RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        IMF 시대의 통일논리와 안보논리

        김동성 한국전략문제연구소 1999 전략연구 Vol.6 No.2

        The national unification and national security policy of Kim Dae Jung Administration can he distinguished from previous administrations' in such two dimensions as environmental one and policy orientation. Decision-making environment reflects recent economic crisis while new policy orientation is characterized by the "Sunshine Policy", or the "Engagement Policy". The national security agenda has usually been placed on the foremost priority in the nation's contemporary history. Recent economic crisis, however, put the security interest aside, while DJ's engagement policy raises epistemological confusion on the basis of national security and unification policy. President Kim's engagement policy has a premise that attitude and behavior of North Korean leadership could he changed to ordinary one by continuous sunshining while national security policy of ROK is still based on the belief that North Korea is the main enemy that has a goal to 'communize' South Korea. The research goal of this paper is to examine the contradictory nature of present relationship between national security policy and engagement policy toward North Korea, aiming at a systemic understanding which is to be a logical basis for the prescription to solve the problems. The first area of discussion is related with controversial issues on the unification policy. The transitional situation leads us to confront with two dimensions of problem: epistemological one as well as a matter of practice. The most serious fact in epistemological dimension is the growing tendency that people begin to regard no longer the national security as being of the prime value. This problem is more or less caused by DJ's 'Sunshine Approach' and then it has made contention between 'state centered paradigm' and 'nationalistic paradigm'. At the same time, the process of national security policy decision making and execution has revealed itself far short of 'institutionalization'. The second area of discussion deals with logic of national security policy. There can be detected a number of controversies. Such questions as "national security for whom" and "which values" are among them. In addition, on the question of "sufficiency of security", "the source of threats", and "the means for security", controversial arguments make the present policy environment getting more complicated. In this context, some policy suggestions can be summarized as follows: 1) National security and unification policy should be systemized, from the decision making to execution, and all the process needs to be integrated as well Especially, national security policy requires the common belief on national goal and national ideology, then the concept of national interest and national objective needs to be shared by all the people. 2) New presidential leadership should be activated to maintain policy coherence while to control and harmonize effectively unification -security policy establishments. 3) As the hasty expectation for the South-North reconciliation and peaceful coexistence are not realistic, the top decision makers' prudence is needed in their evaluation process for the proper level of security arrangement. 4) There should be endeavors to secure sufficient deterrence capability for the short-run, while structuring solid basis for the long-run objective of peaceful coexistence. In this process, national consensus and supports are the prerequisite for attaining desirable goals.

      • KCI등재

        중국의 최근 군사정책과 동북아시아 안보

        김동성,김재철 한국전략문제연구소 1994 전략연구 Vol.1 No.1

        구 소련의 몰락에 따른 미국 -소련간 대 결의 종식은 동북아시아 지역에서도 질서재편의 필요성을 제기시켰다. 현재 진행되고있는 동북아 질서재편의 큰 특정중의 하 나는 초강대국의 영향력이 약화되어가는 반면 중국을 포함한 이른바 지역강국들 ( region al powers) 의 역할아 상대적으로 증대되었다는 점이다. 중국의 최근 군사정책이 우리의 관심을 끄는 것도 이러한 맥락에서다 . 소련의 퇴장과 미국의 영향력 약화로 불가피해진 아시아 태평양 지역에서의 질서재편 과정에서 중국의 군사정책의 방향은 전체 군사질서 형성의 진로에 중대한 영향을 끼칠 수 밖에 없다. 본 연구의 목적은 중국의 최근 군사정책의 내용과 그것이 동북아시아 안보에 미치는 영 향을 고찰하고 평가하는데 있다. 특히 관심의 초점은 최근 우리나라 뿐아니라 많은 동아시아 국가들의 우려의 대상이 되고있는 중국의 최근 동향들 - 국방예산 증대, 대외무기판매, 소련으로부터의 무기구입, 그리고 핵전력 증강노력 -을 분석하는데 있다. 이러한 일련의 조치들은 이지역에서의 영향력을 확대하기위한 적극적 군사력 증강정책일 수 도 있지만 또한 통상적인 군사력 현대화 싸이클로 해석될 수 도 있다 . 그 어느 경우든 이러한 문제에 대한 평가는 단순히 중국의 군사행태에 대한 주변국가들의 기존인식이나 우려에 기반하기 보다는 중국의 군사정책 기본에 대한 객관적 판단에 근거해야 하는데 따르는 어려움이 있다 . 이글은 우선 냉전종식 이후 변화하고있는 동북아질서를 간략히 살펴 보, 중국의 최근 군사정책에 대한 검토로 넘어간다. 중국군사정책을 검토함에 있어서는 최근의 중국군사정책의 목표와 추세가 1980 년대에 꾸준히 유지되어온 그것들로부터 변화했는지를 살피 , 그에 근거하여 중국의 군사정책이 현재 그리고 미래의 동북아시아 안보에 끼칠 영향을 검토하고자 한다.

      • KCI등재

        한·중·일의 신 국가정체성과 동북아 안보

        김동성 한국전략문제연구소 1998 전략연구 Vol.5 No.2

        Northeast Asian countries, Korea, China, Japan, are experiencing a crisis of national identity. The existing national consensus on their national character is challenged to be remolded according to new international environment and each nation's internal problems. Thus, Northeast Asian nation's searching for new national identity may produce the complexity of potential threats to each other in spite of favorably perceived trends of post-Cold War security environment. Newly forming national identity of Northeast Asian countries must be the basis of each nation's security policy while affecting each other's security paradigm. This research ventures to examine "national identity" in four categories; state system, state ideology, model of accumulation, foreign perception and national sentiment. Security policy options in the context of cooperative security system are to be suggested. The analysis shows that, in the short term, both China and Japan may not have aggressive orientation to radically alter the present security environment. In the long run, however, China would claim more and more "Chinese Civilization" and be highly sensitive on national pride and prestige. Japan, meanwhile, would have "crisis sentiment" according to China's ascending to super power status and the changing situation of Korean Peninsula. It could be pointed out that Japan would be continuously thinking and acting based on dual character of national orientation. For the formulation of long term strategy, Korean government and people should first read correctly the internal basis of Japanese national orientation, then, employ China and the United States for the common interest. Secondly, confidence building process and normalization of Korean Peninsula must be taken as prerequisite for the future international security arrangement for the peace and prosperity of Northeast Asia.

      맨 위로 스크롤 이동