• Strategy21
• /
• 통권36호
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2015

Geopolitics or Political Geography is an essential academic field that should be studied carefully for a more comprehensive analysis of international security relations. However, because of its tarnished image as an ideology that supported the NAZI German expansion and aggression, geopolitics has not been regarded as a pure academic field and was rejected and expelled from the academic communities starting from the Cold War years in 1945. During the Cold War, ideology, rather than geography, was considered more important in conducting and analyzing international relations. However, after the end of the Cold War and with the beginning of a new era in which territorial and religious confrontations are taking place among nations - including sub national tribal political organizations such as the Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations - geopolitical analysis again is in vogue among the scholars and analysts on international security affairs. Most of the conflicts in international relations that is occurring now in the post-Cold War years can be explained more effectively with geopolitical concepts. The post - Cold War international relations among East Asian countries are especially better explained with geopolitical concepts. Unlike Europe, where peaceful development took place after the Cold War, China, Japan, Korea, the United States, Taiwan and Vietnam are feeling more insecure in the post-Cold War years. Most of the East Asian nations' economies have burgeoned during the Cold War years under the protection of the international security structure provided by the two superpowers. However, after the Cold War years, the international security structure has not been stable in East Asia and thus most of the East Asian nations began to build up stronger military forces of their own. Because most of the East Asian nations' national security and economy depend on the oceans, these nations desire to obtain more powerful navies and try to occupy islands, islets, or even rocks that may seem like a strategic asset for their economy and security. In this regard, the western Pacific Ocean is becoming a place of confrontation among the East Asian nations. As Robert Kaplan, an eminent international analyst, mentioned, East Asia is a Seascape while Europe is a Landscape. The possibility of international conflict on the waters of East Asia is higher than in any other period in East Asia's international history.

• 해양안보
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2023

동북아시아에서는 '바큇살 구조'라 불리우는 미국 중심의 양자동맹체제가 지속되고 있다. 그러나 최근 급변하는 동아시아의 국제정세와 이에 대응하기 위해 국가들 간 다각도로 협력하는 양상들을 보았을 때, 이러한 동맹체제의 변화 가능성에 대해서 진단해 볼 필요성이 제기되었다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 주 위협, 위협의 강도, 국가 간 신뢰도라는 요인을 바탕으로, 유럽과 동남아시아의 집단안보체제에 관한 사례연구 및 비교분석을 통해 이에 대한 영향을 분석하였다. 본 연구는 이를 바탕으로 동북아에서의 안보체제 변화 가능성에 대해서 연구를 진행하였으며, 현재의 갈등이 지속적으로 악화된다면 동북아를 넘어 동아시아 전반에서의 집단안보체제가 형성될 가능성이 분명히 존재한다고 보았다.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• 제51권6호
• /
• pp.1696-1707
• /
• 2019

This paper conducts a qualitative policy analysis of current challenges to safety culture and security culture in Southeast Asia and emerging best practices in Northeast Asia that are aimed at strengthening both cultures. It analyses lessons, including strengths and limitations, that can be derived from Northeast Asian states, given the long history of nuclear energy in South Korea, China and Japan. It identifies and examines best practices from Northeast Asia's Nuclear Security Centres of Excellence in terms of boosting nuclear security culture and their relevance for Southeast Asia. The paper accentuates the important role of the State in adopting policy and regulatory frameworks and in institutionalising nuclear education and training programmes to deepen the safety-security cultures. Best practices in and challenges to developing a nuclear safety culture and a security culture in East Asia are examined using three frameworks of analysis (i) a comprehensive nuclear policy framework; (ii) a proactive and independent regulatory body; and (iii) holistic nuclear education and training programmes. The paper argues that Southeast Asian states interested in harnessing nuclear energy and/or utilising radioactive sources for non-power applications must develop a comprehensive policy framework on developing safety and security cultures, a proactive regulatory body, and holistic nuclear training programmes that cover both technical and human factors. Such measures are crucial in order to mitigate human errors that may lead to radiological accidents and nuclear security crises. Key lessons from Japan, South Korea and China such as best practices and challenges can inform policy recommendations for Southeast Asia in enhancing safety-security cultures.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2020

This paper analyzes how the current Global Value Chain (GVC) of East Asia has been established, and attempts to project the future trajectory of GVC under New Normal in the global trading system. For this purpose, the framework of Ideology-Technology-Institution nexus is presented with focus on the dynamics of interplay between ideology and technology, duly recognizing the dual-aspect of technology- a platform for business and also for national defense. The paper analyzes how the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) of the 1990s played a role of "facilitator" in shaping the GVC of East Asia, where China plays 'factory for final assembly' and the US plays 'the largest consumer'. Under New Normal, digital technology is likely to play the opposite role of "disrupting" the GVC of East Asia, unlike ICT. The paper explores the mechanism behind this great disruption. What is driving New Normal is the US-China power competition, seeking for dominance in East Asia and beyond. This paper argues that New Normal is not temporary shock, but will last for some time. Under this presumption, the paper presents three scenarios for the future trajectory of GVC in East Asia.

• 한국정보통신학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국정보통신학회 2012년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.214-218
• /
• 2012

중국이 명실상부한 세계적 강대국으로 부상하고 있다. 2011년 현재 보편적 국력으로 보았을 때 중국은 미국 다음으로 강한 국력을 가진 국가로 아시아를 넘어 세계적인 패권국으로 성장하고 있다. 중국이 이와 같은 강대국으로 부상하면서 동아시아에서 미국중심의 국제정치질서가 도전받고 있으며, 특히 동아시아 해양패권을 놓고 기존의 패권국인 미국과 경쟁이 본격화 되고 있다. 이러한 중국과 미국과의 경쟁은 동아시아의 해양을 무대로 진행되고 있어 해양을 통해 국가의 안전과 번영을 유지하고 있는 해양국가인 한국의 안보에 직접적인 영향을 미치고 있다. 중국의 부상에 따른 동아시아 해양에서의 미-중 군사경쟁 배경과 현황, 그리고 이러한 경쟁이 동아시아와 한국안보에 미치는 영향과 대책을 모색해 본다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.37-78
• /
• 2022

냉전의 종식 이후, 압도적인 국력을 바탕으로 유지되어왔던 미국 주도의 국제질서는 미국의 글로벌 리더십 약화와 지역 강대국들의 부상이 맞물리면서, 점차 단극체제에서 양극체제 또는 다극체제로 재편되고 있는 양상이다. 지정학적으로, 동아시아는 미국 뿐 아니라 지역 강대국들의 국익이 첨예하게 중첩되고 대치되는 지역이라는 관점에서, 국제질서의 재편이 가져올 안보 불안정 상황에 관한 논의가 끈임없이 제기되어져 왔다. 본 연구는 국내에서 이루어지는 안보 논의가 적절한 위기 인식과 평가에 근간하고 있는지에 대한 비판적 분석을 시도한다. 본 연구는 국내에서 대두되는 안보 위기론이 과대 위협 인식에 기인하는 경향이 있음을 지적하고, 국제질서의 재편이 지역 안보에 가할 수 있는 위협의 본질과 수준에 대한 보다 객관적인 평가와 개념화의 필요성을 강조한다. 본 연구는 양극체제 (1950-1990), 단극체제 (1991-2008), 다극체제 (2009-현재)로 구분되는 기간 동안, 동아시아 지역에서 발생하는 분쟁 양상(빈도와 강도)의 변화에 대한 분석을 토대로, '무력 분쟁'의 관점에서, 동아시아가 다른 지역에 비해 국제질서 재편에 크게 취약하지 않았으며, 독자적인 평화를 구축하고 유지해 왔음을 보여준다. 이 연구는 국제질서의 재편으로 인해 가중되는 외교·안보적 부담과 복잡화된 손익 계산이 반드시 중대한 안보 위협으로 해석될 필요가 없음을 강조한다. 불필요한 안보 이슈 확대가 대한민국의 외교적 전략 공간을 축소시킬 수 있기 때문이다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.44-64
• /
• 2017

Russia's push in the Asia-Pacific region stems from its interests that have the national, regional and global dimensions. In their turn, the aims of this policy are civilizational, geopolitical, economic and prospective, with a long-term outlook. In the course of their achievement, cooperation with Northeast Asia's countries will play one of the key roles owing to the factors of geographic proximity, Northeast Asia's economic potential, risk hedging and a growing influence Northeast Asia exerts upon the global development. A new cooperation paradigm between Russia and the states of Northeast Asia should be based upon establishing and cementing self-reproducing ties. This is the central aim of Russian initiatives in relations, with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mongolia and China. However, numerous obstacles ranging from Russia's absence in the regional free trade agreements and supply-production chains of value-added production to the permanent international instability generated by Pyongyang's missile-nuclear developments hamper the practical implementation of this task. Realizing the necessity to give an additional impetus to this new cooperative paradigm, Russia has to develop directions with an apparent consolidating effect. The most promising may be the establishment of a permanent security forum based upon Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism chaired by the Russian Federation. The urgency of this measure and its expected support stem from the necessity to strengthen security in Northeast Asia, a task neither the US-led hub-and-spoke system nor ASE-AN-led multilateral dialogue venues have been able to resolve. The issues addressed at the security forum must include the unification of approaches to North Korean nuclear issue and producing a document specifying actions of the claimants on the disputed maritime territories in the "direct contact" situations. At the expert level, Russia has elaborated on the idea to establish such a forum outlining the spectrum of the key directions of cooperation. With the urgency in the establishment of this dialogue venue, its agenda has to be coordinated with the agendas of the existing security systems presented by the US alliances and the ASE-AN-led multilateral negotiations. The practical implementation of this initiative will strengthen security in Northeast Asia as its challenges will be resolved in the pre-emptive way based on coordinated approaches. Therefore, Russia as the Eurasian state will be one of the role players in the advent of the Asian century.

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.195-218
• /
• 2011

현재 동아시아에서는 경제통합을 둘러싼 논의가 활발히 진행되고 있다. 1997년 발생한 동아시아 통화위기는 역내에서 제도적인 협력체 형성을 위한 논의를 본격화 시키는 계기를 마련하였다. 이후 ASEAN+3 정상회의가 정례화 됨으로써 지역경제협력 및 경제통합 논의가 시작되었다. 또한, 동아시아에서는 역내외 다국적기업이 직접투자를 통해 생산공정을 역내 산업집적지에 분산(fragmentation)시키는 공정간 분업체제가 국제적 생산·유통네트워크를 구축함으로서 경제통합을 가속화시키는 역할을 하고 있다. 이러한 역내 네트워크는 각국·지역간 FTA체결을 통해 강화되었고 경제관계의 심화로 연결되고 있다. 그러나 동아시아는 지역 내 경제격차, 문화의 다양성과 사회·정치제도의 차이, 역사적 화해 등 산적한 문제를 가지고 있어 경제공동체 구성의 앞날이 순탄하지 못할 것이 예상되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 동아시아 지역협력강화 현황을 살펴보고 EU의 경제통합 성공사례의 시사점을 통해 동아시아 경제공동체 형성의 가능성과 구성의 논점을 고찰한다.

• 농업과학연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.182-189
• /
• 2000

The issue of food security will become one of the most widely concerned area of public policy in North East Asia coming 21st century. Although those countries such as China, Japan, South and North Koreas and Mongolia places emphasis on the need to have stable and reliable capacity for food production, it will be highly possible for these regions to experience the shortage of food supply due to growing population, expanding urbanization and rapid industrialization within next decade. Since world food markets are characterized as unstable structure and dominated by large multinational firms, their reliances on importing staple food may create the aggravation of food shortage problem in emergency situations. One possible proposal for solving food security in north-east region might be movements toward multilateral food supply assurance agreements as a component of trade negotiations among these countries. As measures for cooperation for securing food supply in these regions, following principles would be suggested; 1) encouraging agricultural cooperation based on private business, 2) exchange of technical and human resources rather than material support, 3) developing mutual concern and benefits, 4) managing joint buffer stock for staple food.

• 농업과학연구
• /
• 제40권1호
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2013

The following four aspects should be examined in detail to revitalize North-East Asian agricultural cooperation specialized with Korea, Japan, and China. First, quality and safety standards of agricultural food should be unified. Secondly, it is necessary to build a food security cooperative system in North-East Asia. If three countries build the system, they can overcome a problem such as unstable supply and demand due to natural disaster, and also they can cope with food crisis. Thirdly, to establish North-East Asian Agro-valley is needed. After forming food production belt that connects Korea, Hokkaido in Japan, and the three north-eastern provinces in China, it is possible to realize high value-added agriculture with producing and processing of complementary food for partner country. Lastly, trilateral FTA negotiations should be managed carefully with operating the agricultural special zone and exclusion or prolong period of removal of tariff on sensitive items.