http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
류두하 계명대학교 국제학연구소 2002 국제학논총 Vol.7 No.-
This paper aims to clarify current state and problems of American Studies in Korea. The focus of this study, therefore, will be placed on the significance and purposes of American Studies in Korea as well as in the U.S., general trend and characteristics of American Studies in Korea from the 1950s to 2000, and problems faced by current American Studies in Korea. Due to historical background, economic demand, as well as strategic considerations, American Studies in Korea has been mostly confined to politics, diplomacy, national security, and economy, among all the related academic fields. Added to this, the scope of most of these studies are limited to researches in related books and other materials and introduction of their contents, with little attempt to explore new related materials or new innovative analytical approaches to be applied to existing research results. Among all the extensive research papers in the field of American Studies, this paper limits its subjects to masters or doctors theses published in Korea, and analyzes changes in their general trend by decade. A notable problem in the field of American Studies in Korea is the fact that most researches generate only policy-oriented papers, rather than attaching any significance to academic approaches. In other words, their research methods or purposes are too much influenced by political or economic considerations. In the field of politics, studies are focused on political structures, history of political parties, and governmental policies. In economic field, focus is on changes in economic as well as international trade policies, industrial structure, investment of Korean firms in the U.S., and analysis of economic growth. In the post-cold war era, national policies have been notably shifted toward the pursuit of national or regional interests. In the same vein, the field of American Studies in Korea should find ways to broaden its perspective to fit its own purpose so as to achieve general understanding of all related fields of American society including its history, culture, and religion, rather than confining its scope to the economy or diplomacy of the U.S.
류두하(Doo Ha Ryu) 한국유럽학회 1998 유럽연구 Vol.8 No.1
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the future prospect of economic cooperation between the US and the EU. This paper is divided into six parts. The first one is to provide rationalization and general intent of this paper. Second, the profile of US-EU trade and investment will be examined. Bilateral trade and investment is roughly in balance. However, many specialists argued that relative coherence between the two areas is continuously decreasing compared to that of the Asia-Pacific area. Third, there are several disputed trade areas which might lead to potential conflict between the US and the EU in advancing a free trade agreement. The principal one is to liberalize agricultural trade. France in particular would strenuously oppose the liberalization, fearing that it will lead to destruction of the Common Agricultural Policy. The other potential areas are the high-technology sector, peak tariffs and preferential tariffs, test and certification procedures, and public procurement. Fourth, the three most probable alternatives for restructuring transatlantic economic relations are, a preferential TAFTA, the building-block approach, and a nondiscriminatory North Atlantic Economic Community. Fifth, a facilitatory process of economic cooperation between the two will be provided. The New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995 will be the launching step to strengthen the US-EU trade relationship. It is not certain that the agenda of 1995 will lead to a transatlantic free trade agreement. Sixth, the possibility of the free trade area is examined in both positive terms and negative terms.
프랑스 언어학 , 지역학 : EU 와 미국의 농업정책과 국제 농산물 협상
류두하(Doo Ha Ryu) 한국프랑스학회 1999 한국프랑스학논집 Vol.26 No.-
Cet article a pour but de comparer la politique agricole de 1`Union europenne et des Etats-Unis, en analysant 1volution de leur politique agricole et de leur position prise pour la ngociation internationale des produits agricoles. Nous allons tenter d`lairer la difference du changement de la politique agricole au point de vue de leur attitude protectionniste ou librechangiste. La circulation des produits agricoles dans les Etats membres de 1`Union europenne, diffremment des Etats-Unis, ne peut etre laisse au libre jeu de 1`rieures. Des rformes importantes ont djfi t engages et devront etre poursuivies pour cette politique commune tant 1`esvolution des marches intrieurs ou exterieurs qu`a celle de la situation des agriculteurs. Inversement, pour faciliter I$quot;exportation des produits europens vers le march mondial, il a t institu des restitutions: celles-ci sont verses aux exportateurs. Aprs $quot;New Dea`, les Etats-Unis sont aussi rencontrs a plusieurs difficults: excdents structurels, drive des dpenses et les exploitations. Dans cette situation, le gouvernement amesricain a essays de surmonter ces problmes en appliquant la politique de 1$quot;orientation renforce vers le march intrsrieur et extkrieur, par la reduction de subvention et par la baisse du prix entretenu. On peut imaginer que, au moment de la prochaine noCiation internationals pour les produits agricoles qui va etre commence a partir de 1`anne 2000. 1`Union europrsenne, au contraire des Etats-Unis, va garder sa position obstine pour maintenir des subsides agricoles.