미중 전략경쟁과 코로나19 여파로 세계 경제질서가 급변하며, 미국은 국 가안보 차원에서 '경제안보 정책'을 추진하고, 전통적 군사동맹 체제를 경제‧ 기술 동맹으로 재편하고 있다. 미국은 중국이 현 글로벌 가치사슬(GVC)구조 하에서 자원 및 핵심 기술을 토대로 상호 의존성을 무기화하고 있다고 판단하고, 이를 국가안보의 차원에서 논의하기 시작하였다. 트럼프 정부와 이를 이은 바이든 정부는 중국의 부상을 봉쇄하고, 경제안보 정책을 강화하기 위해 동 맹국과 관계를 재정립하고 있다. 한편, 트럼프 정부가 ‘힘을 통한 평화’와 ‘원칙에 기반한 현실주의’의 기조하에 무역전쟁을 통한 중국 때리기에 앞장 섰다면, 바이든 정부는 자유민주주의 가치를 공유하는 신뢰 가능한 동맹·파 트너 국가들과 새로운 공급망을 구축해 나간다는 점에서 분명한 차이를 보 인다. 본 연구는 경제안보 시대 트럼프 행정부와 바이든 행정부의 경제‧기술 동맹전략 및 특징들을 살펴보고 이를 비교해 보고자 한다. 또한, 미국과 자 유민주주의 가치를 공유하고 있는 국가이면서, 첨단 과학기술과 제조 능력을 보유하고 있는 한국에게 4차 산업기술을 중심으로 한 미국의 경제‧기술 동맹 재조정은 어떤 함의가 있는지 살펴보고자 한다.

이 논문의 목적은 미국의 오바마 행정부가 유엔 기후변화에 관한 파리 협정에 가입한 요인과 트럼프 행정부가 파리협정에서 탈퇴한 요인을 이 론적 시각에서 설명하는 것이다. 이를 위해 활용하는 이론적 분석 틀은 외교정책이념 접근법과 국제협력에서의 절대적 이득 및 상대적 이득 요 인 분석이다. 분석의 결과로서 이 논문은 오바마 행정부와 트럼프 행정 부의 외교정책이념이 국제협력에서 각각 절대적 이득 또는 상대적 이득 의 중시 여부를 결정하고 그에 따라 파리협정에 가입하거나 탈퇴하는 결 과를 낳았다고 분석한다. 즉 오바마 행정부는 환경 및 경제 외교정책에 있어서는 자유주의적 국제주의 이념을 추구하는 경향을 보였다. 자유주 의적 국제주의 이념은 글로벌 기후변화 이슈에서 중국과의 협력을 권고 하고 파리협정과 관련하여 미국이 얻게 될 절대적 이득을 중시하도록 하 여 오바마 행정부가 파리협정에 가입하는 결과를 낳았다. 반면에 트럼프 행정부는 국제관계를 제로섬(zero-sum)적인 경쟁 관계로 간주하고 국제 협력에서 상대적 이득 요인을 우선시하는 경제적 민족주의 외교정책이념 을 지향하였다. 따라서 트럼프 행정부는 미국의 시장을 보호하고 경제력 을 증진하는 것을 최우선 과제로 설정하고 글로벌 환경협력에서도 상대 적 이득 요인을 중시하였다. 그리하여 파리협정이 중국이나 인도 등과 비교해서 미국에 상대적인 경제적 손실을 초래할 것을 예상하였기 때문 에 파리협정에서 탈퇴하는 결정을 내린 것으로 분석된다.

본 연구는 트럼피즘이 미국 유권자의 이민자 인식에 어떠한 영향을 주었는지 분석한다. 반기득권주의, 반다원주의로 특징지어지는 포퓰리 즘이 전세계로 확산되며, 미국 내에도 토착주의와 반엘리트주의에 기반 한 우파포퓰리즘, 즉 트럼피즘이 등장하였다. 트럼프 대통령은 미국 내 유색인종과 소수민족, 이민자와 엘리트 계층과 백인·블루칼라·중산층을 적대적 관계로 구조화하며 자신의 지지 계층을 결집하였다. 이처럼 트 럼프 대통령은 트럼피즘을 활용하여 2016년 대통령 선거에 승리했을 뿐만 아니라 미국 유권자들의 대외정책적 선호에도 영향을 주었으며, 특히 이민자에 대한 폐쇄적 인식를 강화하였다. 이러한 추세는 트럼프 대통령이 퇴임하였음에도 불구하고 여전히 남아있고 공화당 역시 이를 활용하여 정치적 이익을 취하려는 바, 미국 내 정치적 양극화와 민주주 의 쇠퇴에 영향을 미칠 것으로 예측된다.

After President Biden’s first year in office, one big question is whether the Biden trade policy differs from the Trump chaos. My answer is no. I consider Biden’s trade policy to be Trump without the tweets. They both relied on unilateral measures and broadened protectionist ones. In fact, Biden not only relies upon Trump’s actions but also has expanded them. Trade policies have not changed much between Presidents Trump and Biden. In fact, Biden, relying upon Trump’s actions, has kept them in place. There has been a slight change in tune: a little more reconciliation with Europe and the OECD. However, it is extremely difficult to identify any significant difference concerning China, Russia, and Iran. Has Trump’s America First policy morphed into Biden’s America First or worker-centric trade policy? It looks that way. Let’s look at what Trump did, what Biden has done so far, and the challenges ahead.

The purpose of this s tudy is to analyz e the COVID-19 political discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, to identify what linguistic strategies politicians use to reveal their position and ideologies, and how the social and political situations are reflected in their discourse. The data consist of speeches made by Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, and Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, in terms of text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice using Fairclough’s 3D model. The findings show that the two politicians used terms that separate ‘us-group’ and ‘them-group’, while showing differences in specific vocabulary choices and discourse composition strategies. Trump tended to use positive self-presentation, optimistic expressions, and focused on economic policies, while Cuomo tended to use objective figures, emphasize seriousness, and focus on prevention policies. This forms the way the public perceives society, and conversely, social situations such as racial discrimination and hate issues also affect and interact with discourse strategies.

In this essay, the author will discuss recent United States Supreme Court cases as well as international trade cases decided this year by the specialized international trade courts in the United States. Let me then discuss recent U.S. trade action concerning China and put this in the context of President Trump’s generalized approach to China and international trade. This article will conclude with a few observations pertaining to the upcoming presidential election in the United States. The. Supreme Court recently ruled on two highly politicized and historic cases on executive power. What has been almost totally overlooked is an international trade decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade. That case and earlier trade cases indicate the start of a multifaceted attempt to restrict the president’s trade policies. Either the 2020 presidential election will put a stop to President Trump’s reliance on national security to establish disastrous trade policies, or the country will be in this mess for years to come.

This article attempts to elaborate upon the notion that anyway seems to play specific discursive functions in the institutional talk, Donald Trump Speech relevant to monologues rather than any other institutional talk related to turn-sequences, taking heed of how its usage is connoted in disparate settings of his monologic speeches. Drawing upon the observation pertaining to the monologic speeches of anyway in spoken language, it was shown that the use of anyway indicates the four certain discursive functions including resumptive, transitive, incremental, and strengthening markers in order to acquire his vested rights, or receive his votes, and maintain his favorable reputation. As for the heterogeneous nature of anyway between monologues and turn-sequences, it may be presumed that monologic anyway does not tend to function to close or alter ongoing narratives or themes, whereas its anyway may be utilized to indicate that interlocutors have the intention of increasing supplementary information or thoughts and highlighting absolute contentions; in addition, this may be related to a contemptuous function.

Donald Trump’s methods of operating and conducting national security and foreign policy are exactly the same as they would be if he was engaged in real estate transactions and deals. To Donald Trump, trade policy, foreign policy, and national security policy are transactions and zero-sum games. My thesis is straightforward: One can draw a straight line from Donald Trump’s ruthless mode of operating in the contentious world of New York real estate to his operations on the world stage today. From Queens to the world stage, there is a straight line from using threats and litigation to avoid commercial and contractual obligations to using threats and litigation in conducting the US foreign and trade policy. Especially as to policies pertaining to the World Trade Organization and the US–China trade relations. His weaponization of tariffs and economic sanctions is now being wielded as a principal tool of the US foreign policy for the first time since the early 1930s.

President Trump has, for the first time in the US trade history, aggressively redefined the US trade policy as a supporting actor in the US national security policy. His presidential actions have involved a broad array of legislation, such as trade sanctions and export controls. Most astonishing is that President Trump has imposed trade restrictions by relying upon unilateral findings of national security risks or the existence of national emergencies. We are now at a point where federal courts in the US have been asked to review the validity of presidential trade actions, specifically the central legality of the broad delegation of congressional trade authority over the last 75 years. I predict that the federal courts will uphold the separation of powers in the face of the outrageous and unprecedented onslaught of presidential tariff and trade actions by a president relying upon dubious claims of national security and national emergency.

With President Trump’s recent imposition of USD 34 billion in new tariffs on imports from China and China’s prompt retaliation, the US is now in its biggest trade war with China and other countries since the 1930s. President Trump’s policies focusing on threats, trade deficits and bilateral trade, as well as the movement away from the postwar international system, have been historical aberrations since 1945. The US trade diplomacy ought to concentrate on building coalitions and viable proposals for addressing trade issues, including those concerning the World Trade Organization rule-making and dispute resolution. This would help to ensure a rules-based trading system.

The US has invoked Article XXI of the GATT 1994 to justify its tariff measures on imports of steel and aluminum. However, the US’ tariff measures are not imposed for the protection of the US “essential security interests” but for economic and trade reasons. They do not satisfy the conditions listed under Article XXI (b) (i) to (iii) and should not be justified by them. They should not be considered as either national security measures or safeguard measures, but as ordinary trade restriction measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules and the US obligations. A panel or the Appellate Body not only has the jurisdiction to review this dispute, but is also capable of making findings and providing a recommendation. Even if the US has the discretion to impose tariff measures under Article XXI (b), whether it has been acted in good faith, is still subject to the WTO review. As regards the tariff measures, the US has not acted in good faith.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles are an unprecedented threat to the security of the United States, which has never been attacked by weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang’s provocations irritated President Trump and led him to openly consider military attacks against North Korea. The possibility of armed conflict between the United States and North Korea increased as both sides exchanged aggressive rhetoric. Military attacks against North Korea are virtually impossible in a legal as well as a practical sense. They will bring only disaster to all involved, including the US. The best way to resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue is to rehabilitate the multilateral channel for dialogue and then begin talks. What if President Trump, however, implemented military options against North Korea because of the nuclear weapons development? The focus of this essay is to explore whether Trump can adopt military options against North Korea and if so, what legal and political considerations he must take.

United States litigation against China in the WTO will be ground zero for the new Trump administration’s aggressive trade policy. Five important facts must be highlighted to better understand the likely actions of the Trump administration. First, heightened judicial advocacy within the WTO will be consistent with both the Bush and Obama administrations’ aggressive use of the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Second, international judicial activism is squarely within the context of unfolding historical changes in international relations. Third, China hawks in the Trump administration will be competing with a number of countervailing forces in the White House, throughout the administration, and in the federal courts. Fourth, the US Congress has the exclusive authority to regulate global trade. However, much of this exclusive authority has been delegated to the president. Fifth, Trump considers trade as a zero-sum transaction, with a focus on the bottom line, to the exclusion of all else.

Education is the manifestation of culture, and is an important component part of culture. International education and international students are vital for the country’s economy. The trump administration, under the slogan "America first," overhauled the U.S. immigration policy that has been in place for nearly half a century, with the core idea of prioritizing immigrants who can succeed in the United States and stand on their own feet economically, ensuring that immigrants identify with American values. Stop immigration in areas where terrorism is rampant and background checks are difficult to carry out. Deport illegal immigrants and reduce the number of immigrants; Encourage "quality immigration", eliminate "link immigration", abolish the green card lottery system, adopt points system and so on. The new immigration policy triggered heated debate, the American higher education and strict immigration policy or a willingness to stay in the United States, will affect the students work visa or reform will lead to high quality international talent loss, cumbersome application program, or will affect the quality of education for international students, the policy of science and engineering major is preferred, or will affect balance of American colleges and universities. The implementation of the trump administration's new immigration policy will not only affect the development of education, but also change the international competition pattern of education.