동아시아 문명시스템: 신중세화론적 모색

전홍석 한국양명학회 2019 陽明學 Vol.0 No.53

The defeat of the Western-centric globalization in the 21st century and the contrasting rise of East Asia are facilitating the new ‘Asia-Pacific era.’ However, the semantic formation of ‘East Asia’ as the central region of the Pacific Rim is understood by the imperialistic work of ‘modern world system’ created by the great powers of Europe and America and the militant nation of Japan. Therefore, decontextualization of ‘East Asia’ from imperialism must take place before ‘recreating the Pacific’ in the Asia-Pacific region in the true sense. This paper proposes a regional system model as a new dimension of East Asia based on the ‘neo-medievalization theory,’ which has a post-modern and post-imperialistic context. This idea arises from the awareness that there needs to be an innovation in the civilization to break away from the modern world system dominating East Asia. This model joins the discourse that accepts a relatively stable, symbiotic and inclusive ‘civilization system’ instead of a variable, confrontational and exclusive domain of ethnic groups, nations and citizens. In specific, this paper aimed to discuss the common regional goal of changing the ‘modernization — ethnic (sovereignty) national system’ of East Asia in connection with the Asia-Pacific region and to present the directivity and theory by conceiving a ‘neo-medievalization — civilization system’ that interweaves the discourse of the bygone civilization and East Asia. This was an attempt to form an intellectual background for peace and common prosperity of East Asia. 21세기 서구중심주의의 세계사적 철수단계인 세계화의 패퇴와 그와 대비되는 동아시아권의 부상은 새로운 ‘아시아태평양 시대(the Asia-Pacific era)’를 촉진시키고 있다. 그러나 환태평양의 핵심지인 ‘동아시아’의 의미구성체는 구미 열강과 군국 일본이 각인시킨 ‘근대 세계시스템’의 제국주의적 조형물로 이해된다. 그러므로 진정한 의미의 아시아태평양권이라는 ‘태평양의 재창안’이 실행되려면 ‘동아시아’가 제국주의로부터의 탈맥락화가 선행되어야 할 것이다. 본고는 탈근대적ㆍ탈제국주의적 맥락의 ‘신중세화(neo- medievalization)론’에 지반을 둔 새로운 동아시아 다이멘션(Dimension)으로서의 지역시스템 모델을 제안한다. 이 발상은 현 동아시아체제를 지배하고 있는 근대국가 세계시스템을 극복하기 위한 문명(civilization)적 차원의 혁신이 필요하다는 문제인식에 토대한다. 그것은 기본적으로 가변적ㆍ대결적ㆍ배타적인 민족, 국가, 국가시민 영역보다는 비교적 안정적ㆍ공생적ㆍ포용적인 ‘문명시스템’을 수용하는 담론적 노선에 합류한다. 구체적으로는 동아시아지역의 평화협력과 공동번영을 위한 지적 토대구축 차원에서 기왕의 문명과 동아시아의 양대 담론이 교직交織하는 ‘신중세화 — 문명시스템’ 구상을 통해 아시아태평양권과 연계된 동아시아 ‘근대화 — 민족(주권)국가체제’의 변혁이라는 역내 공동목표에 응답, 그 방향과 이론을 제시해보고자 했다.

‘아시아’ 개념에 대한 역사적 고찰

고원 중앙대학교 중앙사학연구소 2015 중앙사론 Vol.0 No.42

'Asia' is the term that we often use in everyday life. But Asia has not the single identity because of a varied ethnic groups, languages and religions. The geographical boundary of Asia is not clear either. Why do Asia not has a specific identity? And yet how do we use generally the term Asia? We have to examine the history of concept of Asia so as to comprehend these problems. The term Asia was made by Europe. There have not been a that term in Asia before Europeans came to this area. Asia was not originally a area represented by one term. But Asians accepted the term Asia as actual state after modern times, and this term produced and diffused the Asian identity in Asia. This article examine the history of concept of Asia made by Europeans first and by Asians second, and verify that the identity of Asia was made in certain historical condition. The purpose is not to deny or to deconstruct the actual reality of Asia, but to create a base of possibility for reconstitute the new identity of Asia.

Terrorism Situation and Counter-Terrorism Police Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia

Gu Jun 아시아사회과학학회 2022 Jornal of Asia Social Science Vol.7 No.3

New changes of terrorism situation in South Asia and Southeast Asia could be seen from the increase of numbers of terrorist attacks, the increase retaliatory terrorist attacks and the increase of the combined risks and linkage effects of terrorism and other non-traditional security issues. The terrorist threat in South Asia and Southeast Asia is expected to continue in the near future because the threats severely posed by the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, the interaction and allying of terrorist organizations and terrorists’ exploitation of advanced technology. However, the practice of counter-terrorism police cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia was weak and fragile due to the poor performance of ASEAN counter-terrorism cooperation, the police cooperation within the framework of international organizations and cooperation at the bilateral and small multilateral level has not really meet the current challenges. The solutions offered in this paper are 4 ways to improve counter-terrorism police cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia: build a comprehensive and efficient counter-terrorism police cooperation mechanism, a stable and practical coordination mechanism, a joint counter-terrorism intelligence fusion center, a quality and level counter-terrorism police training mechanism of South Asia and Southeast Asia.

소연방 해체기 중앙아시아국가들의 탈소비에트화 및 중앙아시아화: 우즈베키스탄, 카자흐스탄, 키르기스스탄을 중심으로

권현종 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2019 한국시베리아연구 Vol.23 No.2

본 논문은 중앙아시아 지역에서 소련 해체 과정과 이 후에 전개되는 탈러시아화 및 중앙아시아화 움직임에 관한 연구이다. 소련의 해체는 원론으로는 15개 소비에트사회주의연방공화국(USSR)들의 해체이고, 각론으로는 슬라브계 3국의 분리 독립 선언을 의미한다. 지정학적으로 소련의 해체는 중앙아시아 국가들에게 정치적 이념적으로 급격한 영향은 미치지 못하였다. 이로 인해 이들 지역에서 소련으로부터 이탈하려는 움직임은 서서히 진행되었다. 중앙아시아는 5개 국가로 형성되어 있다. 논문의 연구 대상은 카자흐스탄, 우즈베키스탄, 키르기스스탄 국가들이다. 카자흐스탄공화국은 소연방, 즉 러시아와 국경을 맞대고 있는 지정·국경·종교 및 인구학적으로 뗄 수 없는 관계에 놓여 있다. 우즈베키스탄공화국은 중앙아시아 중앙에 위치해 있으며, 정치·경제·역사 및 문화관광 융성에 중추적 역할을 하였다. 특히, 소련의 경공업 발전과 지역 경제에 큰 역할을 하였다. 키르기스스탄공화국은 이웃 중국과 국경을 맞대고 있기 때문에 국경학적 전략핵운영방향 차원에서 소련에게 카자흐스탄과 마찬가지로 최대 관심지역이다. 키르기스스탄은 소련 붕괴 후, 친러시아 노선 등 민주화가 가장 급격히 진행 되었던 지역이다. 나머지 투르크메니스탄, 타지키스탄 국가들은 중동권에 정치적 경제적 영향을 받았고, 탈소비에트화에 소극적이었으며, 중앙아시아화보다는 이슬람국가건설에 집중한 지역들이다. 연구 방법은 중앙아시아의 독특한 전통 문화, 미개한 문명국가형성, 이슬람교의 영향 등 논문의 창의적 연구를 위해 내재적 접근법을 활용하였다. 내재적 접근은 일찍 사회주의 독제체제인 북한을 자본주의적 관점에서 연구하는데 한계를 극복하기 위해 일부 진보학자들에 의해 고안된 창의적이고 적극적인 접근 방법이다. 내재적 연구는 한쪽 체제가 반대편 체제보다 월등한 우위에 있을 경우에 기대효과가 크다. 1980년 대 말 소련의 개혁개방정책으로 동서화합의 여건이 조성되면서 남한에서도 북한의 특수성을 고려하여 그들을 있는 그대로 보고 이해하자는데 서 출발하였다. 중앙아시아지역은 소련시절 서방세계에 잘 알려지지 않은 대표적인 이슬람국가들이다. 이들은 오랜 역사와 전통을 이어온 국가들이지만, 소련인민들에게 중앙아시아는 신비주의의 상징 그 자체였다. 이러한 미지의 대상을 연구할 때 1차 자료를 배제한 기존 선행 연구방식, 즉 체제전환기 이론 등을 적용한다는 것은 논문의 양적 기대는 되지만, 질적 기대는 어렵다. 중앙아시아의 문제는 중앙아시아의 관점에서 바라봐야한다. 본 논문에서는 소련 해체기에 이들 세 개 국가들이 어떻게 체제변혁기를 맞이했으며, 탈소비에트화, 탈러시아화를 어떻게 이루었으며, 중앙아시아화 건설을 어떻게 만들어 나아갔는지를 다루게 된다. 제I장에서는 중앙아시아를 대표하는 3국가의 지정학적 개요, 탈소비에트화, 탈러시아화 및 중앙아시아화 움직임에 대한 과정들을 논하고 있고, 제II장에서는 선행연구 및 문제점에서 내재적 접근법 활용, 제III장은 소련 해체기에서 3국가의 정치개요 과정, 제IV장은 소련 해체기에서 중앙아시아 지도자들의 역할을 알아본다. 제V장에서는 중앙아시아지역에서 정치적 변화와 술탄적 정서에 대하여, 마지막으로 중앙아시아형 민주국가 건설이다. This paper is a study on the process of dissolution of the Soviet Union in Central Asia and the subsequent movements of painting and Central Asia. The dissolution of the Soviet Union is in principle the dissolution of the fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and the discourse of the three Slavic states is a declaration of independence. Geopolitically, the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not have a dramatic political and ideological impact on Central Asian countries. As a result, the movement to escape from the Soviet Union in these areas was slow. Central Asia is made up of five countries. The subjects of study are Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The Republic of Kazakhstan is in inseparable relations to the Soviet Union, namely designation, borders, religion and demographics. The Republic of Uzbekistan is located in the center of Central Asia and has played a pivotal role in fostering political, economic, historical and cultural tourism. In particular, it played a major role in the development of the light industry and the local economy. The Republic of Kyrgyzstan is bordering with neighboring China, so it is of great interest to the Soviet Union, as well as Kazakhstan, in terms of cross-border strategic nuclear operations. Kyrgyzstan is the region where democratization took place most rapidly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The remaining Turkmenistan and Tajikistan countries were politically and economically affected in the Middle East, were passive in post-Sovietization, and focused on building Islamic countries rather than Central Asia. The research method used the inherent approach for the creative study of thesis such as the unique traditional culture of Central Asia, the uncivilized civilization state formation, and the influence of Islam. The intrinsic approach is a creative and aggressive approach devised by some liberals to overcome the limitations of the early study of socialist dictatorship in North Korea from a capitalist perspective. Intrinsic research has a great effect when one system is superior to the other. At the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union’s reform and opening policy created an environment of East-West unity, and South Korea also began to see and understand them as they were, considering the uniqueness of North Korea. Central Asia is a representative Islamic nation that was not well known in the western world during the Soviet Union. These are countries with a long history and tradition, but for the Soviet people, Central Asia was a symbol of mysticism. The application of existing prior research methods, ie, system transitional theory, which excludes primary data when studying these unknown subjects is quantitatively expected, but not qualitatively expected. The problem of Central Asia should be seen from the point of view of Central Asia. This paper deals with how these three countries faced the systemic transformation during the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, how they achieved post-Sovietization and de-Russianization, and how to build a central Asian system. Chapter I discusses the geopolitical overview of the three countries representing Central Asia, the processes of de-Sovietization, de-Russianization, and the movements of Central Asia, and Chapter II uses the intrinsic approach in previous research and problems, Chapter III discusses the political process of the three countries during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Chapter IV discusses the role of Central Asian leaders in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Chapter V deals with political change and sultanate sentiment in Central Asia, and finally, the construction of a central Asian democratic state.

일제말 문학 속에 나타난 한국 지식인의 동남아 인식

김재용 한국외국어대학교 동남아연구소 2011 東南亞硏究 Vol.20 No.3

After the occupation of Vietnam by Japan in the 1940, there are so much interest about Vietnam and South-East Asia from Korea. Though the Japan Empire emphasizes the Sphere of Co-Prosperity of Greater East Asia, it is very limited. After the beginning of Pacific War between U.S and Japan in the 1941, the atmosphere became different. So many Korean writers welcomed the occupation of East Asia by Japanese Empire because they believed that it expelled the Western imperialism from Asia. "Asia for Asian" which is the propaganda of Japanese Empire was very attractive to Korean. There are two kinds of intellectual group according to the attitude toward Japanese Empire. Lee Dongkyu who is the pro-Japanese novelist tried to introduce the documents which deal with the relation between Vietnam and Korea in the pre-modern period. He wanted to justify the Sphere of Co-Prosperity of Greater East Asia through the close relation between Asia before Western countries occupy the Asia. He did his best to support the Japanese Empire until the end of 2nd World War. Kim Youngkun who is the anti-Japanese historian tried to introduce the relation between Korea and South-East Asia before the proclamation of the Sphere of Co-Prosperity of Greater East Asia by Japanese Empire. He continued to introduce the history and geography of South-East Asia to Korean People despite of invasion of South-East Asia by Japanese Empire. He stoped all his writing from 1943 to 1945 protesting against Japanese Empire. Through the period from 1940 to 1945, Korean peoples came to know very much about South-East Asia in spite of complicated historical phase and situation.

동아시아 시각의 인식론적 의의

쑨거(孫歌),김월회(번역자) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2009 亞細亞硏究 Vol.52 No.1

The conception of China exists within the discourse on East Asia, but does ‘East Asia’ matter to China? That is, is ‘East Asia’ a definable entity? Or does it have an epistemological value? Traditionally, the discourse on East Asia did not flourish in China, but with the growing discussions on issues such as ‘Confucianism,’ ‘modernization,’ and ‘war wounds and memory,’ East Asia came to be one of the valid discourses which is now regarded as an organically unified entity. The discourse on East Asia in three different regions-China, Japan and Korea- however, exhibits geographical imbalance and tensions. It indicates that the discourse was constructed as a unified entity based on logic, but its epistemological and realistic foundation is still unstable. This explains why the discourse on East Asia is turning into an abstraction despite its realistic significance. In order to move away from abstraction, the discourse on East Asia has to be understood within the historical context of the cold war and the post-cold war. It is also imperative to consider the political climate outside East Asia. The cold war itself has come to an end, but its ideology still continues to govern throughout East Asia at large. For example, American military bases serve as representative remnants of the cold war, while Russian interests to intervene in the region are clearly demonstrated by the publications such as Issues in the East Asia. The obstacles of the discourse on East Asia can only be overcome by such historical contextualization. The obstacles that I address here are issues such as abstraction of problems, its unconfirmed epistemological value and exclusion of regions ranging from Taiwan and North Korea to Mongolia and Southeast Asia. When these obstacles are tackled, we can then realistically hope for the emergence of the discourse on East Asia that goes beyond the boundaries of nation-states and offers a cognitively open and unified paradigm.

New Trends and Characteristics of Religious Nationalism in South Asia and Southeast Asia: Taking India, Pakistan, and Myanmar as Examples

He Hongmei 아시아사회과학학회 2022 Jornal of Asia Social Science Vol.7 No.1

Multi-nationalities and multi-religions are intertwined, which leads to a very complicated development situation of religious nationalism in South Asia and Southeast Asia. As far as South Asia is concerned, ethnic conflicts caused by the upsurge of religious nationalism have become increasingly frequent in recent years, such as the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India, Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka, and the conflicts between religious majorities and religious minorities and secularism in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Similarly, the development trend of religious nationalism in Southeast Asia is complicated. From the perspective of South Asia and Southeast Asia, Hindu nationalism, Islamic nationalism and Buddhist nationalism are the three main religious nationalism. In recent years, with the constant change of the world power structure, the vigorous development of Islamic fundamentalism in the world, the constant adjustment of geopolitics and regional power structure, the development of religious nationalism in various countries has new trends and characteristics. The following will take India, Pakistan and Myanmar as examples to discuss the development trends and characteristics of religious nationalism in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

1880년대 전반 조선 개화지식인들의 ‘아시아 연대론’인식 연구

이헌주 동북아역사재단 2009 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.23

Since the mid 19th century, northeast Asian society has confronted the so-called crisis of ‘the Growing Influence of the West on the East(西勢東漸)’. The traditional Sinocentric order collapsed and the modern international order reorganized the society quickly. Amidst this situation, intellectuals in Japan and China began to advocate the ‘Solidarity of Asia’, which means to defend the invasion of the Western powers and to establish wealth and power through solidarity among three Eastern countries, and the enlightened intellectuals in Korea were more than glad to act in concert with this assertion. As a representative organization established for the advocacy of ‘the Theory of the Solidarity of Asia’, Heungaheui(興亞會) was found in Tokyo, Japan on February 13, 1880 with the matrix of Jinasa(振亞 社), which had been established mainly by Sone Doshitora(曾根俊虎) in the spring of 1877. Also, Heungaheui drew no small amount of attention also from enlightened intellectuals in Korea. In January 1883, Heungaheui changed its name to the Asian Association and pursued its activities. Then, it was absorbed and merged into Donga Dongmunheui beginning in March 1900. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’ advocated by Heungaheui had no small variation within the organization. A‘ systemic Asia coalition ideology’appeared which was aimed at the coalition between the governments, and there also existed a ‘reformative Asia coalition ideology’that aspired to a mutual coalition between reformative governments through the democratic reformation by the then despotic government. Also, there emerged a solidarity ideology from the perspective of the guiding ideology against China based on out-of-Asianism sentiment, in the organization. Figures, who visited Japan during the early 1880s, mostly participated in the Heungaheui meeting or maintained a close contact with Heungaheui members. Also, they responded positively to the ‘Solidarity of Asia’. Enlightened intellectuals in Korea could easily favor the ‘Solidarity of Asia’because its logical structure was very similar to that of the traditional ‘worldview of the Sinocentric international order’. The logical structure of the‘ Solidarity of Asia’is different from the hierarchal Sinocentric order as three countries in northeast Asia were horizontally coupled. However, it is analogous to the Sinocentric order in that it established an oriental value as a target to guard. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’was characterized by the notion of a transitional international order, which appeared during the shift from the notion of a pre-modern Sinocentric international order to that of a modern international order. This means that enlightened intellectuals in Joseon were heavily influenced by the Heungaheui activity of legation in the Ching Dynasty, in Japan, as well as a thinking based on the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. Legation staffs from the Ching Dynasty actively joined Heungaheui independently and stressed the need for solidarity among the three countries. This prepared an opportunity for enlightened intellectuals in Korea to participate in the gathering of Heungaheui, shaking off a certain level of their doubts about Japan. The existing perspective viewed the ‘Solidarity of Asia’as an invader’s logic proposed for hiding the invasive nature of Japan to Asia. Subsequently, the attention of the Korean people was commonly denounced simply as the ‘logic of Japanophilism’or the result of ‘ignorance about the invasive nature’. Nevertheless, it was rather so natural that enlightened intellectuals in Korea, who were seeking to overcome this international crisis during this period, became interested in the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. This was because the‘ Solidarity of Asia’was one of the diverse options available for Korea, which faced the international crisis of‘ the Growing Influence of the West on the ... Since the mid 19th century, northeast Asian society has confronted the so-called crisis of ‘the Growing Influence of the West on the East(西勢東漸)’. The traditional Sinocentric order collapsed and the modern international order reorganized the society quickly. Amidst this situation, intellectuals in Japan and China began to advocate the ‘Solidarity of Asia’, which means to defend the invasion of the Western powers and to establish wealth and power through solidarity among three Eastern countries, and the enlightened intellectuals in Korea were more than glad to act in concert with this assertion. As a representative organization established for the advocacy of ‘the Theory of the Solidarity of Asia’, Heungaheui(興亞會) was found in Tokyo, Japan on February 13, 1880 with the matrix of Jinasa(振亞 社), which had been established mainly by Sone Doshitora(曾根俊虎) in the spring of 1877. Also, Heungaheui drew no small amount of attention also from enlightened intellectuals in Korea. In January 1883, Heungaheui changed its name to the Asian Association and pursued its activities. Then, it was absorbed and merged into Donga Dongmunheui beginning in March 1900. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’ advocated by Heungaheui had no small variation within the organization. A‘ systemic Asia coalition ideology’appeared which was aimed at the coalition between the governments, and there also existed a ‘reformative Asia coalition ideology’that aspired to a mutual coalition between reformative governments through the democratic reformation by the then despotic government. Also, there emerged a solidarity ideology from the perspective of the guiding ideology against China based on out-of-Asianism sentiment, in the organization. Figures, who visited Japan during the early 1880s, mostly participated in the Heungaheui meeting or maintained a close contact with Heungaheui members. Also, they responded positively to the ‘Solidarity of Asia’. Enlightened intellectuals in Korea could easily favor the ‘Solidarity of Asia’because its logical structure was very similar to that of the traditional ‘worldview of the Sinocentric international order’. The logical structure of the‘ Solidarity of Asia’is different from the hierarchal Sinocentric order as three countries in northeast Asia were horizontally coupled. However, it is analogous to the Sinocentric order in that it established an oriental value as a target to guard. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’was characterized by the notion of a transitional international order, which appeared during the shift from the notion of a pre-modern Sinocentric international order to that of a modern international order. This means that enlightened intellectuals in Joseon were heavily influenced by the Heungaheui activity of legation in the Ching Dynasty, in Japan, as well as a thinking based on the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. Legation staffs from the Ching Dynasty actively joined Heungaheui independently and stressed the need for solidarity among the three countries. This prepared an opportunity for enlightened intellectuals in Korea to participate in the gathering of Heungaheui, shaking off a certain level of their doubts about Japan. The existing perspective viewed the ‘Solidarity of Asia’as an invader’s logic proposed for hiding the invasive nature of Japan to Asia. Subsequently, the attention of the Korean people was commonly denounced simply as the ‘logic of Japanophilism’or the result of ‘ignorance about the invasive nature’. Nevertheless, it was rather so natural that enlightened intellectuals in Korea, who were seeking to overcome this international crisis during this period, became interested in the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. This was because the‘ Solidarity of Asia’was one of the diverse options available for Korea, which faced the international crisis of‘ the Growing Influence of the West on the East’, to choose as a lesser power. However, the ‘Sol...

아시아 · 태평양인권법원 설립 전망과 과제 - 지역별 인권법원 설립 경과 중심으로 -

이혜영 ( Lee Hyeyoung ) 사법정책연구원 2018 연구보고서 Vol.2018 No.11

While states in Europe, the Americas, and Africa have established regional human rights courts that deliver binding judgments on states’ alleged violations of human rights, Asia-Pacific remains the sole region without a region-wide court of human rights. Although continuous efforts have been made over the past decades by NGOs and other international and domestic institutions to promote the need for a regional human rights system in Asia-Pacific, the wide disparities between ideals and realities have not yet been bridged. This research aims to, first, assess the state of human rights systems in different regions by exploring development histories of existing regional human rights systems in Europe, the Americas and Africa. And second, this research seeks to examine the feasibility of establishing a human rights system in the Asia-pacific region, while analyzing strategies to establish such a system. This research begins by exploring different development histories and current statuses of existing regional human rights systems in Europe, the Americas, and Africa. The common features of the development process between these regions observed that throughout several decades, states in Europe, the Americas, and Africa expanded the scope of substantive rights that the regional norms cover, strengthened the procedural mechanisms by regional institutions, and developed implementation mechanisms at the regional level. The pace of development, however, varies among different regions. The European Court of Human Rights is the most advanced as it is directly accessible to individual applicants and its jurisdiction is compulsory for all parties to the European Convention on Human Rights since it became permanent. In contrast, the American and African systems are not permanent, do not have compulsory jurisdiction, and an individual’s procedural rights to file applications are still limited. Although the current state of effectiveness of the systems between different regions varies, examining their efforts and processes to develop mutually agreed upon norms, institutions, and procedures to promote and protect human rights in their respective regions would provide meaningful insights in devising ways to establish a regional human rights system in Asia-Pacific.  Next, this research examines the feasibility and strategies of establishing a regional human rights system in Asia-pacific. In doing so, this research presupposes that the concept of the ‘Asia-Pacific region’ lacks universally agreed upon boundaries―both geographically and politically. This research then demonstrates the necessity of establishing a regional human rights system in Asia-Pacific. Based on the analysis of the efforts and meaningful changes of regional integration in Asia-Pacific, this research suggests that the challenges that have prevented the establishment of an Asia-Pacific human rights systems are not insurmountable. Acknowledging the recent emergence of regional norms and institutions to promote and protect human rights in Asia-Pacific, this research ultimately seeks to examine strategies to establish an Asia-Pacific human rights system. Three important factors make a regional mechanism function successfully: (1) states’ commitment, (2) effective and fair procedures, and (3) collaboration between global and local human rights actors. Understanding these factors, this research examines three possible routes―narrow, wide, and networked approaches―to create an Asia-Pacific regional human rights systems proposed by the Advisory Committee of UN Human Rights Council. Based on the networked approach, which this research considers as the most feasible route, this research finally examines strategies to revitalize the existing sub-regional human rights systems in Asia-Pacific, adopting multiple thematic treaties that address commonly prevalent problems in the region, and creating a region-wide human rights treaty that covers commonly agreeable human rights in the region.  Lastly, this research concludes by proposing ways the Korean judiciary could contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights in the region. In particular, considering the important roles of the judiciary in implementing international human rights law domestically, this analysis suggests for the Korean judiciary to properly cite international human rights norms in delivering judgments, cooperate, and actively interact with judiciaries of other Asian states to promote a human rights culture in the region, and play a leading role in discussions and efforts to create an Asia-Pacifc human rights system.

트랜스-동아시아적 접근을 통해 바라본 동아시아 전략적 동반자 관계의 지역적 특성 연구 ― 한중일과 동남아를 연결하는 핵심 제휴 수단에 관하여 ―

정찬 한국일본학회 2024 일본학보(日本學報) Vol.- No.140

21세기 이후 동아시아의 국제 정세를 바라보는 내외부의 시선은 미중전략경쟁의 틀 아래 주로 불안과 갈등에 기반을 두어왔다. 그러나 역설적으로 동아시아는 현재 역사상 가장 활발한 교류와 협력 양태를 보이고 있다. 이는 교역 증대, 정치・안보 협력, 사회적 협력 등 다방면에서 확인되고 있는데, 흥미로운 점은 탈냉전기 이후 동아시아 국가들 간에 새로운 제휴가 성립되는 경우 양측은 동맹, 연합과 같은 기존의 틀보다 전략적 동반자 관계라는 새 틀을 선호했다는 점이다. 본 연구는 이처럼 높은 중요도를 가지는 전략적 동반자 관계가 동아시아에서 어떤 독자적・지역적 특성을 보이는지 정리하고 그 원인이 무엇인지 분석하는 것을 목표로 하였다. 이를 드러내기 위해 1차적으로 동아시아의 두 지역, 동북아와 동남아를 각각 대상화하여 ‘동북아-동남아’의 지역 간 구도, ‘동북아-동북아’, ‘동남아-동남아’의 지역 내 구도를 설정한 후 둘을 비교・분석하였다. 이후 동아시아 전략적 동반자 관계의 포괄적 특성에 대한 정리와 원인 분석을 진행하였으며, 궁극적으로 동아시아의 지역의 외교 전략을 이해하는데 기여하고자 하였다. 분석을 통해 본 결과 동아시아를 대표하는 제휴의 형태는 동북아-동남아를 연결하는 지역 간 구도였으며 이는 지역 내 구도가 가지는 한계와 지역 간 구도가 가지는 여러 추진 요소의 결합으로 인한 결과였다. 또한 동아시아의 관계 체결이 지정학적 불안 요소에 의해 주로 추동되어 왔으나 협력의 방식은 오히려 지경학적 연계 강화에 집중되어왔다는 점은 지역의 성격을 이해하는데 도움을 주고 있다. 마지막으로 상대적 약소국인 동남아 국가들이 동아시아 전략적 동반자 관계의 성격을 결정하는데 큰 역할을 수행해왔다는 점 역시 특기할 부분이다. Since the beginning of the 21st century, East Asia's international situation has been largely characterized by tension and conflict in the context of the U.S.-China strategic competition. However, paradoxically, East Asia is currently experiencing the highest levels of cooperation in its history between its diverse nations This is reflected in steady trade expansion as well as political security, and socio-cultural cooperation. Notably, the most prominent form of cooperation among East Asian countries in the post-Cold War era has taken place under the new framework of strategic partnerships, rather than traditional alliances between two countries. This study aims to summarize the unique characteristics of strategic partnerships in East Asia, and identify their origins. This study first focuses on Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, and compares the inter-regional frameworks (Northeast Asia actors - Southeast Asia actors) with the intra-regional frameworks (between Northeast Asia actors or between Southeast Asia actors).The study then summarized the comprehensive characteristics of East Asia's strategic partnerships and analyzed their origins. Ultimately, this study contributes to the understanding of regional governance in East Asia based on the understanding this new type of alignment. The study found that the dominant form of strategic partnership in East Asia is the inter-regional framework. This is the result of a combination of the intra-regional framework limitations and the driving factors of inter-regional framework. We also found that while the establishment of strategic partnerships in East Asia tends to be driven by geopolitical instability, this type of linkage expansion has focused on geoeconomic factors.