The division of Korea and the division of Germany, both of which were results of the “Cold War” between the West and the East from 1945 to 1948/49, have different structures in spite of their superficial similarities. Whereas the former was under “the Potsdam regime” throughout the period of divisio...
The division of Korea and the division of Germany, both of which were results of the “Cold War” between the West and the East from 1945 to 1948/49, have different structures in spite of their superficial similarities. Whereas the former was under “the Potsdam regime” throughout the period of division which started in 1945 and lasted until 1990, the latter was under the same system for about 8 years(1945~1953) and has been under “the armistice regime” since 1953. This means that the Status quo of division involve different Powers who are on the basis of international law responsible in each cases. In the case of Germany, the triumphant four Powers of the World War II took the responsibility to change the Status Quo and actually reunified Germany through so called “4+2 treaty” in 1990. But in the case of Korea, the United States, China, and North Korea, as the party nations of “the armistice treaty”, share the responsibility for the second division of Korea, on which the collapse of communist countries of East Europe at the end of 20th century had no effect. This implies that different structures of international law rule each of the two cases. The dependencies, observed in the unification policies of West Germany and South Korea, upon regional confrontations, balances of power and the peaceful coexistence can be explained in the same context. The unification policies of the two countries have two phases, i.e. “the period of the Cold War,” and “the period of peaceful coexistence.” From 1948/49 to 1963, the world had been divided into the West and the East through confrontations, expansions and containment of both camps. As a consequence, the unification- policies of the governments of West Germany and South Korea had to stick to the logic of “Cold War”. However, the atmosphere of “detente” and “coexistence” since mid 1960"s induced the both governments to renounce old policies and to accept East Germany and North Korea as their competitors, respectively. Having been deprived of rights to participate in the formation of international post-war-order, West Germany and South Korea could not exercise autonomy in their unification policies. Therefore, “Politik der St？ke”(Adenauer), “Ostpolitik”(Brandt) of West Germany, and “Unification by force”(Syngman Rhee), the “3 principles for peaceful reunification”(Park Jung Hee), “Sunshine policy”(Kim Dae Jung) of South Korea were all aligned with the logic which was imposed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and China and support balance of power and maintain of the “Status Quo.” But the process of overcoming division of Germany does not apply to Korea because of the differences of underlying structures.
The division of Korea and the division of Germany, both of which were results of the “Cold War” between the West and the East from 1945 to 1948/49, have different structures in spite of their superficial similarities. Whereas the former was under “the Potsdam regime” throughout the period of division which started in 1945 and lasted until 1990, the latter was under the same system for about 8 years(1945~1953) and has been under “the armistice regime” since 1953. This means that the Status quo of division involve different Powers who are on the basis of international law responsible in each cases. In the case of Germany, the triumphant four Powers of the World War II took the responsibility to change the Status Quo and actually reunified Germany through so called “4+2 treaty” in 1990. But in the case of Korea, the United States, China, and North Korea, as the party nations of “the armistice treaty”, share the responsibility for the second division of Korea, on which the collapse of communist countries of East Europe at the end of 20th century had no effect. This implies that different structures of international law rule each of the two cases. The dependencies, observed in the unification policies of West Germany and South Korea, upon regional confrontations, balances of power and the peaceful coexistence can be explained in the same context. The unification policies of the two countries have two phases, i.e. “the period of the Cold War,” and “the period of peaceful coexistence.” From 1948/49 to 1963, the world had been divided into the West and the East through confrontations, expansions and containment of both camps. As a consequence, the unification- policies of the governments of West Germany and South Korea had to stick to the logic of “Cold War”. However, the atmosphere of “detente” and “coexistence” since mid 1960"s induced the both governments to renounce old policies and to accept East Germany and North Korea as their competitors, respectively. Having been deprived of rights to participate in the formation of international post-war-order, West Germany and South Korea could not exercise autonomy in their unification policies. Therefore, “Politik der St？ke”(Adenauer), “Ostpolitik”(Brandt) of West Germany, and “Unification by force”(Syngman Rhee), the “3 principles for peaceful reunification”(Park Jung Hee), “Sunshine policy”(Kim Dae Jung) of South Korea were all aligned with the logic which was imposed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and China and support balance of power and maintain of the “Status Quo.” But the process of overcoming division of Germany does not apply to Korea because of the differences of underlying structures.
Keyword
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.