지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In this article, how Korea, U.S, and Japan during the 1960s viewed and accepted the so-called Regional Integration Strategy is examined. Primary objective of this research is to determine the nature and characteristics of the Korea-Japan treaty which was a distinct result of that strategy. How those 3 countries participated in the realization of such strategy, and what roles they were asked to play in the game, are examined here as well.
The Regional Integration Strategy of the 1960s was designed to reinforce the bonding among anti-Communist states through economical support and development. Basically, it was dictating the roles that should be respectively played by Korea and Japan, and the result of such dictations was the signing of the Korea-Japan treaty. So the treaty itself not only meant the reopening of diplomatic relationship between those two countries, but also a distinct joining of anti-Communist policies and Economics-driven ideologies throughout the North-Eastern Asian community. In other words, it meant the formation of a new international hierarchy structure in terms of politics, economy and military issues in this region.
The U.S. signed mutual defence pacts respectively with Korea and Japan which would benefit the situation in political and military terms, and encouraged Japan to re-arm itself by emphasizing the importance of its role. The newly established situation was going to supposedly benefit every party involved. U.S. was trying to reduce the financial pressure it had to endure in supporting the Korean economy, and the Park Jeong Hi regime of Korea wanted to ensure economical developments in order to stabilize its still shaky political image. And the Japanese capitalism was trying to seize the opportunity to enter the Korean market for their own profits.
The economical cooperation between Korea and Japan, and the events happened during (and inside) the Vietnam war were sampIe cases of this partnership. And in the process Anti-Communist alliance was strengthened throughout the North-Eastern Asian countries. Yet while Korea provided labor workforce at a reasonable price, and Japan provided capital, equipments and technology, Korean economy's subordination to the Japanese economy was reinforced.
Reviewing the Korea-Japan treaty, we can see it was not based upon remorse or regret over the past history. And a desirable new future course which should have been pursued and enjoyed by everyone, was not an item that could be produced by the treaty. The treaty was based upon a Cold war sentimentality and economical pragmatism. This kind of treaty was not what the Koreans intended or wanted,
The Regional Integration Strategy of the 1960s was designed to reinforce the bonding among anti-Communist states through economical support and development. Basically, it was dictating the roles that should be respectively played by Korea and Japan, and the result of such dictations was the signing of the Korea-Japan treaty. So the treaty itself not only meant the reopening of diplomatic relationship between those two countries, but also a distinct joining of anti-Communist policies and Economics-driven ideologies throughout the North-Eastern Asian community. In other words, it meant the formation of a new international hierarchy structure in terms of politics, economy and military issues in this region.
The U.S. signed mutual defence pacts respectively with Korea and Japan which would benefit the situation in political and military terms, and encouraged Japan to re-arm itself by emphasizing the importance of its role. The newly established situation was going to supposedly benefit every party involved. U.S. was trying to reduce the financial pressure it had to endure in supporting the Korean economy, and the Park Jeong Hi regime of Korea wanted to ensure economical developments in order to stabilize its still shaky political image. And the Japanese capitalism was trying to seize the opportunity to enter the Korean market for their own profits.
The economical cooperation between Korea and Japan, and the events happened during (and inside) the Vietnam war were sampIe cases of this partnership. And in the process Anti-Communist alliance was strengthened throughout the North-Eastern Asian countries. Yet while Korea provided labor workforce at a reasonable price, and Japan provided capital, equipments and technology, Korean economy's subordination to the Japanese economy was reinforced.
Reviewing the Korea-Japan treaty, we can see it was not based upon remorse or regret over the past history. And a desirable new future course which should have been pursued and enjoyed by everyone, was not an item that could be produced by the treaty. The treaty was based upon a Cold war sentimentality and economical pragmatism. This kind of treaty was not what the Koreans intended or wanted,
목차
머리말
1. 한·일협정 추진과 한·미·일 관계
2. 반공·경제논리 결합과 한·미·일 관계 변화
맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
언론을 통해 본 한일협정 인식 50년
역사비평
2015 .05
-
한국 강제병합 과정에 대한 재조명 : 한일구조약의 불법·무효성에 관한 법학적 연구
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
Korea and Japan
Korea Journal
1967 .08
-
Treaties Leading to Japan’s Annexation of Korea : What Are the Problems?
Korea Journal
2016 .12
-
戰後 韓日관계와 샌프란시스코 平和條約
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
1910년 한일조약에 대한 법사학적 재검토
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
한일협정 후 한국 지식인의 일본 인식
동북아역사논총
2011 .09
-
프랑스의 1960년대 한국 대외정책 인식: 한일협정을 중심으로
史叢(사총)
2015 .01
-
특사 태프트의 제2차 대일방문과 미일조약체제, 1907~1908 : 한국병합을 중심으로
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
朝英條約(1883. 11)과 불평등조약체제의 재정립
한국사연구
2006 .12
-
Korean Studies in Japan
Korea Journal
1985 .12
-
조약법을 통해 본 1910년 병합조약의 무효 : 강제에 의한 조약의 효력을 중심으로
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
한일회담 시기 청구권 문제의 기원과 미국의 역할
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
한일회담에서 나타난 일본의 식민지지배 인식
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
한일관계, 무엇을 할 것인가?
한국여성신학
2019 .06
-
한ㆍ일관계의 역사적 전개와 전망 : 해방후 현재까지 역대 정권별 일본에 대한 대응을 중심으로
한국민족문화
2001 .12
-
재일동포 사회의 문제와 북일관계 : '60년대 한일수교 시기를 중심으로
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
간도문제와 일본의 한국병합(1909-1910)
한국사연구
2009 .06
-
북일수교의 전망과 한일관계
日本學硏究
2006 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-013726166