전웅교수 강연요지

전웅 경기대학교사회과학연구소 1983 한국사회연구 Vol.1 No.-

북한의 권력변동과 통일대책

전웅 오름 1997 통일준비 Vol.3 No.1

NAFTA 三國간의 갈등과 협력관계

全雄 弘益大學校 東西文化硏究所 1995 東西文化硏究 Vol.3 No.-

미국의 外交政策決定에 있어서 議會와 大統領간의 관계

전웅 홍익대학교 인문과학연구소 2000 東西文化硏究 Vol.8 No.-

A Russian observer asked during the SALTII debate in 1979, "With Whom can we have dealings? If the president needs to coordinate his actions and stand with the Congress, Why isn't this done before any international agreemnent is concluded?" In a word it is because the American Founding Fathers shared the foreign policy responsibilities between the president and Congress. The separation of foreign affairs powers between the legislative and the executive branches was intended by the Founders to prevent an abuse of power and to preserve liberty. They also thought that the separation of powers was critical to the country's capacity to conduct an effective foreign policy. So the U.S. foreign policy involves not only Congress and the president but also the interaction between the president and Congress. Since than the leaders of both sides have drawn on the ambiguities of the constitutional provisions in justifying their claims of authority in spite of the Founders' intention for the president and the Congress to work together in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy. Edward S. Corwin once wrote that the constitutional provisions on foreign policies were " invitation struggle" between the Congress and the President. They invite conflicting interpretations. By the way, before the Vietnam war the effective conduct of American foreign policy was associated with a strong presidency. But the War produced widespread disillusionment with the "imperial presidency". The conclusions drawn from those charges were the need to constrain the presidency and the tweed for Congress to be more assertive in fulfilling it's foreign policy responsibilities. Actually, since W.W.II many members of the Senate and House have urged that Congress be consulted at the takeoffs as well as at the crash landings. However, there have been serious gaps in the consultation process between Congress and the executive, particularly of the top level. Probably the greatest source of misunderstanding and friction between two branches of government has been the heated controversy ever the president's use of the armed forces. But the problem may be simply stated : Can the nature and extent of struggle and cooperation between the president and. Congress be practiced to contribute an effective foreign policy? The present study examines basically relations between the president and Congress in the making and conduct of American foreign policy. I turn then to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and explore the reasons which prompted the Founders to share the foreign policy powers between two branches and the historical background of the problem. And then I review the matter·s about the conflict and cooperation between the president and Congress in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy. This is followed by an analysis of the changes that have taken place in the Congress and the executive branches in recent times.

海洋勢力理論과 外交政策

全雄 弘益大學校 東西文化硏究所 1998 東西文化硏究 Vol.6 No.-

<Abstract>The sea is one of the most dynamic geopolitical forces. It is commonly said that the sea opens the way to new countries, new resources, and new riches. So he who does not share in the sea is shut off from the good things and honors of the earth. For he who aims at worldwide esteem must ally himself with the sea. Only thus can he hope to rule the world.Historically the most decisive of all world-political trend is the drive of a nation towards the sea. It guides a people out of continental narrowness to the freedom of the open coast. The drive to the sea is apparent in almost all aspects of present day world politics.The profound influence of sea commerce upon the wealth and power of a nation was clearly seen long before the true principles which governed its growth and prosperity were detected. To secure to one's own people a disproportionate share of such a benefits, every effort was made to exclude others, either by the peaceful methods of monopoly or prohibitory regulations, or when these failed by direct violence. So sea power has had an immense determining influence upon the world history. According to Mahan there are six elements to make the sea power of a nation ① geographical position, ② physical conformation, ③ extent of territory, ④ number of populations, ⑤ national character, and ⑤ character of the government. Three things used to be pointed to the wealth and strength of a sea power'① production with the necessity of exchanging products, ② shipping whereby the exchange is carried on, and ③ colonies which facilitate and enlarge the operations of shipping and tend to protect it by multiplying points of safety. Sea power is fundamentally a matter of appropriate bases, productive and secure. By the way, these has been constant conflict between a continental policy and oceanic one in each country. To be sure the drive to the sea is not a constant force of equal strength of all times. Oceanic, sea-conscious tendencies alternate with continental considerations in the mind of nations. However, the principle of naval strategy seeks to demonstrate that the rise and fall of sea power, and therefore nations, has been always linked with the commercial and military command of the sea. The main doctrine of sea power or naval strategy is to bring the main enemy force to battle, and defeat him in a decisive engagement. The organized force of the enemy are ever the chief objective. From the strategic point of view, the offence undertakes certain risks and disadvantages in ordeal to reach and destroy the enemy. On the other-hand, the defence, so long as it remains such, refuses the risks of advance, holds on to a careful, well ordered position, and avails itself of the exposure to which the assailant submits himself.According to Clausewitz, war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means. Mahan also holds that war is simply a violent political movement and an extension of politics. It meas that the sea power is nothing but a instrument to attain foreign policy goals of a nation, that is wealth, prosperity, and security of a nation. The functions of sea power(or naval force) for foreign policy of a country are as follows ; ① diplomatic manipulation, ② negotiation by force, and increase of national prestige in world society The proposition, "our frontiers to be the coasts of the enemy" or "from the sea", is today's main strategy of sea power.

共産主義의 戰略 및 戰術槪念

全雄 弘益大學校 1982 弘大論叢 Vol.14 No.1

In general, the concept of strategy and tactics comes from the relationships between the objectives pursued and the means employed. Strategy and tactics are defined as an art to attain the set goal effectively, coordinating human and physical resources and distributing them in balance. Strategy is also a plan or an artifice to put one's policy into practice and to accomplish its goal whether it is military or political. In order to have successful strategy, proper tactics are necessary. The concept of tactics is a process wherein the strategy is put into practice. Tactics are an auxiliary art of the strategy. Tactics usually decide when and/or where to attack and defend, and determine the available means contributing to the strategy. Therefore strategy and tactics have a close relationship with one another. Thus, the development of strategy depends on the development of tactics and vice versa. Both concepts are also. complementary to each other. For wartime strategy and tactics the means mobilized is usually at one's discretion whether it is peaceful or compulsory, while in peace time it depends upon diplomatic methods, that is, negotiation and compromise, ect. Communist strategy and tactics frequently put emphasis on the goal-attainment. Their way of approaching the goal is indiscriminate in the choice of means. The communist revolutionary strategy and tactics are also based on the class bias. It disregards the function of reason and rationality of man in the historical process of development in human society while it takes into considerations only the function of antagonism and conflict in the historical process. The Marxist scheme on the historical process of the development of captalist society is based on class struggle, proletarian revolution, and proletarian dictatorship. It excludes any possibility of harmony or cooperation in human society, and it resorts only to struggle and violence. The Leninist concept of strategy basically rests on the idea of utility and deception while the Stalinist concepts rests on violence and force. On the part of Lenin and Stalin, the objective and the means are considered separately. In other words it means that the choice of means in attaining the goal is indiscreet. Both people regard political strategy and tactics as a part of military maneuvers. Mao Tse-Tung's concept on strategy and tactics was to apply the Bolshevik's tactics to the particular conditions in China. His strategy was to lay siege to cities through the rural socities, and his tactics were guerilla tatics based on the rural area. In conculusion, the communist strategy and tactics combine the dichotomous concepts of war and political Machiavellian machination. The Communists in general make use of military and police force and violence when they are superior in power to their counter partner while when inferior they propose negotiations and make a peace-loving gestures. From this data, we can clearly see the immorality and inhumanity .of the communist strategy and tactics today. The following are the contents of this thesis: 1. General Concepts of Strategy and Tactics 2. The Communist Concepts on Strategy and Tactics 1) Marx and Engels' Views on the Communist Revolutionary Strategy 2) Leninist-Stalinist Concepts on Strategy and Tactics 3. Two Levels of the Communist Strategy 1) Domestic Revolutionary Strategy 2) International Revolutionary Strategy 4. Types of Bolshevik Strategy 1) The Role of the Communist Party 2) The Role of Communist Ideology 3) The Principles of Communist Strategy 4) The Types of Bolshevik Strategy (1) Strategy of Access (2) Strategy of Neutralization (3) Strategy of Legitimacy (4) Strategy of Mobilization 5. Types of Communist Tactics 1) Peripheral Origanization and Infiltration Tactics 2) The Tactics of the United Front 3) The Front in Unity Tactics 4) The Tactics of Peaceful Approach 5) The Tactics of Terror and Uprisings 6) Guerilla Tactics 6. Mao Tse-Tung's Concept on Strategy and Tactics 7. In Conclusion

利益集團이 美國의 外交政策決定에 미치는 영향

전웅 弘益大學校 東西文化硏究所 2002 東西文化硏究 Vol.10 No.-

According to Max Weber, politics means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state. Interest groups have participated actively in politics from the establishment of the first government in America and must therefore be considered as an intrinsic element of American political system. Although we may never have means of measuring political power of interest groups accurately, it is by now generally recognized that interest groups wield a significant amount of power in the American politics. It has been said that both the forms and functions of government in America are a reflection of the activities and claims of interest groups. In other words, governmental decisions are the resultants of effective access by various interests of which organized groups may be only a segment. It also implies that the chief social values cherished by indivisuals in the democratic society are realized through groups. The amazing extent of interest group activity has been proof that foreign policy is democratically controlled. According to David Truman, a political interest group is a shared-attitude group making claims through or upon the institution of government. The shared attitude constitutes interest. Any mutual interest, any shared attitude is a potential group. There are two kinds of groups. One is the group which seeks to satisfy interests, other the group which propagate faiths. Most of the groups have arisen in reaction to the political climate of the times. So large number of interest groups in America were formed during 1920s in responese to the Great Depression, and in response to WW11 and cold war, and Vietnam War. Such events activated people, many of whom previously may have been apathetic and politically passive. What kinds of interest groups and individuals have major effects on the making and execution of American foreign policy? There are ideological groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, economic groups, and foreign governments. Individual interest groups generally function in a pragmatic and opportunistic fashion, using any method or technique which they believe will serve their purpose effectively. A characteristic feature of the governmental system in America is that it contains a multiplicity of point or access. One can find groups working through all the major points of access to the governmental process of foreign policy making. The impact of interest groups on foreign policy seems greatest when they press for positions that public officials are ready to adopt anyway. The technique and tactics which any particular group employs will be determined largely by such factors as size and geographic distribution of the membership, cohesion of membership, financial resources, prestige positions of the organization, quality of leadership and staff, and relations with the political parties and other organized groups. However, Bernard Cohen said that interest groups seem to have considerably less effect on foreign policy than they do in the domestic realm in America. On foreign policy there have been far fewer interest groups active. In the long run, the possibility for group influence on foreign policy issues varies with the issue.

美國外交政策의 決定要素 : 孤立主義와 國際主義

全雄 弘益大學校 人文科學硏究所 1999 東西文化硏究 Vol.7 No.-

British statesman, Lord Lothian, once underscored the ambivalence at the core of American international attitudes in the aftermath of the First World War. That is to say the U.S. wants on the one hand to prevent war, and on the other to retain the right to be neutral in the event of war and to assume no obligations for maintaining world peace. While pursuing a more stable world order primarily via economic diplomacy, the U.S. avoided any substantial collaboration with foreign powers in the mechanisms of international peace-keeping. Therefore American thought has oscillated between isolationism and internationalism, though, since the end of the Second World War, the realities of interdependence have predominated. Both of the American foreign policy orientations are products of American historical and geographical realities. In early attempts to delineate the roots of isolationism, some scholars asserted that the insularity, economic-sufficiency, and cultural make-up of the America might account for such a peculiar foreign policy orientations. The idea of isolationism is as follows; ① non-entanglement in the political controversies of Europe and Asia, ② non-intervention in wars of those continents, ③ neutrality, peace, defence for the U.S. through measures appropriate to those purposes, and ④ the pursuit of a foreign policy friendly to all nations disposed to reciprocate. From George Washington's Farewell Address through Monroe Doctrine and the irreconcilable manifestos of the years after the Treaty of Versailles, influential U.S. leadership gave voice to isolationist aspirations, even as the nation never quite fulfilled them. The isolationists clung to a vision of their country in which the distinctive American heritage stood at risk. They feared an eclipse of political and economic liberty and democracy, if the U.S. failed to separate its own interests and values from forces already threatening freedom and stability worldwide. The desirability and necessity of detaching the U.S. from vicissitudes of Europe have been expressed in American foreign policy strongly since the independence for nearly 125 years. Internationalists envision as normal a global international order based on democracy, free commerce, and international law. They have two purposes; one is to maintain peace and stability, the other is to make the world safe for democracy. They want America's values impose on it an obligation to crusade for them around the world. They thought the U.S. government possessed the world's best system of government, and the rest of mankind could attain peace and prosperity by abandoning traditional diplomacy and adopting America's reverence for international law and democracy. Woodrow Wilson, the apostle of internationalism, told the Europeans in his Fourteen Points that the international system should be based not on the balance of power but on ethnic self-determination, that their security should depend not on military alliances but on collective security, and that their diplomacy should no longer be conducted secretly by experts but on the basis of "open agreements, openly arrived at." An activist foreign policy can create, either through balance of power manipulations or through pursuit of Utopian schemes, a world order that is more congenial to American security, interests or values. Especially following the end of W.W.Ⅱ, the cold war internationalists saw an expansionistic Soviet communism that American needed to contain, principally through the use of powers - this was the belief system that was the foundations of the cold war consensus. Post cold war internationalists perceived much more a complex international system. They played down the East-West axis as well as the use of force in the quest to promote a stable and just world order, and to make the world safe for democracy. They try to collaborate with other countries for maintaining international peace and security through the international organizations like UN, and also they make efforts to eliminate the economic barriers among nations for free commerce by way of multilateral organizations like WTO.

外交政策의 分析方法과 硏究傾向

全雄 弘益大學校 1983 弘大論叢 Vol.15 No.1

More than ever before in hstory, The thrust of foreign policy is being felt in all fields of human affairs. The situation has come to such that the very survival of the human race is directly dependent upon the pursuance of the right kind of foreign policy by every country. Gone are the days when foreign policy was treated as a distant concern and as the exclusive preserve of a few elites. Foreign policy problems are high on the agenda not only of political decision-makers and students but of ordinary people as well. Recently, it has received greater attention than any other aspect of politics. Foreign policy problems have become the most important branch of politics. Policy in general is more likely to be directed toward seeking solutions and final answers to problems. Foreign policy is defined as a series of decisions or plans to seek to maximize a nation's goal abroad, to seek to adjust their society to its environment, and to seek to adjust their own needs and wants to the changing environment. In the latter case, it constitutes a form of adaptive behavior. Foreign policy analysis is concerned with action theory and so it is based on the state centric model. More generally, foreign policy is the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment. It means that the authoritative actions which government takes in order either to preserve the desirable aspects of the international environment or to alter its undesirable aspects.

한국핵정책의문제점및 개선방향

전웅 한국공공정책학회 1993 공공정책연구 Vol.1 No.-