• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.457-465
• /
• 2024

In the 21st century, the global security environment has undergone rapid changes, presenting South Korea with complex security dilemmas. This study aims to explore a new national security strategy for South Korea through the implementation of 'Positive Peace.' Based on Johan Galtung's concept of 'Positive Peace,' the study proposes a comprehensive approach to build sustainable peace by redesigning the peace process on the Korean Peninsula, establishing a multilateral security cooperation framework in Northeast Asia, expanding global peace contributions, promoting domestic social integration, and spreading a culture of peace. To realize these goals, the study discusses the need to redefine the role of the military, reallocate defense budgets, introduce the concept of a peace dividend, promote the peaceful use of science and technology, and legislate for the realization of the right to peace. The implementation of a 'Positive Peace' strategy aims to transform South Korea into a leading nation in peace, contributing to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, Northeast Asia, and the global community.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.57-94
• /
• 2018

Crisis of trust in Korean society, especially south-south conflicts among Korean political circle, civil society and peoples on the issue of the Korean peninsula policy driven by south Korean government, have weakened the sustainable and consistent energy of the policy for peace and unification of Korea peninsula. At the moment of drastic change of south-north relation in Korean peninsula, National agreement as a foundation of sustainable peace and unification policy has very important meaning. Because of this, national contract of unification as a kind of social concertation, has been demanded. National contract for peace and unification is an unprecedented process for making unofficial legal norm because it authorize quasi-legislative binding force on the agreement which is concluded by the Korean political circle, civil society and peoples for the peace and unification of Korean peninsula. National contract for peace and unification includes 'agreed aim and principles' for peace, prosperity and unification as well as process and result. And National contract for peace and unification, also is characterized long duration of aim achievement and openness of participating subjects. In terms of law, it will be legitimate source for comprehensive modification of international and internal law. In addition, The nature of National contract for peace and unification, as a people's law, should be considered as soft law which has the power to realize its contents through the enactment of legislation and policy. In order to guarantee the establishment and effectiveness of National contract for peace and unification, the setting of organization is need to determine the range of representatives, who participate in the process of contract making, procedure of contract and to carry out the contract after the conclusion of National contract for peace and unification. For the reason, the Council of National Contract for Peace and Unification as a independent administrative government committee and 'Act on National Contract for Peace and Unification' is needed.

• Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.58-82
• /
• 2024

Former South Korean President Moon Jae-in implemented a project called the Peace Initiative, which prioritized a "peaceful and prosperous Korean Peninsula" as the core national agenda and involved using a peace-based frame instead of a unification approach to address inter-Korean relations from a different perspective. This initiative was evaluated in this study using a revised version of the pyramid model to assess the input-output-result process underlying the project and determine whether it generated results that differed from those achieved by the previous administration. To these ends, this research compared Moon's key presidential speeches with those of his predecessor, Park Geun-hye, as input, news commentaries and responses from major players as output, and the trend of perceptional and attitudinal changes in public opinion as results. Although Moon failed to accomplish significant policy effects on inter-Korean relations because of geopolitical challenges and the transfer of power to the conservative party, the analysis revealed that the input, output, and partial results of inter-Korean dialogue reflect some progress.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2018

This paper is written to identify the opportunities and risks of the declaration of the end of the Korean War with North Korea. The declaration has been seriously discussed in the course of negotiation for the denuclearization of North Korea especially in 2018. For this purpose, this paper revisits the concepts of related terms such as peace, peace regime, peace agreement and declaration of the end of war. It assesses the background and intention of North Korean request for the declaration. Then, it analyzes opportunities and risks regarding South Korea, if it agrees on the declaration. As a result, this paper found that declaration of the end of the Korean War could provide South Korea with opportunities such as a progress on the North Korean denuclearization, contribution to the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and improvement on South Korea and North Korea relations. At the same time, the declaration could bring risks such as the dismantlement of the United Nations Command, demands of the withdrawal of US forces in Korea, a possible stop of North Korean denuclearization process and the weakening of South Korean peoples' awareness on North Korean threats. South Korea need to heed more on the risks than the opportunities, because the national security should be handled with caution.

• Korea and Global Affairs
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2017

This study speculates on responses to the nuclear threats of North Korea and mutual assistance and cooperation between South Korea, the U.S. and China for the unification of the Korean Peninsula. As for the North Koreas nuclear issue and unification of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea is the subject of national division, the U.S. is a responsible country in international issues and does not have diplomatic ties with North Korea. China is a traditional socialist nation and a supporter of North Korea. As North Korea's strategic weapons including nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are international issues, to defend against Kim Jung-Eun's unexpected acts, the three countries should actively cooperate with each other and develop countermeasures. However, with respect to the road map of the North Koreas issue, there are subtle differences between the U.S. and China in recognition of and sanctions against North Korea as a resolution of the U..N. Security Council. The U.S. has continued a deterrence policy and sanctions against North Korea based on joint threats between South Korea and the U.S. while China has showed a negative position in the process of solving the North Korean nuclear issue because of the unstable security derived from the U.S. 's intervention in the Korean peninsula. North Korea should change its diplomatic policy in a more concrete way towards world peace although it has continued trade of strategic weapons with Middle Eastern countries to maintain its political system. For example, to restart the summit talks and open multilateral security channels. Although the issue of unification of the Korean peninsula should be resolved by South and North Korea themselves, it is strange that South and North Korea depend on the logic of powerful countries for the resolution of a national problem. As for North Koreas nuclear and the Unification issues, peaceful solutions presented by South Korea seem more persuasive than the solution presented by North Korea which did not secure any international support. However, South Korea, the U.S. and China need to develop uni-directional two-tract strategies for sanctions against North Korea and talks with North Korea for peace on the Korean peninsula, and should continue to support the economic independence of North Korea.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.63-87
• /
• 2020

This article not only theoretically explores the necessity and effect of constructive minilateralism and subregionalism in Northeast Asia, but also delves into a series of practical solutions from viewpoint of seeking common ground while reserving differences in this region. The main contents are as follows: First, the various obstacles that hinder the formation of regionalism, subregionalism and minilateralism in the Northeast Asia are discussed. That is to say, geopolitical realism, My Country First ideology, exclusive nationalism in the socio-historical context, and North Korea's latest provocations, etc. Second, this article explores the philosophy and basic principles of realizing Northeast Asia regionalism and minilateralism. Third, in the 21st century, Northeast Asia becomes the center of the world. It examines the core points, controversial focus and platform for building sub regionalism in the region. Finally, based on the institutional platform such as minilateralism and sub regionalism, the various ideas and practical plans of cross-border cooperation among major countries in Northeast Asia were discussed. Because there are a lot of obstacles, so first of all it is more appropriate to promote economic or functional minilateralism or sub regionalism than multilateral cooperation. In order to promote the formation of regionalism and minilateralism in Northeast Asia, the issues to be considered are as follows: First, for the sake of leading regional solidarity and minilateral economic cooperation, it is advisable for China, as a regional economic power, to implement a stable and responsible diplomacy. Secondly, regional solidarity based on credible politics and security should be promoted for a long time beyond the level of economic cooperation. Third, the primary prerequisite for the realization of Northeast Asian regionalism is that in the process of denuclearization of North Korea, the stability and peace mechanism of the Korean Peninsula should be established. Fourth, with the continued hegemonic competition between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, under the circumstance that countries in the region are pushed into so-called "East Asian Paradox", it is profoundly important for them to consider transition from the hostile relationship as the "Thucydides trap" to the order of "coexistence" in which competition and cooperation run side by side, and the two countries should explore a conversion plan for the foreign policy line. This mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence of the US-China relationship will create a friendly atmosphere for the formation of regionalism in Northeast Asia. In the future, the cooperation of minilateralism in Northeast Asia will break the existing conflict between the maritime forces and the continental forces in order to promote peace. And along with the philosophy that "peace is economy", recent policies of common prosperity as the framework, such as China's "Belt and Road Initiative", North Korea's "Special Zone and Development Zone Policy", Russia's "New Eastern Policy", Japan's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative and South Korea's The "Korean Peninsula New Economy Map" are organically linked and it should promote the so-called "networked regionalism".

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.143
• /
• pp.119-140
• /
• 2017

After the collapse of the Cold War, there was a shift in perception at two points in discussions on Korean unification. The real core issue of unification is first, that it is a shift in perception that the real problem of unification is not the integration of systems, but the integration of people. Second, there is a shift in perception that there are many Koreans in the four major powers related to the Korean division and their distribution is associated with the tragic history of the Korean Peninsula. The historical trauma of Korean people resulted from the oppression of the collective libido of Koreans, stemming from the pain of modern history of the Korean Peninsula. In addition, the trauma of colonization, diaspora, and division all share the structure of suppression as the '$nation{\neq}states$'. Thus, unification aims to overcome the notion that '$nation{\neq}state$' can not be separated from the process of healing the historical trauma of Koreans. First of all, this article argues that in order to achieve unification on the Korean peninsula, it requires the process of healing the traumas of colonization, diaspora, and division. Second, this paper claims that Korean unification is not only a matter of two countries, but also of making peace by healing historical trauma in Northeast Asia. Third, this paper argues that the healing of Korean's historical trauma should begin with 'sympathy' for pain and proceed to the production of a 'national commonality' through 'communication of difference', which will create a unified peninsula.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.34
• /
• pp.93-127
• /
• 2014

During the four years following the sinking of the Cheonan frigate in 2010, the South Korean public opinion has seen changes in four basic ways. First, public polls with respect to the cause of the sinking show that 70% of the people consider North Korea as the culprit, while 20% maintain that it was not an act carried out by North Korea. Second, the opinions relative to the cause of the incident seem to vary according to age difference, generational difference, and educational difference. From 2011, people in their 20s showed 10% increase in regarding North Korea as the responsible party. People in their 30s and 40s still have a tendency not to believe the result of the investigation carried out by the combined military and civilian group. Third, the most prominent issue that arose aftermath of the Cheonan incident is the fact that political inclination and policy preference are influencing the scientific determination of the cause. In other words, scientific and logical approach is lacking in the process of determining the factual basis for the cause. This process is compromised by the inability of the parties concerned in sorting out what is objective and what is personal opinion. This confused state of affairs makes it difficult to carry on a healthy, productive debate. Fourth, rumors, propaganda, and disinformation generated by pro-North Korea Labor Party groups in the internet and SNS are causing considerable impact in forming the public opinion. Proposed Strategy 1. The administration can ascertain public trust by accurately determining the nature of the provocation based on accurate information in the early stages of the incident. 2. Education in scientific, logical, rational methodologyis needed at home, school, and workplace in order toenhance the people's ability to seek factual truths. 3. In secondary education, the values of freedom, human rights, democracy, and market economy must be reinforced. 4. It is necessary for the educational system to teach the facts of North Korea just as they are. 5. Fundamental strength of free democratic system must be reinforced. The conservative, mainstream powers must recognize the importance of self-sacrifice and societal duties. The progressive political parties must sever themselves from those groups that take instructions from North Korea's Labor Party. The progressives must pursue values that are based on fundamental human rights for all. 6. Korean unification led by South Korea is the genuine means to achieve peace in a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. The administration must recognize that this unification initiative is the beginning of the common peace and prosperity in the Far East Asia, and must actively pursue international cooperation in this regard.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to suggest to tackle the problem of poor cooperation in space activities, by re-examining the nature of the competitive political environment, and by building up a normative overarching framework, One of the most acute problems that hampers regional cooperation is the U.S. influence as represented in the MTCR, a supplier's cartel, as was evidenced in the ill-fate of the 2001 launch contract between China and Korea the next year. Notably China, the third space power in the world, has not been allowed to join the MTCR despite her application in June 2004. A possible reconciliation between China and the MTCR over her application for a partnership would set a cornerstone in building up a cooperative environment in the Northeast Asia. Just as the Helsinki process was an overarching norm building framework, comprising human rights, security and environmental issues, it would be desirable that a future peace framework in Northeast Asia dealing with the pending issues of Korean peninsula should also comprise of such broad issues as one relating to cooperation in space activities in the region. South Korea could tap expertise from her neighbor China. When South Korea become an independent space power either with her own technology or otherwise, she would be in a better position to play a role as a balancer in coordinating between the two neighboring space giants. It is remarkable that the Japanese led APRSAT has contributed much in establishing Sentinel Asia as a part of the Disaster Management Scheme, in that each participant, whether it be a state agency, or a private entity like a university or a research institute, can tap the common data to contribute to the common good of safety.