지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2017.3
- 수록면
- 277 - 317 (41page)
- DOI
- 10.46694/JSS.2017.03.32.1.277
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper aims at analyzing the factors affecting the emergence, process, and performance of the Nordpolitik, further making comparisons with those of the Eurasia Initiative during the Park Geun-hye Government. In the midst of the unravelling of the Cold War, the Roh Tae-woo Government launched the Nordpolitik, which turned out to be a turning point in Korean diplomatic history. It was successful in bringing about establishment of diplomatic relations with communist countries including the Soviet Union and China and a temporary rapprochement with North Korea. Derived from comparative foreign policy theories, this study adopts three categories of variables for explaining the rise and implementation of the Nordpolitik during the Roh Government: international political contour, domestic socio-political situation, and leadership.
Above all, the Nordpolitik was made possible as a result of U.S. policy of ‘benign negligence’ in the wake of the disintegration of Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. On top of the tectonic changes in geopolitical landscape, the leadership of Roh Tae-woo, who had been engaged in cultivating a continent-oriented policy for years, played a key role in bringing the Nordpolitik into fruition. Meanwhile faced with relatively unfavorable domestic political circumstances, Roh attempted to utilize the Nordpolitik as a tool for political breakthrough, while managing to control the implementation process of the Nordpolitik with adroit strategies and tactics.
In contrast, the Eurasia Initiative under the Park government is considered as an updated and expanded version of the Nordpolitik, because the former is designed to promote cooperation with countries in the Eurasian Continent in a wide variety of issue areas from political and diplomatic cooperation to economic ties, to cultural exchanges with Eurasian countries. Yet, given such ambitious objectives, the Eurasia Initiative did not meet expectations with meager performance. Compared with the Nordpolitik, the geopolitical environment under which the Eurasia Initiative was proposed and implemented proved to be unfavorable with mounting rivalry between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, while confrontation between the West and Russia was on the rise in Europe. Additionally, the leadership of President Park has been blamed for the lack of long‐term perspective on Eurasian cooperation and rapport with the mass public.
As such, although the Eurasia Initiative left much to be desired, the Republic of Korea has no choice but to seek for a long-term, comprehensive, and multi-dimensional ‘Neo-Nordpolitik,’ or a new type of continent-oriented policy. Making the best of experiences of the previous Nordpolitik, the new leadership of the ROK should contrive and implement a ‘Neo-Nordpolitik,’ which may contribute to stability in the Korean Peninsula, ultimate unification of the two Koreas and further harmony and prosperity in the Eurasian Continent.
Above all, the Nordpolitik was made possible as a result of U.S. policy of ‘benign negligence’ in the wake of the disintegration of Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. On top of the tectonic changes in geopolitical landscape, the leadership of Roh Tae-woo, who had been engaged in cultivating a continent-oriented policy for years, played a key role in bringing the Nordpolitik into fruition. Meanwhile faced with relatively unfavorable domestic political circumstances, Roh attempted to utilize the Nordpolitik as a tool for political breakthrough, while managing to control the implementation process of the Nordpolitik with adroit strategies and tactics.
In contrast, the Eurasia Initiative under the Park government is considered as an updated and expanded version of the Nordpolitik, because the former is designed to promote cooperation with countries in the Eurasian Continent in a wide variety of issue areas from political and diplomatic cooperation to economic ties, to cultural exchanges with Eurasian countries. Yet, given such ambitious objectives, the Eurasia Initiative did not meet expectations with meager performance. Compared with the Nordpolitik, the geopolitical environment under which the Eurasia Initiative was proposed and implemented proved to be unfavorable with mounting rivalry between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, while confrontation between the West and Russia was on the rise in Europe. Additionally, the leadership of President Park has been blamed for the lack of long‐term perspective on Eurasian cooperation and rapport with the mass public.
As such, although the Eurasia Initiative left much to be desired, the Republic of Korea has no choice but to seek for a long-term, comprehensive, and multi-dimensional ‘Neo-Nordpolitik,’ or a new type of continent-oriented policy. Making the best of experiences of the previous Nordpolitik, the new leadership of the ROK should contrive and implement a ‘Neo-Nordpolitik,’ which may contribute to stability in the Korean Peninsula, ultimate unification of the two Koreas and further harmony and prosperity in the Eurasian Continent.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 외교정책의 설명변수
Ⅲ. 북방정책의 목표, 성과 및 한계
IV. 북방정책의 추동 및 제약 요인
V. ‘북방정책’과 ‘유라시아 이니셔티브’
VI. 결론 : “새로운 북방정책(Neo-Nordpolitik)”을 향하여
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Analysis of the Implementation of South Korea's Nordpolitik in 1970s-1990s: Focusing on the Interaction between Environment and Foreign Policy Decision-Making
Korea Observer
2020 .01
-
글로컬의 관점에서 본 유라시아: 정치적·경제적 접근에서 문화적 접근으로
현대유럽철학연구
2021 .01
-
유라시아 이니셔티브와 협력전략 연구
슬라브학보
2015 .06
-
Economic Cooperation Between Korea and Russian Far East : Past, Present and Future
외국학연구
2019 .01
-
유라시아를 대하는 10개의 시선 : 크리스 한의 「유라시아라는 개념에 대하여」를 중심으로
동서철학연구
2021 .12
-
에르도안 집권기 터키 대외정책의 유라시아 지향성 강화
슬라브硏究
2020 .01
-
유라시아 연구의 미래
유라시아문화
2024 .08
-
유라시아 경제연합 구축과 러시아 에너지전략
슬라브학보
2015 .12
-
유라시아 이니셔티브(Eurasia Initiative)와 한반도의‘신안보' 구축 방안
군사연구
2015 .01
-
2015 유라시아 친선특급 행사: 의미, 성과, 과제
슬라브硏究
2016 .01
-
러시아의 유라시아주의와 제국의 지정학
슬라브학보
2019 .06
-
유라시아 지역통합의 동학 : 유라시아 지역주의 對 서구지향 지역주의
슬라브학보
2016 .12
-
21세기 한국의 중앙유라시아 미술사 연구
헤리티지:역사와 과학
2015 .01
-
Perception of “Diversity” and Cultural “Contaminations” in Ancient Eurasia
서양고전학연구
2017 .12
-
러시아와 유라시아
러시아어문학연구논집
2015 .01
-
중국의 부상과 중앙아시아 국가들의 대응
슬라브학보
2015 .06
-
정치소설의 담론적 네트워크와 산책자/스파이의 유라시아 문화지리-박태원, 「아세아의 여명」(1941)의 중국·홍콩·인도차이나 표상을 중심으로
인문논총
2023 .05
-
<번역> 동아시아 세계론에서 유라시아론을 조망하다
동국사학
2024 .08
-
세계사 속의 중앙유라시아 - 현황, 이론 그리고 사례 -
동양사학연구
2023 .09
-
‘일대일로(一帶一路)’와 제국의 지정학
역사비평
2018 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
노태우 정부의 북방정책과 남북기본합의서 : 성과와 한계
김연철
역사비평
2011
.11
“신북방정책” 비전의 국제관계이론적 맥락과 러시아 신동방정책과의 접점
우준모
국제지역연구
2018
.01
1980년대 한국 북방정책의 촉발 요인으로서의 정치경제적 측면에 대한 연구
배종윤
21세기정치학회보
2014
.09
북방정책보도와 관련한 실증적 연구 : 鄭周永회장과 文益煥목사의 방북보도를 중심으로
金正鐸
관훈저널
1989
.06
탈냉전기 노태우 정부의 대북정책 : 정책연합의 불협화음과 전환기 리더십의 한계
이정철
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2012
.06
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-349-000909269