• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.83-108
• /
• 2011

South America has vast energy resources with the renewable and non-renewable sources. However, many countries in the region are unable to guarantee adequate energy security both of energy supply and demand. Currently the possibility of energy security is high through regional energy integration based on the potential economic benefits. The difference of regulation system with the individual countries in the region impose strong barriers to integration process. Security of energy supply and its demand as well is fundamental issues in this region and regional energy cooperation is essential for getting rid of the insecurity of energy supplies. Despite of this problem, currently Latin American countries made a great effort to make multilateral energy security regime through projecting great energy infrastructure network(e.g. IIRSA) or mechanism especially in South America, which can give countries access to the region's reserve supplies by providing regulations and pricing mechanism with a shared energy market in this region. Brazil's active leading in the formulation of such movement toward energy security integration and participation of energy infrastructure network is good initiative to enforce this great energy security change. Politically and economically, Brazil's geographical position and the level of market size and oil and natural gas resources, in addition the leadership in renewable energy sources make it a sound candidate to take over the coordination of the secure integration of region's energy market. However, on the conditions of existing many obstacles such as, control of the output of the region's power plant, energy flows, the environmental matter within local community must be overcome to make more advance process and steps. Finally, to secure more institutional approach, this region must settle regional disputes resolution regime urgently.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.297-321
• /
• 2011

Under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540/1810 in 2004 to restrict the proliferation of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and their means of delivery, many countries have taken great efforts to, control the export of strategic items, thereby preventing the transfer of ABCM (atomic, biological, chemical weapons, missiles) and technologies and goods related to conventional weapons or dual-use items, Compliance Program (CP) in Korea or Internal Compliance Program(ICP) in Japan refers to a company's internal system or rules to comply with the export control laws and regulations, and is to prevent the unintentional illegal export of strategic items. This paper analyzes the Compliance Program (CP) of strategic export control system between Korea and Japan. Both countries have very similar legal frameworks under the guiding principles of multilateral export control regimes. However, there are some differences in actual procedures, classification service, supporting system, export license, sanctions for illegal exporters, etc. Korea should take more active and customer-oriented measures to promote the Compliance Program (CP) into Korean export companies for better awareness and positive attitude, practical information and education, smoothy government-firm communication, closer cooperation between Korea and Japan, etc.

• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2013

North Korea's continuous threats and provocative behaviors have aggravated tension on the Korean peninsula particularly with the recent nuclear weapons test. South Korea's best way to cope with this situation is to maintain the balance among three policy directions: dialogue, sanctions, and deterrence. Among the three, I argue that deterrence should be prioritized. There are different sources of deterrence such as military power, economic power, and diplomatic clouts. States can build deterrence capability independently. Alternatively, they may do so through relations with other states including alliances, bilateral relations, or multilateral relations in the international community. What South Korea needs most urgently is to maintain deterrence against North Korea's local provocations through the enhancement of independent military capability particularly by addressing the asymmetric vulnerability between militaries of the South and the North. Most of all, the South Korean government should recognize the seriousness of the negative consequences that North Korea's 'Nuclear shadow strategy' would bring about for the inter-Korea relations and security situations in Northeast Asia. Based on this understanding, it should develop an 'assertive deterrence strategy' that emphasizes 'multi-purpose, multi-stage, and tailored deterrence whose main idea lies in punitive retaliation.' This deterrence strategy requires a flexible targeting policy and a variety of retaliatory measures capable of taking out all targets in North Korea. At the same time, the force structures of the army, the air force, and the navy should be improved in a way that maximizes their deterrence capability. For example, the army should work on expanding the guided missile command and the special forces command and reforming the reserve forces. The navy and the air force should increase striking capabilities including air-to-ground, ship-to-ground, and submarine-to-ground strikes to a great extent. The marine corps can enhance its deterrence capability by changing the force structure from the stationary defense-oriented one that would have to suffer some degree of troop attrition at the early stage of hostilities to the one that focuses on 'counteroffensive landing operations.' The government should continue efforts for defense reform in order to obtain these capabilities while building the 'Korean-style triad system' that consists of advanced air, ground, and surface/ subsurface weapon systems. Besides these measures, South Korea should start to acquire a minimum level of nuclear potential within the legal boundary that the international law defines. For this, South Korea should withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Moreover, it should obtain the right to process and enrich uranium through changing the U.S.-South Korea nuclear cooperation treaty. Whether or not we should be armed with nuclear weapons should not be understood in terms of "all or nothing." We should consider an 'in-between' option as the Japanese case proves. With regard to the wartime OPCON transition, we need to re-consider the timing of the transition as an effort to demonstrate the costliness of North Korea's provocative behaviors. If impossible, South Korea should take measures to make the Strategic Alliance 2015 serve as a persisting deterrence system against North Korea. As the last point, all the following governments of South Korea should keep in mind that continuing reconciliatory efforts should always be pursued along with other security policies toward North Korea.

• 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.