교수진 출판물

(2016) Information and Communication Technologies in Peacebuilding: Implications, Opportunities and ChallengesBy Ioannis Tellidis, Stefanie KapplerJournal Title : Cooperation and Conflict2016, Vol. 51(1) 75-93Published  September 24, 2015ISSN : 0010-8367AbstractDespite the volume of research exploring the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for destructive purposes (terrorism, crime, war propaganda) on the one hand, and development (ICT4D) on the other hand, very little has been said about the role that traditional, and especially new social media, can play for the transformation and prevention of conflicts. This paper recognises ICTs as a tool, thus accepting their multi-level and multi-dimensional potential in the transformation as well as the intransigence and promotion of conflict. The paper seeks to explore: (a) whether ICTs can empower marginalised actors to transcend the peacebuilding and statebuilding processes, and lead to a more locally-owned, more representative transformation of the conflict; (b) whether ICTs can foster more hybrid forms of peace; and (c) whether they can be co-opted as a platform by donors to promote their agendas and impede resistance.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0010836715603752?journalCode=cacaAbout Cooperation and Conflict Published for over 50 years, Cooperation and Conflict is a peer reviewed journal committed to publishing high quality articles that examines a broad set of research questions. It believes in academic pluralism and thus does not represent any specific methodology, approach, tradition or school. The mission of the journal is to publish work that is theoretically informed, empirically rich, and methodologically rigorous, and which advances the state of the art of the discipline through theoretical, conceptual and methodological innovation. Cooperation and Conflict has a tradition to publish on Nordic and European Affairs. The journal strictly adheres to a double-blind review policy.
작성일 : 2017/04/07 | 작성자 : admin | 조회 : 77
By Professor Ioannis Tellidis• (2016) ‘Terrorism and Peace Studies’, in Richard Jackson (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 298-308.• (2016) ‘Religion and Terrorism’, in Richard Jackson (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 134-144.About the BookThis new handbook is a comprehensive collection of cutting-edge essays that investigate the contribution of Critical Terrorism Studies to our understanding of contemporary terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism remains one of the most important security and political issues of our time. After 9/11, Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) emerged as an alternative approach to the mainstream study of terrorism and counterterrorism, one which combined innovative methods with a searching critique of the abuses of the war on terror. This volume explores the unique contribution of CTS to our understanding of contemporary non-state violence and the state’s response to it. It draws together contributions from key thinkers in the field who explore critical questions around the nature and study of terrorism, the causes of terrorism, state terrorism, responses to terrorism, the war on terror, and emerging issues in terrorism research. Covering a wide range of topics including key debates in the field and emerging issues, the Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies will set a benchmark for future research on terrorism and the response to it. This handbook will be of great interest to students of terrorism studies, political violence, critical security studies and IR in general. Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies
작성일 : 2017/04/07 | 작성자 : admin | 조회 : 65
저자 : Lucille Eichengreen 역자 : 박복영 (국제대학원 교수)출판사 : 미지북스출판일 : 2016.12.10원제 : Golden FettersISBN : 9788994142630< 책 소개  >세계사적 관점으로 분석한 금본위제와 대공황의 역사!『황금 족쇄』는 국제 금융의 대가 배리 아이켄그린이 1930년대 대공황을 국제적 시각에서 해석한 것으로 금본위제 연구의 기초가 되는 저작이다. 1929년 불황이 왜 대공황으로 이어지게 되었는지에 대해 금본위제라는 세계적 범위 고정환율제가 정책 당국의 손발을 묶는 족쇄 역할을 함으로써 팽창적 경제 정책을 사용하지 못하게 된 것이 핵심이라 말한다. 2008년 글로벌 금융 위기 이후 계속되는 침체로부터 회복하는데 어려움을 겪고 있는 오늘날, 금본위제의 역사는 확장적 경제 정책과 국제적 협력 및 신뢰가 얼마나 중요한 것이지 알려준다.이 책은 미국 주식시장 폭락으로 인한 거대 경제 불황으로 바라보는 기존 대공황론을 뒤집는 세계사적 관점의 '대공황' 역사를 쓰고 있다. 저자는 1차 대전이전 세계 경제를 뒷받침하는 통화체제인 금본위제가 대공황을 일으킨 주요 요인이었음을 보여주고 금본위제와 다른 요인들이 대공황을 발생, 증폭시킨 과정을 생생히 그려낸다. 전전 금본위제가 왜 성공적이었으며 어떻게 국제 협력의 위기를 막았는지 상세히 설명하고 있다.  [인터넷 교보문고 제공]<  저자소개  >※ 저자 : 배리 아이켄그린저자 배리 아이켄그린은 국제 금융과 통화 체제의 최고 권위자로 인정받는 미국 경제학자이며, UC버클리대 경제학과 교수이자 경제사학회 회장이다. 광범위한 역사 분석을 통해 현재의 금융시스템을 살피는 연구를 해왔다. 1997~1999년 국제통화기금(IMF)에서 수석정책자문위원을 역임했으며, 전미경제연구소(NBER) 연구위원이다. 2010년에 국제슘페터학회로부터 슘페터상을 수상했고, 『포린폴리시』가 뽑은 ‘세계에서 가장 영향력 있는 지식인 100명’에 선정되기도 했다. 한국은행의 자문 교수이기도 하다.지은 책으로는 『글로벌라이징 캐피털』, 『달러 제국의 몰락』, 『글로벌 불균형』 등이 있으며, 『파이낸셜타임스』, 『월스트리트저널』, 『포린어페어스』, 『신디케이트프로젝트』 등에 칼럼을 기고하고 있다. [인터넷 교보문고 제공]※ 역자 : 박복영역자 박복영은 서울대학교 경제학과를 졸업하고 동대학원에서 대공황기 유럽의 금본위제 붕괴 과정에 대한 연구로 박사 학위를 받았다. 2000년에는 이 책의 저자인 배리 아이켄그린의 초청으로 UC버클리대에서 방문학자로 1년간 체류하면서 공동 연구를 진행하기도 했다. 대외경제정책연구원(KIEP)에서 10여 년간 재직했으며, 특히 글로벌 금융 위기와 유럽 재정 위기가 진행되는 동안에는 국제경제실장을 맡아 세계 경제 동향을 면밀히 분석했다. 현재 경희대학교 국제대학원 교수이며, 세계 경제와 한국 경제의 관계, 국제 통화 질서, 세계적 빈곤 문제 등에 관해 연구하고 있다.지은 책으로는 『글로벌 금융 위기 이후 국제경제 환경의 변화와 한국의 대외경제정책 방향』 등이 있고, 옮긴 책으로는 『글로벌 불균형』, 『대공황 전후 세계경제』(공역) 등이 있다. [인터넷 교보문고 제공]Naver 책 정보
작성일 : 2017/04/06 | 작성자 : admin | 조회 : 87
By Ioannis Tellidis and Buhm-Suk BaekMarch 27, 2017‘We have secret evidence, and we’ll show them some day. Meanwhile, just trust and rather adopt the Act’.On March 3, 2016, the South Korean National Assembly passed the Act on Anti-Terrorism for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security, following strong criticism from non-governmental and human rights organizations, opposition political parties, and a week-long filibuster in parliament aimed at delaying the bill’s adoption. Although virtually every state adopted new (or strengthened already existing) anti-terror legislation in the aftermath of September 11, South Korea’s Act had been stalled for 14 years. This was not because of political complacency that such legislation is not necessary, despite the fact that the country has virtually minimal experience of terrorism.1 Rather, it was because the Act envisaged the expansion of the National Intelligence Service’s (NIS) powers to survey and arrest not only terrorist suspects, but also dissenters of governmental policy more broadly.A number of incidents leading to the bill’s introduction meant that such fears were not entirely unfounded. Shortly after the election of 2012, which saw the Saenuri party rise to power with Park Geun-hye as President, it emerged that during the electoral campaign, nine NIS staff — following orders from the agency’s director — engaged in internet activities that sought to tar opposition politicians, labor activists, and other critics of the government. In 2014 the Constitutional Court outlawed the left-wing United Progressive Party because it “aimed at using violent means to overthrow our free democratic system … ultimately establishing a North-Korean-style socialist system.”Although at the fringes of the country’s politics, the party (with five elected MPs, out of the National Assembly’s total of 300) was a vocal opponent to President Park’s policies and it was widely assumed that this was what led to its dissolution and the forfeit of all five of its democratically elected seats. Such moves against freedom of expression of dissenting voices were brought to the limelight again more recently, during the visit to the country by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The Special Rapporteur’s remarks that the right to peaceful assembly has been shrinking due to undue restrictions such as, among others, blanket bans on peaceful protests, highlights the sensitivity of the conservative government to criticism and dissent.Of course, this is not the first time that an administration has sought to usurp the powers of anti-terror legislation to curtail opposition and dissent. The global War on Terror (WoT) has led liberal and illiberal states alike to pursue exceptional/-ist policies that have undermined, rather than strengthened, institutional practices and national interests. Extraordinary renditions, detention sites like Guantanamo Bay, abuses like those in Abu Ghraib, mass surveillance, and the marginalization, criminalization, and victimization of entire communities are some of WoT’s most known illiberal effects.Although not a new phenomenon, nor necessarily more violent than in the past (at least in the West), specific political agendas have effectively shaped anti-terrorist policies and narratives in the post-9/11 world that reclassified terrorism as the greatest existentialist threat, as a result of which the terrorist label has been misused and abused. As Brzezinsky put it, “the ongoing war on terror stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue”. Asking lawmakers to blindly trust the secret evidence the government has, and which it may “some day” divulge, renders suspicions about the government’s aims understandable. A closer look at the bill’s provision highlights the arbitrariness of the terms and the sweeping and unchecked powers it gives to the NIS.The definition of “terror” in Art.2.1(a), unless strictly interpreted, can include any activity with a purpose to impede the exercise of the authority of the state, or local government. One such misinterpretation could include demonstrations against the state’s or local government’s policies. Furthermore, according to Article 2(3) of the Act, a “potential terrorist” includes anyone “who is reasonably believed to have prepared, conspired, propagated, or incited terrorism” without a clear reference on any legal process of assigning or delisting a potential terrorist. This is of particular concern, considering that the government has many times labeled peaceful protests as acts of terror and a lack of a minimum safeguard for de-listing. As a point of reference, and for reasons of comparison, “incitement of terrorism” is defined by the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism as “the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed” (Article 5 (1)).Moreover, under Article 9 of the Act, once listed as a potential terrorist, the NIS can extensively collect personal information, including sensitive information and location data, wiretap, tail, or even apply financial sanctions. Considering that safeguards to manage and monitor such abuses of power are highly insufficient, this legislation may become a tool that facilitates illegal intervention into people’s privacy.Similarly problematic is the broadness with which Article 12 defines “materials instigating or propagandising terrorism.” Such breadth of definition means that it is at the discretion of the government which paintings, writings, and other forms of expression will be defined as terrorist propaganda. Although South Korea is not alone in its use of “vague terms of uncertain scope”, the former UN Secretary General has criticised the readiness with which the “glorification of terrorism” has become a frequent accusation, considering it to be an inappropriate restriction on expression.Broad policy generalizations are perhaps inevitable when terrorism, as a phenomenon, lacks an academically universal definition. But this is perhaps a minor inadequacy (other concepts — like religion, civil society, and politics among others — also come short of such definition) compared to the lack of a framework for the comprehensive evaluation of counter-terrorist strategies. As has increasingly been pointed out in research findings, counterterrorism’s foundation on prophylaxis and preparedness renders counterterrorism a self-fulfilling prophecy: its insistence on the anticipation of terrorist violence contributes to the creation of terror as much as (if not more than) terrorist violence itself.As an emerging middle power, proud of its democratic consolidation, South Korea should (and could) do more to avoid hunting ghosts at the expense of the security of its citizens.Note1. The country scored 0.23 in a scale of 10 in the Global Terrorism Index 2016, and zero in 2015. See Institute for Economics and Peace (2016), Global Terrorism Index 2016, p. 95.IPP REVIEW
작성일 : 2017/04/04 | 작성자 : admin | 조회 : 97