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 : 김의곤(金義坤) (검색결과 36 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
21st-Century Northeast Asian Order and America’s Choice
김의곤 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2016 Pacific Focus Vol.31 No.2
The emerging new order in Northeast Asia in the 21st century is attributable to a few factors. First, the relative decline of the United States as the hegemonic power contributes to it. Second, the rise of China is also responsible. Buttressed by remarkable economic growth over the past 20 plus years, China is eager to regain its traditional influence and status as the regional hegemon. Third, the relative decline of Japan leads to Northeast Asian power restructuring. Fourth, North Korea is another major factor leading to instability in Northeast Asia. Finally, the rise of South Korea is also responsible for Northeast Asian power restructuring. In the intermediate and long-run, the US policy toward Northeast Asia will be centered on China, and its China policy will be characterized by engagement and/or hard balancing. To pursue the goal, the United States should further develop close ties with its allies, such as South Korea and Japan, and pursue improved relations with Vietnam and the Philippines. At the same time, the United States should persuade China that cooperating with its neighboring countries would be in its intermediate and long-term interests. In other words, the United States should firmly and persistently pursue the policy of the “Asianization of China.”
-
Dawning of a New Horizon: Recent Trends in East Asian Studies
김의곤 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2008 Pacific Focus Vol.23 No.1
Current tendencies in East Asian politics continue to be influenced by several structural factors in the region in the foreseeable future. The first factor is the ideological shift in regional politics. The second factor is a power shift in the region marked by the relative decline of U.S. dominance with a concomitant rise in the influence of China, Russia, and Japan. The third factor is the development of civil society in East Asia with the surge of democratization occurring since the late 1980s. Finally, it is important to note that increasing numbers of political scientists with diverse backgrounds such as social minorities like women and disparate ethnic groups have brought various research agendas into the field breaking the classical issue hierarchy in East Asian studies. Given the interplay of these factors, East Asian relations will continue to be dynamic and unpredictable, thus, challenging scholars with interesting yet still under-researched subjects that need to be thoroughly explored and analyzed.
-
Rising China and Turbulent East Asia: Asianization of China?
김의곤 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2014 Pacific Focus Vol.29 No.1
The international order in East Asia has been anchored on four pillars. The first pillar is the 1952 San Francisco peace treaty between the United States and Japan. The US–Japan mutual defense treaty was signed and Japan became demilitarized and its foreign policy was oriented toward the United States. Japan adopted the “peace” constitution. The second is the US–China Shanghai Communiqué of 1972. In this document, Nixon and Mao agreed that neither of their countries nor any power should seek hegemony in the Asia–Pacific region. The third pillar is the 1972 Sino–Japanese Joint Declaration. China recognized the US–Japan military alliance and Japan, in turn, recognized China as the sole legitimate government. The last is the 1965 ROK–Japan treaty to normalize bilateral relations. Japan recognized the ROK as the sole legitimate government representing the Korean people and nullified the treaties that led to Japan’s forceful annexation of Korea in 1910. In the 2010s, tensions and disputes between the United States and China and between China and Japan are undermining the four pillars of order. The United States, China, and Japan are now engaged in a dangerous power game to create a new international order in this turbulent region. China’s foreign policy toward East Asia will be predicated on three strategies. China will resort to soft balancing in dealing with the United States, unilateralism with Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, and multilateralism vis-à-vis the remaining countries in East Asia. “The Asianization of China” would be a solution for future peace and prosperity in this region.
-
-
-
-
Korea’s Middle-power Diplomacy
김의곤 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2015 Pacific Focus Vol.30 No.1
Most theories of international relations (IR) have been concerned for a long time with national interest, alliance, international conflict and peace, and the world system; and they intend to explain and predict conflict and cooperation between major powers. In the early 1990s, some IR theorists began to discuss the notion of “middle-power diplomacy” in connection to middle-level powers, such as Canada and Australia, which enjoy substantial influence and respect in international society. Middle-power theory, however, has not yet been accepted as a mainstream IR theory, since its main research topics include “soft” issues instead of hard issues of a global nature involving the United States or other major players. In the 20th century, the national power of the Republic of Korea increased rapidly, and the country is now recognized as a middle power. The ROK should also play a leading role in developing new international norms and forging international consensus in human security and related areas. Toward this goal, South Korea should strengthen its diplomatic capability to resolve conflicts and promote cooperation in the international community. She should fully utilize a wide spectrum of diplomatic channels and tools, including public diplomacy, inter-state networks, NGOs, and multilateral Track II diplomacy.
-
-
김의곤 연세대학교 동서문제연구원 2001 東西硏究 JOURNAL OF EAST AND WEST STUDIES Vol.13 No.1
국제환경문제는 발생원인에 대한 체계적 연구와 논의가 부족할 뿐만 아니라 문제 해결에 관련된 각 국가들의 책임 범위 및 비용분담에 대한 국가간 현격한 의견 불일치를 보이고 있다. 국제환경문제는 국가간 협력과 갈등의 소지를 모두 포함하고 있다. 환경문제는 냉전이 종식된 후 국제 정치경제에서 보이는 국가간 협력과 갈등의 대표적인 사례가 되고 있으며, 21세기 세계평화와 국가안보를 마련하기 위한 시금석이 되고 있다. 따라서 21세기 국가들은 국제환경문제에 관련된 문제의 본질을 파악하고 공동으로 해결하기 위한 국제기구를 수립하고, 이와 더불어 비용분담에 대한 논의와 협상을 충분히 해나가야 할 것이다. 이론적 측면에서 볼 때, 국제환경문제는 냉전종식 후 활발하게 전개되고 있는 현실주의와 자유주의간의 "이론적 유용성"(Theoretical validity) 논쟁을 가시화 할 것으로 보인다. 환경문제에 대하여 현실주의자들은 기본적으로 가치의 획득(부정적가치의 획득)을 위한 무정부 상태로 규정 하고 있으며, 따라서 현실주의가 국제환경 문제를 설명할 수 있는 틀을 제시한다고 주장한다. 반면에 신자유주의자들은 환경은 집단재 혹은 공동재이며, 이것의 생산과 소비는 국가간 협력을 필요로 하는 사항이기 때문에 이 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 국제기구를 통해서만 가능하다는 입장을 보이고 있다. 결국 국제환경문제에 대한 보다 심도 있는 연구는 현실주의와 신자유제도주의간의 이론적 갈등을 해소하고, 두 이론을 동시에 포용할 수 있는 새로운 이론의 모색을 시작하는 계기를 마련해 줄 것이다.
-
ScienceON
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
