ‘negation of negation.’ The four winning nations led by the U.S. and the Soviet Union intended to divide Germany to maintain the international powers, but the Soviet Union and East Germany constructed the Berlin Wall to reinforce their own communist systems. However, the Berlin Wall was destroyed by the liberation of people of East Germany for liberal traveling between East and West Germanies and opening of borders and the East German authority’s ambiguous attitude toward the opening of borders. As the destruction of Berlin Wall triggered the unification of Germany, the settlement of German people and unification of Germany would be a fact that supports the dialectic logic that the division of Germany could not persist.

한국군의 초기 서독 군사유학 경험과 그 영향

김도민 국방부군사편찬연구소 2020 군사 Vol.- No.115

This article aims to examine the experiences of the early Korean military officers who went to study in West Germany in the 1960s and the impact of their experiences on the Korean military. Under the agreement between Korea and Germany in 1964, from 1965, the 2 cadets of Korea military academy sent to West German Army Academy as a status of military cadet, and at the same time, officers attended the West German Command and Staff college. Looking at the related research papers, there is only research on the study of Korean military to the United States. In the situation where there was little literature on Korean military's study abroad in West Germany, this article revealed the specific types and experiences of military study in West Germany by analyzing the oral records related to the Korean military collected by the Contemporary Korean Oral History Research Group of the Institute of Korean Studies, Kyujanggak Korean Studies Institute, Seoul National University. In the early days, 10 ROK military officers were dispatched to three locations, including a military academy, a commanding and staff college, and a general university in West Germany. Furthermore, this article revealed how ROK military West German students tried to apply the German military system within the Korean military since the 1980s, when military officers or officers at the level of military officers experienced military study abroad in West Germany and promoted up to become a Korean military general. For example, the German mission-based tactics were included as an FM(Field Manual) and the German decree on military service were not only translated and but applied to some ROKA units. Not only did some of the Korean military officers who had experienced studying in West Germany studied American military at the same time, they were also able to confirm some similarities and differences between the American military system and German one. It is expected that the concrete situation of West German military study by the Korean military will be restored through the voices of experienced peoples, as well as fill the gap of history in the relationship between Korea and Germany 본고는 1960년대 서독으로 군사유학을 갔던 초창기 한국군 장교의 경험과 그들의 경험이 한국군에 미친 영향을 살펴보고자 한다. 1964년 한국과 독일 간 협정에 따라 1965년 한국군은 처음으로 서독에 육군사관학교 생도 2명을 파겼했으며, 이후 한국군의 위관급 및 영관급 장교들도 서독 지휘참모대학에서 수학했다. 그동안 한국군의 해외 군사유학에 관련한 연구는 미국 지역에만 한정되어 있었다. 본고는 처음으로 한국군의 초기 서독 군사유학의 양상과 실태를 밝히고자 했다. 특히 본고는 한국군의 서독 군사유학 관련한 문헌자료가 거의 존재하지 않은 상황에서, 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 현대한국구술사연구사업단이 수집한 한국군 관련 구술자료를 활용하여 구체적인 서독 군사유학의 유형 및 경험을 밝힐 수 있었다. 초창기 한국군 장교들의 서독 군사유학은 육군사관학교·지휘참모대학·일반대학 등 세 곳에 10명 남짓 파견되는 형태를 보였다. 특히 한국군의 사관생도이거나 위관급 수준의 장교들이 초기 서독 군사유학을 경험한 후, 1980년 전후부터 한국군 내에서 장성으로 성장했기 때문에 이들은 한국군 내에 독일식 군사 시스템을 적용하려고 했다. 특히 독일식 임무형 전술이 교범 내용으로 중요하게 포함되거나 독일군의 복무규율이 그대로 번역되어 한국군 일부 부대에서 적용되는 사례 등이 있었다. 흥미롭게도 독일 군사유학을 경험한 한국군 장교들 중 일부는 미국 군사유학도 동시에 했다. 따라서 미국과 서독의 군사유학을 모두 경험한 인물들은 미국식 시스템과 독일식 시스템의 비교 및 평가하는 구술을 남기기도 했다. 이처럼 본 연구는 기존에 전혀 밝혀지지 못했던 한국군의 초창기 독일 군사유학의 구체적인 실태를 실제 경험한 구술자들의 목소리를 통해 복원했을 뿐 아니라, 군사적 차원의 한독관계사의 양상을 밝힘으로써 기존 한독관계사 연구의 공백도 채울 수 있으리라 기대한다.

동독 이탈주민에서 서독 서민으로 - 1950년대 서독의 탈동독민 통합 정책

최승완 ( Seung Wan Choi ) 이화사학연구소 2013 梨花史學硏究 Vol.0 No.46

During the period of division, the number of East German Refugees and Immigrants who entered West Germany reached approximately 4.75 million. Because two-thirds of those East Germans had arrived in the West during the 1950s, West Germany had to confront a series of radical issues during this period. Although the massive escapes from the East to the West represented a burden to West German society, both socially and economically, various policies and systems of support that were established during the 1950s, coupled with the remarkable economic growth of West Germany after the mid-1950s enabled the smooth integration of East German Refugees into West German society. Accordingly, this phenomenon has been recognized as a success myth. This paper attempts to analyze how East German Refugees were integrated into West German society in the 1950s and to explore how the level of success achieved by the processes executed during the period of the Cold War and the time span in which Germany was divided. First of all, this paper discusses the criteria and procedures that the West German government used in its practices of accepting refugees from East Germany. Then, this paper explores how the massive numbers of Refugees were smoothly integrated into society by engaging in a detailed analysis of West Germany`s integration policy. The issues obscured by the success myth are also described so as to critically examine whether the integration of East German Refugees can be deemed as a true success story. Eventually, through the analysis of these issues, this paper strives to fill in an existing gap in the knowledge base, which has occurred as a result of the sociological emphasis on the topic; to complete this goal, this paper discusses the implication of this topic towards the current situation of massive Refugees from North Korea who have relocated into South Korea.

Die rechtspopulistische Partei AfD in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Eine vergleichende Studie

Havertz Ralf Arnold 한독사회과학회 2016 한독사회과학논총 Vol.26 No.4

The article examines whether the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is limited to only one part of Germany – that is, whether it is more of an East German or West German party – or if it is an all-German phenomenon. The study starts out explaining why the term right-wing populism is applicable to the party AfD. It includes an analysis of the roots of the AfD in other populist parties, in particular, the parties Bund Freier Bürger (Association of Free Citizens), Die Freiheit (The Freedom), and the Schill-Party. The party leaders will be examined regarding their origin from Eastern and Western Germany. The election results of the AfD in European, federal and state elections in East and West Germany are being compared. A similar comparison is carried out regarding party membership and the electoral potential of the party. These factors are examined regarding their strength in East and West Germany and subjected to a comparison, respectively. The study concludes that the party AfD is not limited to one part of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is an all-German phenomenon. Overall, we can say, however, that it, relative to the size of the population of East and West Germany, has a stronger electoral potential and more support in East Germany than in West Germany. Der Artikel untersucht, inwiefern die rechtspopulistische Partei Alternative für Deutschland eher auf nur einen Teil Deutschlands beschränkt ist, d.h. eher eine ostdeutsche oder westdeutsche Erscheinung ist, oder ob es sich dabei um ein gesamtdeutsches Phänomen handelt. Zunächst wird dargelegt, warum der Begriff Rechtspopulismus auf die Partei AfD anwendbar ist. Die Studie beinhaltet eine Analyse der Wurzeln der AfD in anderen populistischen Parteien. Dabei werden insbesondere die Parteien Bund Freier Bürger, Die Freiheit und die Schill-Partei genauer betrachtet. Das Führungspersonal der Partei wird auf ihre Herkunft aus Ost- und Westdeutschland hin untersucht. Die Wahlergebnisse der AfD bei Europa-, Bundes- und Landtagswahlen in Ost- und Westdeutschland werden miteinander verglichen. Dasselbe wird hinsichtlich der Mitgliederzahlen und des Wählerpotenzials der Partei unternommen. Diese Faktoren werden auf ihre Stärke in Ost- und Westdeutschland hin untersucht und einem entsprechenden Vergleich unterzogen. Die Untersuchung kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Partei AfD nicht auf einen Teil der Bundesrepublik Deutschland beschränkt ist. Sie ist ein gesamtdeutsches Phänomen. Insgesamt lässt sich aber sagen, dass sie in Ostdeutschland relativ zur Bevölkerungszahl über ein stärkeres Wählerpotenzial und über mehr Zuspruch verfügt als in Westdeutschland.

통일전 동ㆍ서독간 경제교류에 관한 연구

정진상 한독사회과학회 2006 한독사회과학논총 Vol.16 No.1

독일통일은 정치적으로 동구권의 붕괴와 냉전의 종결을 가져왔으며 경제적으로는 경제체제의 우월성에 대한 논쟁을 마무리 지었다. 분단에 따른 정치적 대립으로 인해 거의 중단된 상태에 있던 동서독의 경제 교류는 1949년 5월 전승국들이 Jessup-Malik협정을 체결하면서 다시 재개되었다. 이후 동서독은 수차례의 협상을 통해서 프랑크푸르트협정과 베를린 협정을 체결하면서 동서독 경제교류의 기본 틀을 마련하였다. 빌리 브란트 수상의 독일정책을 계기로 양독 관계는 변화하기 시작했으며, 동서독의 기본조약 체결 및 동시 유엔가입을 거치면서 내독간의 경제 교류는 더 이상 냉전의 도구가 아니라, 긴장 완화와 대립 관계를 극복하기 위한 수단으로 활용되었다, 동서독의 경제 교류는 서독 정부의 동독에 대한 각종 혜택을 통해서 통일 이전까지 지속적으로 성장하게 되었다. 물론 양독간의 교역 구조나 무역량이 만족할 만큼 성장한 것은 아니었으나 동서독간의 경제 교류는 서독에게는 긴장 완화와 동독과의 유대감을 깊게 할 수 있는 정치적 목표를 달성하게 했고, 동독에게는 서독으로부터 기술 및 재원 등 경제적 도움을 받을 수 있게 함으로써 상호 보완적인 역할을 해왔다. 정치적 시대 상황이나 여건이 독일이 통일을 이루는데 바람직하게 작용도 했었겠지만 결국은 독일 스스로 많은 희생을 감수하면서 경제교류와 지원을 통해 통일의 토대를 만든 것은 우리에게 좋은 시사점을 준다고 할 수 있겠다. The unification of Germany has some meanings. Politically, the unification of Germany led to the collapse of Eastern European countries and the end of Cold War, and economically put to an end the dispute over the superiority of economic systems. The economic exchanges between East and West Germany were almost halted by the political confrontation due to the division of Germany, but reopened it by the Jessup-Malik agreement which was signed by Allied powers in May 1949. Since then, East and West Germany engaged in several negotiations and signed with the Frankfurtagreement and Berlin agreement which made a basic framework for mutual exchanges. Because of Prime Minister Billy Brant's policy, the relations of East and West Germany have been changed. The economic exchanges between two Germanys functioned as means for an easing of strained relations not for intensifying the Cold war. The mutual exchanges getting grow continuously until the unification through the various favors of West to East Germany. The growth of trade volume and trade structure were not satisfactory, however, the trade exchanges were complement. The mutual exchanges made it possible that West Germany could achieve the political goals to ease tension and to deepen connectedness with East Germany, and East Germany could get the technical and financial aids from West Germany. Even though the situation and conditions were working for the unification of Germany, however, the economical exchanges between two Germanys were decisive factors for the unification.