Suchergebnisse

The study examines the European coverage in four leading Nordic newspapers during two periods in 1993 and in 1996. During the first period, three countries were negotiating for membership in the European Union. During the second period, work on a new European Constitution was ongoing, to be negotiated by the Intergovernmental Conference at the end of the period. Two of the applicant countries, Finland and Sweden, were then members of the union since Jan 1, 1995. Voters in the third country, Norway, opted to stay outside the union. Norway is, however closely linked to the union by the previous EEA agreement. Finally, the fourth country, Denmark, had limited its longstanding membership in four important areas. Results of the main study in 1993 indicate a great difference in the degree of Europeanness of the coverage of European affairs, as indicated by the share of European issues, sources, players, institutions etc. The Danish paper, the Politiken, was on all counts genuinely European in its coverage. This could, to begin with, be understood in terms of a relational context - Denmark was a member of the European Community, the other countries were not. In 1996, as could be expected, the Norwegian paper, the Aftenposten, reduced its coverage of European affairs to about half the previous volume, the Finnish and Swedish papers, the Hufvudstadsbladet and the Dagens Nyheter, increased their volumes to new highs. The Danish paper maintained its previously comparatively high volume of European coverage, and was still distinctly more European in its outlook on transnational politics. This could be understood in terms of a new Maturity proposition - it may take a long time for the national media to come to terms with a new political environment. The study also puts forward the proposition that Danish political culture requires a different coverage of European affairs, and also requires an opportunity to discuss and evaluate European politics. On a theoretical level, the study supports the idea that national experience, historical and relational contexts influence media content. National agendas powerfully determine the orientation of transnational political communication . Three in-depth studies by and large confirm results from the content analysis. A separate exercise inspired by Grounded Theory gives rise to three theoretical concepts that seem to be fundamental dimensions of European political communication: Legitimacy (media coverage contributes to status conferral and encourages deliberation of cooperation as an idea), Participation (media coverage as expressions of intrinsical and instrumental motives for joining and taking responsibility towards European cooperation), and Mondialization/Universalism (media coverage of Europe's efforts in the global arena) ; digitalisering@umu

In 1991, the Swedish Social Democratic government established the Pensioners' Council at the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Council's purpose and structure were spelled out by the Government in a Commission of Inquiry Directive. According to this, the Council is to be a forum for deliberations between the Government and pensioners' organizations. At the municipal level, Senior Citizens Councils have existed since the 1970s. They fill a similar purpose to that of the Pensioners' Council at the central level, namely to be an arena for political discussions between representatives from pensioners' organizations and the municipality. The purpose of this dissertation is two-fold. First, I describe the influence of pensioners' organizations on the establishment of the pensioners' councils and their political influence – potential as well as actual – in these councils. Second, I seek to explain the influence of pensioners' organizations from a power resources perspective. By doing so, I hope to contribute to our knowledge of the relationship between the welfare state and organized interests. Does this relationship imply the existence of a corporatist or pluralistic power structure? Finally, I also hope to contribute to our understanding of the future development of the welfare state in the light of a global economy and aging population. The empirical investigation on the central level suggests that pensioners' organizations influenced the decision to establish the Pensioners' Council. Moreover, they had actual as well as potential political influence through the council since the early 1990s. There success in influencing government policy is due to the fact that pensioners' organizations represent an important voting group and their employees have expert knowledge. At the local level, the empirical investigation suggests that pensioners' organizations had influence on decisions made by municipalities to establish Senior Citizens Councils. However, opportunities to influence vary at the local level, and pensioners' organizations actual political influence is limited. This limited influence can be explained as a consequence of pensioners' organizations lack of an important power resource at the local level – employed expertise. It is argued in the dissertation that the empirical results do not suggest an existence of a corporatist power structure in social issues. Rather, they point to a pluralistic power structure – i.e. along side producer organizations, other organizations (such as those for welfare consumers) also have an important power position. This, in turn, limits the ability of politicians to cut welfare spending. The case of pensioners' organizations therefore suggests that we cannot expect any drastic downsizing of the Swedish welfare state due to factors such as the globalization of the economy. In light of the aging population, the empirical results suggest that politicians will have to seek other solutions to be able to meet the challenge of financing welfare programs targeting the elderly than making drastic cutbacks in those programs.

학위논문 (석사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 사회과학대학 정치외교학부(외교학전공), 2020. 8. 신범식. ; 본 논문은 테러와의 전쟁에서 많은 피해를 입은 미국과 러시아의 테러조직 리스트가 예상과 달리 왜 유사점보다 차이점을 더 많이 가지고 있는가를 밝히고자 하였다. 이를 위해 러시아와 미국이 테러조직을 지정하는 과정을 비교함으로써 양국의 테러조직 지정에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 규명하고자 하였다. 우선 미국과 러시아의 국가 안보전략 문서들을 분석함으로써 양국이 시기별로 중요하게 여긴 관심사와 이러한 관심사에 대한 위협이 무엇인지 분석하였다. 그 다음으로, 미국과 러시아의 대통령들이 1993년부터 2017년까지 발표한 테러 관련 연설문, 인터뷰, 공문서들 가운데 제목이나 본문에 'terror' 및 'террор'라는 어근이 포함된 다양한 형태의 텍스트 자료들을 대상으로 워드분석을 함으로써 양국이 테러를 어떠한 위협으로 상정하는지, 국내외의 어떤 안건들과 연결하는지를 파악하였다. 그리하여 본고는 테러에 대한 역사적 경험과 인식, 안보에 대한 이해, 국제 질서와 상황 파악 등 많은 요인들이 테러조직 지정에 영향을 미치면서 양국이 테러에 대한 기본적인 인식, 즉 초국가적인 테러조직들이 한 국가만이 아닌, 국제사회 전체에 위협이 될 수 있다는 인식 면에서는 시간이 지나면서 비슷해졌지만 양국의 안보개념, 안보와 관련된 국익의 우선 순위, 테러에 대한 인식에 영향을 미친 역사적 경험이 상이하기 때문에 테러조직의 지정에서 유사점보다는 차이점이 더 많이 나타나게 되었다는 결론에 도달하였다. 본고는 일견 미국과 러시아가 테러조직을 공동의 적으로 간주하는 것처럼 보이지만 실제로는 다양한 요인들로 인해 테러와 테러조직의 지정에서 서로 다르게 접근한다는 사실을 보여주었다는 데 그 의의가 있다. ; Russia and the United States have been on the front line of the fight against terrorism for a long time, and at first glance it may seem that they are fighting against the same enemy. However, upon careful comparison of the U.S. Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations(FTO) and corresponding list of the Russian Federation the distinctions are strikingly obvious. The organizations designated by each country outnumber the ones that were appointed by both. This study aims to examine the factors behind the differences in the approaches that Russia and the U.S. took to defining the enemy. It is argued that the designation method is mainly determined by two broad aspects – the security concept and the perception of terrorism. Through the analysis of the national security strategies from 1997 to 2015, this study investigated several crucial issues: the ways Russia and the United States had been perceiving the international order, their place and role in it, as well as changes in their national interests over time, and most importantly, what constituted the perceived threats to the national security. Supporting this with the examination of the perception of terrorism through the word frequency analysis of Russian and American presidents' speeches, the study concluded that despite the fact that both countries claim terrorism to be their main threat, the approach to defining it is not the same as each country bases it on their own historical experience and national priorities. The United States views terrorism largely as a part of the global security framework, inseparably associated with other issues (such as the threat of WMD proliferation) that are claimed to emanate from rogue states and tyrannies. Consequently, the strategy in the fight against terrorism has been derived from the desire to converse these regimes to democracy. On the other hand, Russia was found to view terrorism as a more direct threat to the country's national security. For Russia, terrorist organizations are separate entities that try to violate the country's constitutional order through separatist and extremist slogans. Unlike the United States, Russia does not view terrorist organizations as an instrument in the hands of tyrannical regimes, therefore it condemns the American unilateral approach that is structured around interference into the internal affairs of other states. These differences are reflected in the formation of the terrorist organizations lists. The list of the United States is more comprehensive and geographically global. The FTO list includes not only the organizations that directly threaten US security, but also the ones that harm the partners and allies of the United States. At the same time, Russia is focused on designating the organizations that directly threaten the security of the country and the nearest region like Central Asia. There are also organizations on the list that do not commit terrorist acts, but undermine the values of Russia's constitutional system through the conduct of propaganda on the Internet. After September 11 and the Beslan school siege in 2004, there is a convergence in the perception of the US and Russia on the rise of terrorist organizations network as a major transnational threat in the 21st century. This explains why there are the same ten organizations on both lists. The vast majority of the organizations that have been designated by both countries are affiliates of al-Qaeda, which are fighting not one specific country, but the entire modern international society. However, despite a similar logic in terrorism perception, it was concluded that it is the differences in national security priorities and promoted values that are accountable for the ways that Russia and the United States define the enemy in the fight against terrorism. ; I. 서론 1 1. 문제제기 1 2. 기존연구 검토 3 3. 연구 방법 및 자료 6 4. 논문의 구성 11 II. 테러 위협에 대한 미국과 러시아의 대응 방식 12 1. 미국과 러시아의 안보 개념 14 1) 미국의 안보 개념 14 (1) 국제질서에 대한 담론 14 (2) 안보 위협에 대한 해석 16 2) 러시아의 안보 개념 18 (1) 국제질서에 대한 담론 18 (2) 안보 위협에 대한 해석 22 2. 테러에 대한 미국과 러시아의 인식 비교 26 1) 테러에 대한 미국의 인식 및 대테러 전략 26 2) 테러에 대한 러시아의 인식 및 대테러 전략 37 3. 테러 위협에 대한 미국과 러시아의 관점 비교 45 III. 미국과 러시아의 테러 조직 지정 제도 비교 48 1. 테러 조직 리스트 수립 과정 48 1) 미국의 해외 테러조직 리스트(FTOs) 50 2) 러시아 연방제가 지정한 테러조직 리스트 51 2. 테러조직 지정 과정에서 러시아와 미국의 유사점과 차이점 52 1) 테러조직 지정 및 관리방식 비교 54 2) 사례 연구를 통한 양국의 비교 62 (1) 하마스 62 (2) 탈레반 67 (3) 알누스라 72 IV. 결론 76 참고문헌 78 Abstract 88 ; Master