• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.65 no.4
• /
• pp.295-315
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to analyse the ethical basis of two influential global citizenship idea - Rawls' liberal approach and cosmopolitan republicanism - as a theory on global justice. In the aspect of deontology, Rawls' view has the limit not to reflect reciprocal obligation and duty on civil right in the era of economic globalization that inequality has been structured. But cosmopolitan republicanism has the basis of deontological justification because advocates the realization of anti-domination principle at global level. In the aspect of utilitarianism, Rawls attempts to justify the logic rejecting redistribution intra nations. But cosmopolitan republicanism has the potential to decrease maleficence at global level and to increase utility level through overcoming the structured sacrifice of the citizens of developing countries.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.1-26
• /
• 2023

This article will analyze and forecast important variables and dynamics in global power politics after the war in Ukraine. It tries to use several perspectives to analyze international relations, particularly liberal internationalism and structural realism. In short, core variables are as follows; First, how is the US-led liberal international order and globalization being adjusted? Second, how will the U.S.-China strategic competition, which is the biggest and structural variable, cause changes in the international order in the future? The third variable, how stable are Sino-Russia relations in the context of a structuring U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle? Fourth, to what extent will third middle hedging states outside the U.S. and China be able to exercise strategic autonomy in the face of multipolarization? To summarize, the first of these four variables is the largest basic variable at the global political and economic level in terms of its impact on the international community, and it has been led by the United States. The second variable, in terms of actors, seems to be the most influential structural variable in global competition, and the US-China strategic competition is likely to be a long game. Thus the world will not be able to escape the influence of the competition between the two global powers. For South Korea, this second variable is probably the biggest external variable and dilemma. The third variable, the stability of Sino-Russia relations, determines balance of global power in the 21st century. The U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle, as seen in the current war in Ukraine, will operate as the greatest power variable in not only global power competition but also changes in the international order. Just as the U.S. is eager for a Sino-Russia fragmentation strategy, such as a Tito-style wedge policy to manage balance of power in the early years of the Cold War, it needs a reverse Kissinger strategy to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship, in order to push for a Sino-Russia splitting in the 21st century. But with the war in Ukraine, it seems that this fragmentation strategy has already been broken. In the context of Northeast Asia, whether or not the stability of Sino-Russia relations depends not only on the United States, but also on the Korean Peninsula. Finally, the fourth variable is a dependent variable that emerged as a result of the interaction of the above three variables, but simultaneously it remains to be seen that this variable is likely to act as the most dynamic and independent variable that can promote multilateralism, multipolarization, and pan-regionalism of the global international community in the future. Taking into account these four variables together, we can make an outlook on the change in the international order.

• The Journal of Art Theory & Practice
• /
• no.4
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2006

"When it comes to art, nationalism is a goodticket to ride with", says the title of a report in the Indian Express (Mumbai, 29 Oct 2000). The newspaper report goes on to say that since Indian art was kept "ethnic" by colonialism, national liberation meant opening up to the world on India's own terms. Advocacy, at the tail end of the 20th century, would contrast dramatically with the call by Rabindranath Tagore, the founder of the academy at Santiniketan in 1901, to guard against the fetish of nationalism. "The colourless vagueness of cosmopolitanism," Tagore pronounced, "nor thefierce self-idolatry of nation-worship, is the goal of human history" (Nationalism, 1917). This contrast is significant on two counts. First is the positive aspect of "nation" as a frame in art production or circulation, at the current point of globalization when massive expansion of cultural consumers may be realized through prevailing communication networks and technology. The organization of the information market, most vividly demonstrated through the recent FIFA World Cup when one out of every five living human beings on earth watched the finals, is predicated on nations as categories. An extension of the Indian Express argument would be that tagging of artworks along the category of nation would help ensure greatest reception, and would in turn open up the reified category of "art," so as to consider new impetus from aesthetic traditions from all parts of the world many of which hereto fore regarded as "ethnic," so as to liberate art from any hegemony of "international standards." Secondly, the critique of nationalism points to a transnational civic sphere, be it Tagore's notion of people-not-nation, or the much mo re recent "transnational constellation" of Jurgen Habermas (2001), a vision for the European Union w here civil sphere beyond confines of nation opens up new possibilities, and may serve as a model for a liberated sphere on global scale. There are other levels of collectivity which art may address, for instance the Indonesian example of local communities headed by Ketua Rukun Tetangga, the neighbourhood headmen, in which community matters of culture and the arts are organically woven into the communal fabric. Art and collectivity at the national-transnational level yield a contrasting situation of, on the idealized end, the dual inputs of local culture and tradition through "nation" as necessary frame, and the concurrent development of a transnational, culturally and aesthetically vibrant civic sphere that will ensure a cosmopolitanism that is not a "colourless vagueness." In art historical studies, this is seen, for instance, in the recent discussion on "cosmopolitan modernisms." Conversely, we may see a dual tyranny of a nationalism that is a closure (sometimes stated as "ethno-nationalism" which is disputable), and an internationalism that is evolved through restrictive understanding of historical development within privileged expressions. In art historical terms, where there is a lack of investigation into the reality of multiple modernisms, the possibility of a democratic cosmopolitanism in art is severely curtailed. The advocacy of a liberal cosmopolitanism without a democratic foundation returns art to dominance of historical privileged category. A local community with lack of transnational inputs may sometimes place emphasis on neo-traditionalism which is also a double edged sword, as re kindling with traditions is both liberating and restrictive, which in turn interplays with the push and pull of the collective matrix.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.63-87
• /
• 2020

This article not only theoretically explores the necessity and effect of constructive minilateralism and subregionalism in Northeast Asia, but also delves into a series of practical solutions from viewpoint of seeking common ground while reserving differences in this region. The main contents are as follows: First, the various obstacles that hinder the formation of regionalism, subregionalism and minilateralism in the Northeast Asia are discussed. That is to say, geopolitical realism, My Country First ideology, exclusive nationalism in the socio-historical context, and North Korea's latest provocations, etc. Second, this article explores the philosophy and basic principles of realizing Northeast Asia regionalism and minilateralism. Third, in the 21st century, Northeast Asia becomes the center of the world. It examines the core points, controversial focus and platform for building sub regionalism in the region. Finally, based on the institutional platform such as minilateralism and sub regionalism, the various ideas and practical plans of cross-border cooperation among major countries in Northeast Asia were discussed. Because there are a lot of obstacles, so first of all it is more appropriate to promote economic or functional minilateralism or sub regionalism than multilateral cooperation. In order to promote the formation of regionalism and minilateralism in Northeast Asia, the issues to be considered are as follows: First, for the sake of leading regional solidarity and minilateral economic cooperation, it is advisable for China, as a regional economic power, to implement a stable and responsible diplomacy. Secondly, regional solidarity based on credible politics and security should be promoted for a long time beyond the level of economic cooperation. Third, the primary prerequisite for the realization of Northeast Asian regionalism is that in the process of denuclearization of North Korea, the stability and peace mechanism of the Korean Peninsula should be established. Fourth, with the continued hegemonic competition between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, under the circumstance that countries in the region are pushed into so-called "East Asian Paradox", it is profoundly important for them to consider transition from the hostile relationship as the "Thucydides trap" to the order of "coexistence" in which competition and cooperation run side by side, and the two countries should explore a conversion plan for the foreign policy line. This mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence of the US-China relationship will create a friendly atmosphere for the formation of regionalism in Northeast Asia. In the future, the cooperation of minilateralism in Northeast Asia will break the existing conflict between the maritime forces and the continental forces in order to promote peace. And along with the philosophy that "peace is economy", recent policies of common prosperity as the framework, such as China's "Belt and Road Initiative", North Korea's "Special Zone and Development Zone Policy", Russia's "New Eastern Policy", Japan's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative and South Korea's The "Korean Peninsula New Economy Map" are organically linked and it should promote the so-called "networked regionalism".