단극시대 미국패권전략의 이론적 기초: 다자주의 vs. 일방주의

Abstract

To understand not only the post-Cold War world order, but the 21st century’s international relations is based on the conceptual identity and strategic selection of the U.S. foreign policy. As the only hegemonic state in the unipolar world the United States tries to justify her foreign policy between its national interests and international society’s common interests. In practice, the United States has oscillated between going it alone and joining with others. After the end of the Cold War debates about the appropriate balance between unilateralism and multilateralism in American global engagement have been highly contentious. So far the discussion has been more polemical than analytical. Since the practical and ethical ter- rain has not been clearly demarcated, it is easy to confuse prudential assessments about costs and benefits of unilateralism and multilateralism. Each side has claimed the moral ground and pragmatic efficiency. Greater clarity may be possible by classifying U.S. foreign policy into analytical categories based on whether the strategies adopted are unilateral or multilateral and whether the aims pursued are nationalist, internationalist, or cosmopolitan. Each set of aims has different ethical justifications, which generate and help to explain divergent attitudes and judgments about the appropriate role of unilateral U.S. foreign policy and multilateral U.S. foreign policy.