外部 軍事介入과 國內 政治混亂의 상호관련에 관한 因果性 분석

朱秀基(Soo-Ki Choo) 성곡언론문화재단 1989 성곡논총 Vol.20 No.-

北韓 테러리즘의 政策的 背景에 관한 연구

朱秀基 단국대학교 1990 論文集 Vol.24 No.-

It must be understood that terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The uniqueness of the strategy of terrorism lies in the fact that it achieves its goal not through its acts but through the social and human responses to its acts. Unlike the other violent strategy in which the use of violence is the beginning and its consequences are the end of it, the consequences of the violence of terrorism are themselves merely a first step and form a stepping stone toward objectives that are usually somewhat remote. As Raymond Aaron points out, "an action of violence may be labelled terrorist when its psychological effects are out of proportion to its purely physical result." We can conceptualize the notion of terrorism, more systematically, in the following manner : Terroism is the actual use, or threat of use of extranormal form of political violence by an individual of group (including the state), whether acting for or against to the established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demand of the perpetrators. In essence, terrorism is the use of terror as a symbolic act designed to influence political behavior by extranormal means, entailing the use or threat of violence, and it is goal-directed, employed in pursuit of various political objectives. Thus, terrorism and terrorist to one group may be differently regarded as heroism and freedom fighter to another group. The subject matter of this study is concerned with the terrorism by North Korea, aiming at intimidating South Korea. In order to probe the policy orientation of the North Korean terrorism, the present study focuses on ⅰ) the violent terror of Mark-Leninism in the doctrine of communism, ⅱ) the advocacy of violence in the peoples liberation movement by Frantz Fanon, and ⅲ) the myths of guerrilla warfare by Carlos Marighella and others. The present study, moves on to examine the practical factors that influence the formation and implementation of North Korea's terrorism toward South Korea in terms of ⅰ) a by-product in the settings of international politics, stemming from the direct causes and the permissive causes in the international system, ⅱ) a natural derivation from the North Korea's policy orientation which emphasizes the vital roles of military forces and violence, ⅲ) a tactical tool of war in which terrorism is perceive to be a divice for the "low risk but high gain" calculation, and ⅳ) an aggressive behavior in frustration and fretfulness, coming from the relative deprivation in the perception of South vs North comparison. Particularly, I the inter-Korean rivalry, North Korea is deeply involved in the network of international terrorist organizations and attempts to export the tactics of terror and terrorism, and South Korea is by no means a heaven free from the danger of becoming the target. Even if it is unlikely that there be a total war on the full scale, entailing the tactics of terror and terrorism, aiming at provoking a psychological warfare with psychological mediate of fear and anxiety. Therefore, South Korea needs to prepare herself and get ready to deal with the tactics of terror and terrorism by North Korea in terms of the terrorism prevention and the terrorism crisis-management.

新 Detente 國際秩序와 한국의 東北亞 安定追求 : 한반도 平和體制를 중심으로 Focused on the Inter-Korean Peace System

朱秀基 단국대학교 미소연구소 1990 미소연구 Vol.4 No.-

There are periods of history when profound changes occur all of a sudden, and the acceleration of events is such that much of what experts write is obsolete before it gets into print. We are now in one of those periods, which obliges the Republic of Korea to probe carefully into the environmental changes of global international politics, particularly those in the foreign policy attitude of the Soviet Union, and to reassess the political situation on the Korean Peninsula and the regional settings of Northeast Asian sub-system as well. Men, and states as well, have to live within the boundary of their environment, with which they continuously interact. When they fail to respond aptly to the environment and its changes, hardly they are expected to promote self-development and self-preservation. This is, what we call, the principle of natural selection and the interrelation of challenge vs. response in history. Thus, the on-going changes in international politics and its direction can be either a plus or a minus to the delicate inter-Korean relations. The departure point of this study is concerned with the afore-mentioned historical characteristics of present period and its impacts upon the Korean peninsula. In the decade of 1990s, the international politics is clearly directed toward the rapprochement and cooperation, and a new international order appears to replace the widely known cold war structure of bipolarity. Assuming that the Republic of Korea pursues her national interests in terms of the national security, the national unification, and the economic prosperity, the present study intends ⅰ) to scrutinize the sudden transition of American-Soviet relationship from a Cold War to a Detente; ⅱ) to analyze the implications in the main driving force-the Gorbachev's diplomacy of New Thinking, i.e., Novoye Mysblenie; ⅲ) to focus on the great transformation of Eastern Europe and the reshaping of European international politics; ⅳ) to evaluate three important factors in the changes of Northeast Asian politics; ⅴ) to evaluate the consequences of newly emerging international detente on the Korean peninsula; and ⅵ) to discuss the strategic settings and policy conditions of the peace system on the Korean peninsula in order to induce the opening of North Korea and to reduce the probability of inter-Korean conflict. From the dichotomy of Cold War vs. Detente, the advent of second detente plainly characterizes the American-Soviet relations with the emergence of Mikhail S. Gorbachev in 1985. This great transition from a cold war to a detente seems so have been influenced by the three factors: the changes of leadership in the both countries, the evolution of their respective relations with China and Japan, and the urgencies of their economic hardship. Quite different from the detente of 1970s, the new form of rapprochement and cooperation appears to be initiated by the Soviet Union and the New Thinking diplomacy by Gorbachev. The end of tense cold war system and the emergence of new international order are obviously witnessed by the total collapse of Eastern European communist countries and the recomposition of European politics. Needless to say, without the Eastern European communism, the existence of bipolarity looses its real intensity and extensity as well, and it can not help but change to a new system of different quality. The detente climates of arms reduction in the NATO-WTO negotiation and the German unification have emitted some great heats to the iciness of Cold War structure. In the international scene of Northeast Asian, the Sino-Soviet rapprochement, the Korean-Soviet normalization of diplomatic relations, and the North Korea's approaches to Japan and the United States seem to encroach on the pillars of cold war arrangement. The international order of Northeast Asia, bipolarized into the rivalry of Southern vs. Northern triangular relationship, was resulted from the American-Soviet confrontation. However, in the midst of new detente climate, it is characterized as a process of realignment of bilateral relationship among the concerned parties in the structure of crossing cooperation. Thus, the following properties are more likely to characterize the Northeast Asian international politics: ⅰ) the reciprocal-multilateral relations, ⅱ) the peaceful co-existence replacing the inter-bloc hostility in a zero-sum strategy, ⅲ) the national economic interest in preference to the ideological affinity, ⅳ) the incrementing structural plurality, ⅴ) the stable regional transformation of international relations, ⅵ) the increasing economic interdependence. The inter-Korean relations have been those of counter-production due to the Korean War, the confrontation of zero-sum pattern, and the military tension between the two. Therefore, it is quite desirable to turn the age of mutual loss into the age of mutual benefit, based on the peaceful co-existence and reciprocal cooperation-which become the essential parts of inter-Korean peace system. In reality, there are plainly two governments-two societies on the Korean peninsula. At the same time, there is only one nation-one people in perception. Thus, both the realization of perception and the perceptualization of reality have to be carried out in the pursuit of peace system. In addition, there are two factors required in the inter-Korean peace system: one is the reciprocal opening and exchange between the two, the other is the elimination of war potentials on the Korean peninsula. Since the Korean peninsula is considered to be a security lynchpin in the strategic region of Northeast Asia where the four major powers are criss-crossing, the inter-Korean peace system in the post-Cold War structure will contribute to the tranquility of Northeast Asian region-and to the detente and cooperation in the global international politics.

韓·美 군사동맹체제에 대한 再評價 : 한국측 영향변수를 중심으로 Focused on the Korea-Side Factors

朱秀基 단국대학교 미소연구소 1989 미소연구 Vol.3 No.-

During the decade of 1980s, Korea had been undergone, domestically and internationally, a great deal of changes. In the domestic front, the democratization movement and its aftermath have created a totally new climate of politics, meanwhile the rapid evolvement of international affairs and the Korean initiative of "Nordpolitik(i.e., Northern Policy)" have presented a rather different environment of international politics. Particularly, the ROK-US relations passed a period of transition in the 1980s, and it clearly appears that the Republic of Korea and the United States can no help changing their existing format of interactions in the 1990s. The primary purpose of this study is to prove into the future pattern of ROK_US relationships for the 1990s. To do so, the study reviews the historical ups-and-downs in the past and present patterns and looks into the future framework of desirability for the Republic of Korea and the United States. Then, the study analyzes the relevant factors of importance in order to evaluate the development of ROK_US military alliance system. The selected factors are certainly pertained to the both countries, but they are viewed from the Korean side only in present analyses. The following three political-military factors are analyzed: ⅰ)the role and function of U.S. military troop in Korea, ⅱ) the question of transferring the "operational control" of ROK-US Combined Forces Command to Korea, and ⅲ) the problem of sharing the defense cost ant burden with reference to the role, risk and alliance responsibility in the joint military command system. The two additional factors analyzed are: the trade friction and pressure deriving from the enfeeblement of American economy and the growing trade surplus of Korea with the United States and the anti-American sentiment stemming from the re-evaluation of America and her role in the modern Korean history. The former is an economical one and the latter is a social one; however, these factors undoubtedly play a highly significant role in the future development of ROK-US military alliance relationship. It is true that the ROK-US relations have been characterized by the Korea's dependence on America-sometimes called as the patron-client relationship, in which Korea played a junior partnership. However, due to the Korea's economic growth, the emergence of nationalism, and the rise of national self-esteem and pride, the republic of Korea and the United States appear to have entered into an age of the mutually beneficial partner-relationship of inter-dependence, in which the two countries can harmoniously pursue their own national interests. In conclusion, for the sake of a more mature ROK-US relations, Korea needs to develop her own capabilities of democratization, continuous economic growth, national self-defense posture, and diplomatic skill in international politics. If not, Korea can not be expected to play the role of equal partnership in the ROK-US military alliance relationship.

自由民主主義에서 테러리즘의 發生과 言論의 報道 : 共生的 關係? A Symbiosis?

朱秀基 단국대학교 1995 論文集 Vol.29 No.-

The present study is concerned with social relationship between terrorism and the freedom of press in liberal democracy. It is well recognized that some form of symbiotic relationship exists between the news media and the perpetrators of spectacular terrorist incidents. The present study discusses ⅰ)the nature of terrorism and its social meanings, ⅱ) the publicity strategy of modern terrorism in distinction from the form of classical terrorism, ⅲ) the social functions of press in liberal democracy, ⅳ) the social utilities of news media in terrorists' perception, ⅴ) the related terrorism press hypotheses(i. e., contagion, intimidation, immunization, and commercialism and inter-media competition), and, finally, ⅵ) the reporting behavior of self-regulation by press. It needs to be understood that terrorism is means to an end, not an end in itself. The social notion of terrorism may be conceptualized in the following manner : Terrorism is the actual use, threat of use, of extra-normal form of violence by an individual or a group(including the state), whether acting for or against to the established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and fear-including effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators. One of the most important aims of terrorism is to gain publicity for a particular cause, which is so-called the terror ideology or theory. Publicity appears to be the sole aim in some cases. Thus, the modern terrorist is often labelled 'media terrorist'. The presumed primary aim of the news media is to inform. however, it is at least as important in practice to entertain, shock, amuse or otherwise affect the emotions of the audience. This is particularly true of the medium of television .Competition between media organizations seems heighten the necessity to focus on the emotion-generating as opposed to the purely informational aspects of news reporting. Terrorists are well aware of this phenomenon and consciously script 'live-action spectaculars'-news events which cannot be ignored by the press. The dilemma seems to face liberal democracy, then, is that media reporting of terrorist events has very damaging effects, but hat significant resrictions on such reporting would have different, but no less important negative consequences. Specifically, it is alleged that the media coverage of terrorist events has some or all of the following effects : 1. It provides a platform for the expression of extremist views which provoke violence and undermine the foundation of liberal democracy. 2. The reporting of spectacular terrorist incidents has a contagion effect which increase the probability that other groups or individuals will emulate the violence being reported. 3. The large number of reporters at and extent of coverage of a terrorist incident reinforces the terrorist's sense of power and, particularly in the case of deranged terrorists, may contribute significantly to the prolonging of the incident or th an increase in its serious consequence. 4. Related to the contagion effect is the claim that excessive detail of both terrorist and counter-terrorist operations supplies disaffected groups with tactical and strategic information and technical knowledge which make the resolution of future terrorist incidents more difficult. 5. The competitive nature of news gathering places an undue emphasis on the sensational aspects of terrorist events and makes entertainment of public violence rather than performing a public duty to inform. In addition, the instantaneous reporting of terrorist incidents and the existence of some news gathering practices, such as telephone contact with terrorists in the course of an incident, make reporters participants in, rather than observers at, a terrorist event and diminish the ability of the media to report objectively. 6. A live coverage of an ongoing incident hinders effective police counter-terrorism operations and may place the lives of hostages and police in jeopardy. Within the media community, there has been significant dissension even over the issue as to whether broad, self-imposed guideline are an evel(i. e., a form of censorship) which is set in the balance against the 'right to know or right to be informed'. It is argued that even general guidance such as given in the existing guidelines subverts the principle of informing the public and would erode public confidence in the openness of the press-what else are they keeping from us? It is also argued that potential terrorists may well escalate their acts to such an extent that massive media coverage is unavoidable. Terrorism may be a reality which is here to stay. Sometimes it is a real threat, but mostly it is not. Some of the practices of the media tend to make it a greated threat than it is and invite their own regulation by so doing. Often it is our reactions to terrorism which may constitute the primary danger, not terrorism itself. Some of the behavior of the media constitute more of nuisance and an offence against good taste and sensitivity than offences which place the community in jeopardy. The media must adopt a more specifically ethical stance and must attempt to evolve sensible and workable self-control (or self-regulation) mechanism in a pragmatic and commonsense approach. The inter-media competition, simple sensationalism, and personal heroism and ambition are neither desirable nor necessary attitude in reporting the terrorist activities and their causes. The grater the collaboration between journalists and terrorists, the greater will grow community fear and calls for legal restraint that will intrude upon what journists regard as their libertarian position. Only by forsaking this tradition and by sticking to the social duty of balanced reporting, in developing a new ethical posture that will voluntarily control and intellectually regulate the instrumentality, can journalism preserve itself and the basics of liberal democracy as well. In conclusion, the relationship between the terrorist incidents and press reports in liberal democracy is not a choice between freedom and order, but a pursuit of the both vital values in balance. It is not a matter of law, but a matter of social moral and ethics. In order to deal with terrorism more effectively, needed are openness, coordination, cooperation among the news organizations in press, the law-enforcement authorities and other social sectors. If terrorism is an expense which the liberal democracy has to pay, it should be noted that the liberal democracy pays a small-by no means, large-price for the sake of protecting so important values such as fairness, openness, and freedom.

On the Correlates of Conflict Behavior of Nations : Another Evidence for old Hypotheses

Choo, Soo-ki 단국대학교 1983 論文集 Vol.17 No.-

國際政治에 있어서 중요한 관심분야의 하나가 國際葛藤行態(Conflict behavior of nations)에 관한 연구이다. 國家들이 國內(또는 對內) 葛藤行態와 國外(또는 對外) 葛藤行態는 어떻게 서로 상관되어 있는가? 다른 국가들과 비교할 때, 보다 더 높은 그리고 더 暴力的인 形態의 葛藤行態를 보이는 소위 "葛藤(또는 暴力)의 文化"에 의하여 특색지워지는 국가들이 존재하는가? 國家들의 葛藤行態와 國內 諸與件과는 어떠한 상호관계가 있는가? 이러한 질문들은 많은 학자들로 하여금 國內·外 葛藤 및 暴力에 대하여 보다 더 硏究하도록 하였다. 國家들의 葛藤行態에 관한 관련요인(Correlates of conflict behavior)들은 分析함을 目的으로, 本硏究는 첫째로는 國內·外 葛藤行態의 主要次元에 대한 추가적인 知識을 개발하고, 둘째로는 그러한 主要次元上에서 各國의 相對的인 위치를 측정하며, 셋째로는 國家들의 葛藤行態와 國內與件들 사이에 있어서의 상호관계를 分析하고자 한다. 各國의 國內與件은 政治體制類型(Types of Political System)과 社會·文化的 地域(Regions of Sociocultural Homogeneity)의 구분에 의하여 반영되었으므로, 硏究의 중점은 國家葛藤行態의 政治體制類型과의 관계를 밝히고, 나아가서 葛藤行態와 社會·文化的 地域들간의 관련성을 分析하는데 있다. 따라서, 이 硏究가 檢證하고자 하는 假說은 다음과 같이 수립될 수 있다. (1) 國家들의 葛藤行態는 政治體制類型에 따라서 서로 상이하게 나타나므로 葛藤行態와 政治體制類型사이에는 중요한 상관관계가 있다. (2) 葛藤行態는 社會·文化的 地域의 구분과 중요하게 관련되어 있으므로, 각 지역은 서로 상이한 수준과 形態의 葛藤行態를 보이고 있다. 다른 말로 표현하면, 한 나라의 葛藤行態는 그 나라의 政治體制가 어떠한 유형이며 그리고 그 나라가 어떠한 社會·文化的 地域에 속하는가 하는 要因들에 의하여 설명될 수 있다는 일반화된 명제를 증명하려고 한다. 이를 위하여, 본 硏究는 74 개국을 선정하여, 1955∼60에 있어서, 각국이 어떠한 정치체제를 가지고 있으며, 어떠한 사회·문화적 지역에 속하는가에 대해서 조사하고, 74 개국의 국내·외 갈등 및 폭력현상에 대해서 22개의 변수에 의거해서 자료를 수집하였다. 수집된 자료는 국내갈등자료와 국외갈등자료를 구분하여, 각각 독립적으로, Factor Analysis에 의거해서 중요차원이 설정되었으며, 동시에 각 나라의 葛藤의 정도는 Factor Scores에 의해서 측정되었다. 설정된 1955∼60의 葛藤次元은 國內葛藤의 주요차원으로 Turmoil과 Internal War가 등장하며, 國內葛藤의 주요차원으로는 Diplomatic, War, 그리고 Belligerency의 세 차원으로 나타난다. 國際政治에 있어서 葛藤行態의 관련요인으로서의 정치체제유형과 사회·문화지역의 역할을 파악하기 위해서 分散分析法을 채택하였다. 정치체제의 유형을 독립변수로 하고 다섯 개의 葛藤次元에서의 각국의 葛藤測定値(Factor Scores)를 종속변수로 해서 分散分析을 수행한 결과를 보면 Turmoil, Internal War 그리고 Belligerency 葛藤次元들은 정치체제의 유형에 따라서 상이함을 보임으로서 상호관계에서의 중요성이 입증되었다. 양자의 상호관련성은 또 다시 Scheffe Test에 의거해서 再分析되었다. 이어서 사회·문화적 지역의 구분을 독립변수로 하고, 각국의 葛藤測定値를 종속변수로 하는 分散分析에 의해서 양자의 관계를 파악하였다. 특히 주목할 것은 다섯개의 葛藤次元 중에서 Internal War와 Belligerency만이 상당히 중요한 상호관련성을 보이고 있다. 이러한 상호관련성은 다시 Scheffe Test에 의하여 확인되었다. 本硏究가 74개국에 걸쳐서 수집한 자료들을 경험적이며 과학적인 틀에 의하여 분석한 결과는 다음과 같이 요약될 수 있다. (1) 1955∼60의 葛藤行態의 차원은 1955∼57 및 1958∼60과 비교해서 약간의 변동만이 있을뿐이나, 主要次元의 구성요소 면에서는 다소의 변동이 있다. (2) 國內葛藤과 國外葛藤을 구분하여 보면, 國內葛藤의 行態가 國外葛藤의 行態보다 더 변화가 적은 것으로 나타난다. (3) 일반적으로 서술해서 國內葛藤行態가 國外葛藤行態보다 더 정치체제의 유형과 社會·文化的 地域의 區分과 관련이 깊은 것으로 나타난다. 따라서 國內葛藤의 정도는 그 나라가 어떠한 社會·文化的 地域에 속하는가에 의하여 설명될 수 있다. (4) 國內葛藤次元인 Turmoil은 정치체제유형과 연관되어 있으며, 특히 정치체제 중에서 Centrist 유형은 낮은 수준의 葛藤으로 특정지워진다. (5) 國內葛藤次元인 Internal War는 정치체제유형 및 사회·문화적 지역의 구분과 동시에 중요한 연관성을 보이고 있다. 특히 폭력적인 Personalist유형과 비폭력적인 Polyarchic유형은 대조를 이루며, Western地域은 다른 지역과 비교하여 보다 낮은 수준의 葛藤을 보이고 있다. 따라서 Internal War와 같은 葛藤의 측면은 경제개발과 같은 경제적인 變數로부터 영향을 받는 것으로 나타난다. (6) 國外葛藤次元인 Diplomatic과 War는 정치체제유형 및 사회·문화적 지역과 아무런 상관관계가 없는 것으로 나타난다. 상이한 정치체제유형들 사이에서나 또는 사회·문화적 지역들 사이에서 이러한 형태의 갈등은 비교적 동일한 수준을 나타내고 있다. (7) 세번째의 國外葛藤次元인 Belligerency는 정치체제유형 및 사회·문화적 지역과 상당히 중요한 상호관계를 보인다. 특히 Personalist유형과 Afro-Asia지역이 높은 수준의 갈등을 보이며, Communist지역도 다소 심화된 갈등행태를 나타낸다. (8) 國家葛藤行態의 관련요인으로서 정치체제 유형이 사회·문화적 지역의 구분보다 다소 더 중요한 것으로 나타난다. 이상과 같이, 本硏究는 國家의 葛藤行態는 그 나라의 정치체제의 유형 및 사회문화적 지역의 구분과 어느정도 관련이 있음을 밝혀냈다. 그러나 통계학적으로 분석한 결과들을 살펴 볼 때 國家의 葛藤行態는 그 나라의 정치적·사회적·경제적·문화적 및 다른 여건과 特徵들에 의한 복합적이며 복잡한 機能의 결과로서 이해되어야 한다는 것이 分明하여진다.

The Nexus of Foreign Military Intervention and Domestic Instability : A Casual Analysis

Choo, Soo-ki 단국대학교 1984 論文集 Vol.18 No.-

本考는 國際政治에 있어서 外部軍事介入(foreign military intervention)과 國內不安定(domestic instability)에 관한 硏究로서, 첫째로는 介入(intervention)―특히 군사개입(military intervention)의 체계적인 定義를 개념화하고, 둘째로는 개입 주도국의 대외행위의 한 경우인 군사개입과 개입대상국에 있어서 國內不安定과의 인과관계(causal relationship)를 分析함으로써 兩者의 相互關係에 있어서 運用的이고, 啓發的이며 검증될 수 있는 經驗的인 命題를 定立함을 目的으로 한다. 오늘날과 같이 國家主權과 領域(national sovereignties and jurisdictions)이 분명하면서 모든 국가들의 平等性(international equality)에 기초하고 있는 國際政治體制에 있어서 어느 특정한 국가(즉 개입국 또는 개입주도국)에 의한 다른 국가(즉 피개입국 또는 개입대상국)의 國內問題에 대한 介入은 體制 그 自體의 制度的 및 法的 근거를 무시하는 結果를 초래하게 된다. 그러나 現實에 있어서는 國家들이 平等하기 보다는 相對的인 國力에 있어서나 또는 자기들의 地位는 향상시키는 能力에서 커다란 차이를 보이면서 한 국가의 다른 國家에 대한 介入은 흔히 볼 수 있는 현상이며 사건인 것이다. 특히 軍事介入이라 함은 군사상의 手段 또는 方法을 동원하는 독단적인 간섭(dictatorial interference)으로서 피개입국의 권위체계(authority=oriented nature)에 대해서 개입주도국과 개입대상국의 慣例的인 相互作用行態의 정상적인 範疇(convention-breaking character)를 이탈하면서 개입대상국의 국경을 넘어서, 또는 국경안에서 개입주도국의 일방적인 意思決定으로, 개입대상국의 主權을 침해(sovereignty-violation)하면서 발생하는 行爲를 지칭한다. 本 硏究는 이렇게 定義할 수 있는 개입주도국의 軍事介入과 개입대상국의 國內不安定과의 相關關係를 分析하기 위한 假說과 理論的인 질문들을 다음과 같이 수립하여 검증하고자 한다. 1) 國際政治에 있어서 國內不安定의 정도는 군사개입과 어떠한 관계를 맺고있는가? 높은 수준의 國內不安定은 낮은 수준의 國內不安定에 비해서 軍事介入을 초래할 可能性이 많은가? 2) 폭력적인 國內不安(violent domestic disruptions)과 構造的인 國內騷擾(structural domestic disturbances)는 비폭력적이며 비구조적인 國內不安定과 比較해서 보다 더 軍事介入을 誘發시키고 있는가? 3) 軍事介入은 피개입국의 國內不安定에 대해서 어떠한 영향을 주는가? 國內不安定의 水準이 軍事介入으로 인하여 결과적으로 고조되는가? 아니면 감소되는가? 4) 또한 어떠한 形態의 國內不安定이 軍事介入으로 인하여 增大하는가? 한편 감소되는 국내불안정은 어떠한 형태로 등장하는가? 주어진 假說과 질문들을 위하여 군사개입에 관한 data는 World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, Ⅱ: Intervention Data(collected by Charles L. Taylor, Michael C. Hundson and John D. Sullivan)으로부터 抽出되었으며, 1948년∼1967년의 期間中에서 1960년∼1967년의 기간동안 發生한 軍事介入만을 分析對象으로 하였다. 國內不安定의 측정을 위해서는 World Handbook의 Daily Event Data와 Annual Event Data의 17가지 척도(measures)중에서 본 연구는 國內騷擾狀態와 관련이 있는 14가지의 척도를 선택하여 1960년 1967년의 기간에 대해서 자료를 수집하였다 (선택된 14가지의 척도를 위해서 appendix를 참조할 것). 수집된 data는 Chi-Square Tests, The Difference-of-Means Tests, The Randomization Tests for Matched Pairs 및 The Analysis of Variance Tests에 의하여 分析되었으며, 本硏究의 결론은 다음과 같이 요약될 수 있다. (1) 被介入國(또는 介入對象國)의 政府政策 및 政治制度 또는 權力構造(power structure)에 중대한 변천을 가하려고 시도하는 構造的인 國內不安定은 非構造的인 不安定에 비하여 훨씬 더 軍事介入을 초래할 可能性이 많은 것으로 증명된다. 특히 폭동, 정치암살, 성공적이거나 또는 실패적인 비정규적인 권력이전, 정치적인 처형(execution) 등의 國內不安定은 外部軍事介入과 중요한 關係를 나타낸다. (2) 폭력적인 國內騷擾(violent disturbances)는 비폭력적인 騷擾와 比較해서 보다 더 군사개입을 유발시키는 경우가 많았으며, 특히 14가지 國內不安定의 尺度 중에서 軍事介入과 긴밀한 관계를 보여주는 척도들은 대부분 어느 정도 수준의 폭력을 수반하는 國內不安定의 形態들이였다. (3) 大衆的(mass-based) 國內騷擾는 軍事介入과 그다지 關係가 있지 않은 것으로 판명된다. 大衆的인 소요가 폭력적인 要素를 가미하는 경우―예를 들면 riots 또는 armed attacks―를 제외하고는 protests, demonstrations 또는 strikes 등의 경우는 군사개입의 발생과 무관한 것으로 나타난다. (4) 軍事介入은 피개입국의 國內不安定을 어느정도 增加(not strong, but weak tendencies to increase)시키는 추세를 보인다. 특히 assassinations, armed attacks, adjustments 및 sanctions 등과 같은 國內騷擾는 軍事介入을 유발시킬 뿐만 아니라, 군사개입으로부터 유발되어 增加하는 경향을 보인다. 이러한 증가추세는 軍事介入 後에 있어서 長期的인 영향에서 보다 短期的인 영향에서 더욱 더 뚜렷하게 나타난다. (5) 軍事介入의 形態 중에서 개입대상국의 政府(내지는 政權)에 대해서 우호적인 군사개입이 다른 형태(예를 들면 적대적인 또는 중립적인 군사개입) 보다도 더 개입대상국의 國內不安定을 高調시킨다. 적대적 군사개입은 反政府勢力(anti-regime force)을 鼓舞시켜 國內騷擾 중에서 assassinations 및 armed attacks 등을 增加시키는 경향을 보인다. (6) 軍事介入國에 따르는 犧牲인 casualties는 피개입국의 불안정을 高調시키는 要因과 무관하며, 동시에 한 나라에 의한 軍事介入(one-power intervention)에 비해서 두 나라에 의한 介入(more-than-two-power intervention)이 보다 더 피개입국의 國內不安定을 고조시키는 要因이라는 증거는 發見되지 않았다. 이상과 같이, 통계학적 분석방법을 利用하여 軍事介入과 國內不安定의 인과관계를 분석한 결과, 國內不安定은 軍事介入에 대하여 하나의 充分條件(a sufficient condition)이라고 볼 수 있으나, 軍事介入이 피개입국의 國內不安定에 대해서 하나의 必要條件(a necessary condition)이라고 볼 수는 없는 것으로 判明된다.

冷戰의 終熄과 국제 체제의 변화 : '國際社會階層' 개념의 導入 An Introduction of Social Stratification

주수기 단국대학교 1998 論文集 Vol.32 No.-

The intention of this paper is to prove into the end of the Cold War, to delineate characteristics of the post-Cold War international order and changes in the international system. to examine the existing explanations, and its limitations, for the structure of international system, and to apply the notions of status and stratification to the study of structure and its transformation in the international system. There are quite a few characteristics and changes in the post - Cold War era. The bipolar configuration of power appears to have lost its validity and the primacy of military - political power has been diminished by the which emergence of economic - social - cultural dimensions of power in international politics. The means by which nations assert power and interests has changed dramatically. Nations increasingly defend and enhance their interests through geoeconomic rather than geopolitical means. Accordingly, low politics appears to carry equal weight to high politics. In addition, the multilateral interdependence, lash of local and regional conflict, formation of economic bloc and regionalism, and hegemonic pursuit of technology and information are more often depicted than others in the aftermath of bipolar Cold War system. This paper process an introduction of status and stratification for the purpose of understanding the structural transformation in the international system. In the stratified social system of nations, the density of a nation's relationships and interactions with others, the extent and intensity of its involvement and participation are likely to reflect as well as affect its status as a member of the global society. Some inherent characteristics and particular attributes of a nation may be stratified and placed in hierarchy according to their variations. The status of a nation is the position, with which it is recognized in the society of nations. A system of these status is stratification, which consider how nations are accorded their positions in the social hierarchy. Just like the 'power maximization' in power politics, nations seek 'status maximization' in status politics of international stratification. Likewise the 'characteristic relationship' among nations in the international system becomes 'status relationships' among participants in the system of international stratification. The application of a stratification approach to a study of structural changes in the international system requires further works on the specific dimensions of stratification to be examined (i.e. dimensionality of stratification). on social mobility, which connotes the alterations or modifications in the rank - ordering of nations (i.e. status movement of nation). and on social inequality, in terms of its level and developmental trend in th international stratification system. As a process of ranking hierarchically, the international stratification, in this paper, is regarded as the differential evaluation of nations and their treatments as relatively higher or lower to each other on the basis of socially approved and/or generally desired attributes or characteristics. Thus, the arrays of rank - ordering display not only standing of nations in comparison with each other, but also the existence of unequal distribution of value among nations in the international system.

미국의 武力軍事介入 決定要因에 관한 연구

朱秀基 단국대학교 정책과학연구소 1991 정책과학연구 Vol.3 No.-

The departure point of this study is concerned with armed military interventions by the United States. For almost half a century since the World War Ⅱ. American presidents have consistently claimed the right to protect the interests of the "Free World and democracy" against communism, even when such protection implies intervention in the domestic affairs of another nation. A strong argument can be made, and often has been, that the United States has been more interventionist since it adopted non-intervention as stated policy than it ever was before. In the three cases of armed intervention selected for this study (i.e., Lebanon in 1958, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Grenada in 1983), American leaders recognized the troubles they invited by sending in troops, but still they chose to deploy. Why they did is the subject of this study. This is to say, the suject matter of the present study is concerned with an analysis of the decision-making process that led to intervention. It should be mentioned that the perspective is American on the whole. The emphasis is placed on what American decision-makers thought and what they thought they knew at the time they decide to intervene. Whether their perceptions were accurate and whether the interventions accomplished what they hoped are important but different questions, and they are not of concern with the present study. The present study, firstly examines several important factors common to the chains of events leading to the three decisions to intervene ; then, secondly, comprises an attempt to weigh the significance of the factors examined and to sketch the outline of a theory of American armed intervention. The important factors identified in the present study after probing into the three selected armed interventions are : ① the high level of domestic instability, ② the behind-the-scene power and an evil character, ③ the rush of events into a crisis, ④ the maintenanec of legitimacy, ⑤ the rescue and protection of Americans in danger, ⑥ the solid consensus among the decision-making participants, ⑦ the congreessional acquiescence and reluctant approval, and ⑧ the lesson from the past and other policy-making environment. It is quite plain that dimestic instability provided both the motive and opportunity for armed intervention. The importance of the behind-the-scene power and an evil character of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Lebanon and of Fidel Castro in the Dominican Republic and Grenada lay in its powers of simplification. Blaming all troubles on one bad man makes it easier for an intervening administration to sell intervention to the American public and to evaluate policy-alternatives for choosing one. In addition, the fact that events rushed to a crisis was instrumental in the creation of a solid consensus among decision-making participants and of a silent acceptance among the congressional leaders. The maintenance of legitimacy and the theme of "Americans in danger" appear to be the diplomatic sine que non of intervention. The request for assistance from an lawfully elected government provided the legitimation for the intervention in Lebanon, while the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) were utilized in the Dominican Republic and Grenada. Admitting that there were other objectives involved in the landing of American marines, each president did not fail to declare that the purpose of overriding importance was to protect innocent American lives. The spector of past mistake and lesson and other troubles emerged in international relations tended to push the decision-making in the direction of landing the marines first and asking questions later. Eisenhower intervened in Lebanon to demonstrate that the U.S. was more than a negative influence in the Middle East and to prove that the many commitments that Eisenhower and Dulles had undertaken around the globe would be met. When Johnson sent troops to the Dominican Republic, his action was a statement about American resolve in the Caribbean, but its significance for Southeast Asia could not be missed. Finally, for Reagan, Grenada offered an opportunity to act forcefully and to achieve a victory--however small--at a moment of frustration and defeat, derived from the Middle East and the Central America. In conclusion, intervention is, in many ways, an essentially symbolic act, meant for a larger audience than the intervened or the intervention victim. It seems quite ironic to say that, just like many standards of international conduct, the principle of non-intervention has often been honored more in the breach than in the observance among nations.

테러와 테러리즘의 體系的 觀念化 : A Search for Theortical Conceptualization

朱秀基 단국대학교 1987 論文集 Vol.21 No.-

The notion of terror and terrorism is often described as 'mindless' violence, 'senseless' violence, and/or 'irrational' violence. However, if we put aside the action of a few authentic lunatics, terrorism is seldom mindless or irrational. It must be understood that terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The uniqueness of the strategy of terrorism lies in the fact that it achieves its goal not through its acts but through the social and human responses to its acts. Unlike the other violent strategy in which the practice of violence is the beginning and its consequences are the end of it, the consequences of the violence of terrorism are themselves merely a first step and form a stepping stone toward objectives that are usually somewhat remote. The terms 'terror' and 'terrorism' have their roots in the French Revolution period in which the Reign of Terror was committed by the Committee of Public Safety, passing the Law of Suspect, under the dominant guides of Robespierre between 1793 and 1794. One study estimates that some 40,000 people were executed for political reasons during the Reign of Terror. Another historical example of the terrorist movements was the 'Narodnaya Volya' (Peoples will) which operated in Russia between January 1878 and March 1881. The terrorist campaigns by 'Narodnaya Volya' differed from the co-existed anarchist and nihilistic activities taking place else where in Europe. Anarchist terror was characteristically an individual activity, whereas Russian terrorism was a directed campaign. As Raymond Aaron points out, an action of violence may be labeled 'terrorist' when its psychological effects are out of proportion to its purely physical results. More systematically, we can conceptualize the notion of terrorism in the following manner: Terrorism is the actual use, or threat of use, of extranormal form of political violence by an individual of group (including the state), whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is design to create extreme anxiety and fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators. In essence, terrorism is the use of terror as a symbolic act designed to influence political behavior by extranormal means, entailing the use or threat of violence, and it is goal-directed, employed in pursuit of various political objectives. Thus, 'terrorism and terrorist' to one group may be variously regarded as 'heroism' and 'freedom fighter' to another group. The concept of terrorism can be refined by using location and nature of the perpetrators to identify four kinds of terrorism: 1) Interstate Terrorism, 2) Transnational Terrorism, 3) State Terrorism, and 4) Domestic Terrorism. Based on the ruler-ruled, regime-rebel dichotomies, terrorism can be classified: 1) Terror from Above vs. Terror from Below, 2) Enforcement Terror vs. Agitational Terror, 3) Regime of Terror vs. Siege of Terror, and 4) State Terror vs. Individual Terror. In addition, one typology divides 1) Revolutionary Terrorism, 2) Sub-Revolutionary Terrorism, and 3) Repressive Terrorism. Terrorists attempt to inspire and manipulate fear to achieve a variety of objectives. Terror and terrorism may be aimed at wringing specific concession, at improving their bargaining power, at gaining publicity, at causing widespread disorder and breaking down the social order, at deliberately provoking repression, reprisals and counter-terrorism, at enforcing obedience, co-operation and royalty, and at punishing their alledged targets for their causes and claims. As to the social effects of terrorism, there are some arguments that it tends to be ineffective due to its evil and inhumane quality and its strategic defects for achieving the intended political objectives. In reality, however, terrorism appears to be on the rise because of the 'low risk but high gain' calculation. It seems to show a limited effectiveness. This derives from the fact that defining and outlawing terrorism and carrying out counter-measures against terrorists become matters of politics rather than issues of law. The conflicting political and ideological preferences among nation-states and the principle of sovereign states in international politics make it more difficult in dealing with the acts and implications of terrorism which often exceed the territory of one state. Furthermore, the terrorist groups are not vulnerable as nations are. Particularly, in the inter-Korean rivalry, North Korea is deeply connected with the network of international terrorism and attempts to export the tactics of terror and terrorism, and South Korea is by no means a haven free from the danger of becoming the target. Even if it is unlikely that there be a 'total war' on the full scale, it does not necessarily indicate that there be no indirect attacks, entailing the tactics of terror and terrorism, aming at provoking a 'psychological warfare' with psychological mediate of fear and anxiety. Therefore, South Korea needs to prepare herself and get ready to deal with the tactics of terror and terrorism by North Korea in the future.