동남아의 지역주의와 “동아시아 공동체”: 그 역사에 대한 재해석 (Regionalism in Southeast Asia: Implications for East Asian Community Building)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서강대학교 동아연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 동아연구 / 56호 / 107 ~ 137페이지
· 저자명 : 신윤환

초록

본 연구는 아세안을 중심으로 지역통합을 추진해 온 동남아시아 국가들이 한국, 중국, 일본을 끌어들여 아세안+3을 창설하고 궁극적으로 “동아시아공동체”(East Asian community)를 건설하려 하는 배경 및 요인, 추진 과정과 방법, 그리고 실현 가능성과 한계를 분석하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 필자의 연구는 지금까지 국내외 국제관계 전공자들로부터 외면을 받아왔던 동남아의 지역주의를 주된 연구 주제로 삼되, 이것이 동남아와 동북아를 포괄하는 동아시아라고 하는 더 확대되고 포괄적인 지역의 협력과 통합 노력에 어떠한 역할을 담당하고 영향을 끼칠 것인지에 초점을 맞춘다. 필자는 본 연구를 위해 구성주의(constructivism)와 신기능주의(neo-functionalism) 접근법으로부터 이론적 시사를 얻었다.
본 연구에서 필자가 제시한 첫 번째 명제는 동남아에서 개별적 국가의 수준에서 등장하였던 민족주의가 동남아 지역의 수준에서 발전적으로 "지양"한 것이 바로 동남아 지역주의라는 점이다. 두 번째 명제는 동남아 지역주의가 동북아를 끌어들여 새로운 ‘동아시아체제’를 구축하려는 시도는 기존의 구성주의적 시각 외에 신기능주의적 목표를 지향하고 있다는 점이다.

영어초록

This study analyzes the background, process, and prospects of the concerted efforts Southeast Asian states have made for the last four decades to construct and develop regional "communities" including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and an East Asian community. It places a focus on how and why Southeast Asian leaders have attempted to expand their regionalist ideas from Southeast Asia to a broader East Asia by inviting such Northeast Asian countries as China, Japan, and Korea. As a potential theoretical contribution, an integrated approach is attempted to synthesize neo-functionalism and constructivism in analyzing and interpreting the historical process of nation- and community-building in Southeast Asia and East Asia. By bringing in theories and approaches, it tries to overcome an atheoretical tendency prevalent in the research of international relations in the regions.
This paper begins with a recollection of Southeast Asian nation-building processes, which I regard as purposeful and conscious efforts by national leaders as well as popular movements to create and invent a nation from diverse and heterogeneous ethnic groups and cultures. This constructivist and circumstantialist schools of thought on nation and nationalism can also be extended and applied to an analysis of the formation of regional identity and the rise of regionalism. In this sense, Southeast Asia is an "imagined community" at the regional level as are nations at the country level. ASEAN played a pivotal role at its formative period. The constuctivist approach to community building in Southeast Asia is a partial failure in another sense, because its growth for the first two decades was slow and lacked substantial foundations such as economic integration. It is against this backdrop that Southeast Asian leaders looked to a broader East Asia, to overcome the limits and remedy the shortcomings of community building based on a narrow conception of region, Southeast Asia. The northern half of East Asia could provide them with dynamism and substance which their economies largely lack. In fact, they have been trying to supplement functionalist solutions to their basically constructivist framework. At the same time, the methods were not simply functionalist, but should be viewed as neo-functionalist as they resort mostly to intergovernmental cooperations rather than to market mechanisms. Whether ASEAN+3 develops and matures into an East Asian community shall depend primarily on the relevance of the integrated approach of constructivism and neo-functionalism, as well as its contingent modifications, to the ever changing fundamentals of East Asian politics and economies.

참고자료

· 없음