본 논문은 19세기 영국과 20세기 미국이 주도한 자유주의 세계질서를 비교하며, 두 체제가 자유주의를 기반으로 각각 다른 방식으로 패권을 유지한 과정을 분석한다. 19세기 영국은 해군력을 활용한 군사적 우위와 자유무역 확산을 통해 동의와 강제를 결합했으며, 20세기 미국은 국제기 구와 군사동맹을 통한 다자주의적 접근과 자유민주주의 이념 확산에 중 점을 두면서 동의와 강제를 결합했다. 논문은 ‘동의와 강제’라는 개념 틀 을 활용해 두 체제의 특징과 한계를 조명하며, 자유주의가 세계질서 안 정과 지속 가능성에 미친 영향을 탐구하고자 한다. 21세기 들어 미국 주 도의 자유주의 세계질서는 내부 비판과 중국의 부상 등 외부 도전에 직 면해 새로운 전환점을 맞이하고 있다. 본 연구는 팍스 브리태니커와 팍 스 아메리카나 사례를 통해 패권국이 강제력뿐만 아니라 동의에 기반한 정당성을 확보해야 자유주의 세계질서가 지속 가능함을 강조한다.

This research concentrates primarily on the foundation of the China International Commercial Court (CICC), considering the structure and functions of the Court. The main objective of CICC is to develop a dispute resolution mechanism for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Given its predominant Chinese orientation, CICC may encounter various challenges as the BRI’s contracting members possess diverse judicial systems. This article will focus on the jurisdiction of the court and the procedures of enforcement of its judgments, orders, and direction. The authors also discuss the types of legal and administrative changes necessary to make CICC an effective and successful dispute resolution body. The BRI is a crucial element of Chinese strategies to control the global economic system. Therefore, CICC can provide critical insight into the present Chinese goals about international order. This paper finally examines that CICC symbolizes a Chinese ambition to strengthen, modify, or challenge the current international system.

Self-defence has long been understood as an inherent right of a State when it is militarily attacked by another State. After September 11 attacks, however, there have been attempts to reinterpret the meaning of ‘armed attack’ under Article 51 of the UN Charter to include attacks by terrorists - non-State actors. This paper critically examines the legal and policy considerations that promote a right of self-defence against terrorists by means of thoroughly analyzing the text of the UN Charter, State practice and the jurisprudence of the ICJ. The paper finds that a terrorist attack as such may not be an armed attack within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter unless it is an act of a State or directly imputable to a State and is on a large scale with substantial effects. The paper concludes that unilateral use of force against a State in the name of self-defence is not the correct way of combating terrorism and that there are effective alternatives such as addressing the root causes of terrorism, resorting to law enforcement mechanisms or coercive countermeasures, and strengthening multilateralism.