• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.101-110
• /
• 2020

Since the third inter-Korean summit, the inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang and the U.S.-North Korea summit in Singapore and Hanoi, denuclearization negotiations are under way that will determine the fate of the Korean Peninsula. However, the negotiations are stalled and some skepticism is expected due to the conflicting U.S.-North Korea stance over the terms of denuclearization. The reason why it is difficult to realize the complete denuclearization of North Korea is that there are a variety of variables such as the traditional security dilemma in Northeast Asia, the hegemonic competition between the U.S. and China, and the formation of a new cold-war system. At a turning point when three inter-Korean summits and three U.S.-North Korea summits were held in the wake of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics, North Korea's complete denuclearization has become a must-do historical task for Northeast Asia and world peace beyond the Korean Peninsula. In this sense, the inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang is seen as a historic occasion for presenting a new milestone for the denuclearization of North Korea and the development of inter-Korean relations through the 9.19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration and the Military Agreement. Meanwhile, Constructivism, which has become the main paradigm of international political theory, presents the view that ideological variables such as ideology, history and culture define material factors, identity and interests of state actors, and that the structure of international relations can be changed through interaction. In this study, the historical meaning of the 9.19 Pyongyang Declaration, which is now past its first anniversary, was considered from a constructivist perspective. To this end, the development process of constructivism theory and analysis model and the development process of inter-Korean relations were briefly reviewed, and the military implications of the 9.19 Military Agreement were presented.

• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.8
• /
• pp.239-270
• /
• 2010

This thesis is to make an appropriate national defense policy of Republic of Korea through studying the Hegemony Strategy of United States. I searched the theory of hegemony. The hegemony was differently defined by the point of time and region. The strong power nations with the hegemony have been making efforts to maintain their hegemony everytime. I have conclusion that the presence of hegemony once emerged, it brought regional stability in place whether it is coercive or beneficial. The stability and instability of international order IS not exclusively dependent on hegemony. Even if the safety of hegemony cannot guarantee absolute stability of international order, there IS on doubt that the hegemony has enormous impact on that. According to the hegemonic theory, the history of mankind equals to the history of rising and falling hegemony. The international order was changed as the hegemony changes. The United States has been making efforts to maintain her global hegemony during the post cold-war era as well. Taking all these into consideration, relevant military strategy direction able to pursue national interest is that to make up for the relative weakness in the strategic environment. South Korea have to prepare security policy response as following. First, South Korea should build the military force equipped with advanced weapons in military technology sector and solidify military diplomatic relation able to form cooperative relation in wartime. Second, South Korea should make solid Alliance of Korea and U.S. Third, develop and maintain multilateral security cooperation of East Asia. Forth, we could realize that there are means that can neutralize opponent's strong point by seeking one or two and more asymmetry in the aspect of strategy, tactics, and means through asymmetric strategy. Than the military force of South Korea should develop into a force that is able to overcome to the traditional North Korea's threat and new type of conflicts. And the force should have sufficient strength and be deployed to effectively defend the Korean Peninsula. So, we need to establish a denial and defense system against any hostile neighboring country. Therefore, ROK military forces preparing for the future should try to construct a future military power to gradually establish enough strength for self-defense to prepare for a uncertain security environment and when the Korean Peninsula is unified in a future.

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.93-135
• /
• 2017

Due to their geographic proximity to Beijing, the Southeast Asian states under the fallout of the China's growing power are struggling to seek the art of diplomacy to promote their national interests. This study explores why Cambodia previously taking a pro-US strategy after the end of the Cold War has switched to a pro-China one in the context of the rise of G-2 system, the ASEAN regionalism, the country's national interest and Hun Sen's regime legitimation. Theoretically, this study takes a realist constructivist approach and tries to find how realist interests and norms have affected the Hun Sen's regime legitimation. The relationship between China and Cambodia has been deepened by mutual economic interdependence and increasingly stronger Chinese power. Especially, the Chinese massive economic aids and investment have enormously supported the regime legitimation of Hun Sen. On the other hand, The US value diplomacy promoting democracy and human rights has undermined the Hun Sen's legitimacy and strained the two nations' relationship. However, the Hun Sen's pro-China strategy is not to check and balance against US strategic interests and not to recognize the Chinese hegemonic position in Southeast Asia. It is a hedging against the US value diplomacy while maximizing economic and other gains from China. ASEAN has been playing a coordinating role to limit the scope of power politics among big powers and to mitigate its ramifications. Yet, since the US and Chinese interests are so keenly criss-crossing, Cambodia may continue to react to the G-2 system through bilateral relations with them.