韓·美 聯合防衛體制에 관한 硏究

홍성덕 京畿大學校 政治專門大學院 2003 국내석사

본 연구의 목적은 한국 방위의 근간이 되고 있는 한·미 연합방위체제에 대한 분석을 통하여 1950년 유엔군 사령관에게 이양된 이래 현재까지 미군 장성인 한·미 연합사령관이 행사하고 있는 한국군의 전시 작전통제권의 환원의 필요성과 당위성을 제시하고 한·미 연합방위체제의 발전방향을 제시하고자 한다. 1970년대 박정희 정권은 미군의 일방적 철군에 대한 불안감으로 보다 자주적인 안보외교정책을 개진하기 시작하였고, 이러한 노력은 결국 현재의 한미 연합방위체제를 이루어 냈다. 경제력 성장을 바탕으로 초기 일방적 의존에서 벗어나 미국과 방위비를 분담하고 나아가 국제사회에 기여하고 있는 상황에까지 이르렀다. 국제 안보환경과 한·미 관계는 냉전의 종식과 한국의 경제·방위력의 발전과 더불어 상당부분 변화하였지만 한국은 대미 군사관계에서나 대북 관계에서 여전히 정치·안보적 대미 의존이 크다. 최근 잇따른 주한미군관련 재배치 논의 등을 계기로 주한미군에 대한 근본적인 의문을 나타내는 목소리가 높아진 것은 이러한 상황을 반영한 것이라 하겠다. 미군의 주둔필요성은 인정한다 하더라도 SOFA 개정문제, 기지사용 문제, 전시 작전통제권의 환원 등 미군 주둔에 따른 한·미 관계의 현안들을 시급히 해결해야 한다는 여론은 계속 높아지고 있다. 부시 행정부하의 미 국방정책의 변화 가능성과 대북 관계 변화와 맞물려 한·미 관계의 발전적인 전환이 불가피하다는 의견이 지배적이다. 현재 한국의 작전통제권은 이원화된 상태로 1994년 12월 1일 평시 작전통제권은 한국의 합참의장에게 이양되었지만, 전시 작전통제권은 여전히 유엔군사령관을 겸하고 있는 한·미 연합사령관이 갖고 있다. 이원화된 작전통제권은 혼란을 야기할 수도 있다. 정부는 평시 작전통제권 이양으로 독자적인 작전지휘 체계를 확립하고 국가 위상을 제고했다고 평가하고 있으나 실질적인 내용을 보면 평시 작전통제권은 한계를 가지고 있다. 전시 작전체계의 수립, 조기경보를 위한 연합정보관리, 한·미 연합군사훈련의 주관, 연합교리의 발전 등 핵심적인 지휘권은 여전히 한·미 연합사령관에게 위임되어 있기 때문이다. 한·미 연합방위체제가 한반도 안보와 전쟁억제의 근간이었음을 부정할 수는 없지만 그 기여가 아무리 크다하여도 한·미 군사협력을 위하여 독립주권국가로 작전통제권을 미군이 행사하도록 하는 것은 시정되어야 한다. 미국은 많은 국가들과 군사동맹 또는 협력관계를 맺고 있지만 한국과 같은 형태는 유일한 것이다. 과거 미국의 지원이 한국군 전력 증강과 군사력 발전에 기여한 것도 사실이지만 무기체계의 대미 의존 및 지상군 위주의 편향 발전 등 적지 않은 문제점도 파생되었다. 주한미군의 역사를 보면 언제든지 미국의 필요에 따라 감축과 철수를 반복하였으며 앞으로도 마찬가지이다. 특히, 최근 미 국방부의 해외주둔군 재배치 검토에 따른 주한미군의 조정 가능성을 내비추고 있다. 한국은 북한과의 군사력 균형 유지에 있어 당장 균형유지 수준으로 끌어올릴 수는 없지만 주한미군에 유지하고 있는 조기경보체계, 공군력 등 첨단전력의 증강에 주력하여야 한다. 독자적인 군사지휘체제를 갖추고 있는 북한군과 비교하여 상대적 열세에 있는 독자적인 작전수행 능력과 전쟁기획 능력을 배양하기 위해서는 전시 작전통제권을 환원과 이를 통한 한국군 주도의 한·미 연합방위체제를 발전시켜 나가야 할 것이다. 우리와 비교적 비슷한 상황 하에서 미국과 협력하고 있는 미·일의 군사지휘관계처럼 서로 독립적인 지휘체제를 유지하며 유사시 협조기구를 통해 협력하는 방안도 참고가 될 것이다. The purpose of this thesis is to present necessities and justifications of the restoration of the Korean Military's operational control in wartime that has been exercised by the ROK-U.S. combined commander, an American general, since it was handed over to the UN commander in 1950 and to present a future course of the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System by analyzing the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System as the basis of Korean Defense. In 1970s, the Park Jung-hee Administration that had some anxiety for the American military withdrawal one-sidedly, set forth more independent diplomacy policy for national security and their efforts made the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System at this time. Today we get out of one-side dependence at early time through economic growth, bear expense in common with U.S. and contribute to International community. These independent efforts, however, cannot help facing its limits because of the structural contradiction that the U.S military exercise the Korean's operational control, when we consider that as a party of the partition that is standing face to face with the North Korea. The South Korea cannot exercise the sovereign power on its national security and on its own governing in the relations to America and in the relation to the North Korea, although the international situation of security and the relation of ROK-U.S. have been changed with the end of the Cold War and the increase of ROK's capability on economy and national defense. These days, with constant problems of U.S. armed force in Korea and with the South-North Summit-level Conference, many have expressed doubts about the existence of U.S. armed force in Korea, which reflects these situations. Although they admit the necessity of American army's stationing, the public opinions that many problems including the SOFA reformation, the use of military bases, and the restoration of` the rights for operational control in wartime must be solved are increasing. Moreover, dominant opinion is that the developmental reorientation of ROK-U.S. relation is necessary, according to the possibility of U.S. national defense policy's changing under Bush Administration and to the change of the North Korea-U.S. relation. Now the ROK's operational control is divided, and that means the operational control in peacetime was handed over to Korean general in December 1, 1994 while the operational control in wartime is given to the American general, a UN commander. The divided operational control may cause no less confusions. Korean Government estimate that the handing over made it establish independent operational controling system and save its authority. But in the practical dimension, the operational control in peacetime has limits because the combined commander, an American, has the important rights including the formulation of operation system in wartime, combined management of information for early warning, the supervision of ROK-U.S. combined troop drill, and the development of combined doctrine. No one can deny that the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System is the base of security in Korean peninsula and war restraint However, the rights of operational control must be given to Korea in side of protection of sovereignty. Korea is the only one state that hand over its whole rights for operational control to America while America has many military alliance and military cooperation with many states. In the past, the American supports helped Korea increase war potential and develop military capability, but there are no less problems including the dependence of arms' system and one-side development to a ground army. In the history, U.S. armed force in Korea has repeated reduction and withdrawal according to American will, and I think that it will be repeated again and again. In 2001, QDR already express their possibility of mediating American army abroad. Korea should increase war potential in ultramodern style including early warning system and Air Force capability though it has some difficulties in making balance with North Korean military capability. It is necessary that Korea restore its operational control and through it, Korea should develop the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System as a dominant position, for developing independent operation-exercising capability and the capability of war-formulation that are inferior compared with North Korea, having independent military controling system. We can consider the case of U.S.-Japan military relation that maintain their independent controling system and cooperate through cooperative organization in urgent time.

韓·美 聯合防衛體制構築의 發展方案 硏究

김호동 東國大學校 行政大學院 1997 국내석사

It is evident to us that preserving sovereignity would be a factor to lead to a better future. Even the economic development relies on it as well. There is no reason to comment upon the fact that the most important thing of the sovereignity would be military. But to a country without power equitable to its self-defense would rely on alliance. Alliance would mean to borrow power from a freindly country rather than losing a nation's sovereignity. In our country's point of view, we entrust our military power to the United States of America by means of alliance. But lately we have gained more power than the past to remodel the inequitable treaty between the United States of America and South Korea. Once again, I would strongly propose to remodel the treaty. Why should we take the lead in the transformation? It is because of us who are directly concerned to thls problem. So, we should seek for the system that would lead our destination. These days North Korea is coming very close to our alliance, U. S. A, which is an alarming fact to us, And all we could do was to watch. To solve this problem we should take the lead in this relationship by enlarging the security diplomacy. But it is an inevitable fact that without aid of U. S. A. there would be no shield to stop the war in Korea. Wouldn't there be any alternative to the previous fact? At least president Park was the man who push forward the self-defense program against the States. This program made the States to cancel the military withdrawl program. The circumstances of today has been altered and we ourselves have expanded national strength compared to the past. I would like to focus on bringing up a bright future which would be backed up by self-defense system from the relationship between the States and South Korea. We should watch the present move carefully to prevent the war. I would like to recommend three methods to improve the present. First of all, we should seek for security by conferences among the nations who are really concerned in the Korean problem. Secondly, we should build a flexible attitude to the States to recover our military controllership. Finally, we should constitute suitable system for our safety to get the lead in our problem. After all it is a simple truth that we need to make more researches to build a self-defense system. Our national interest would depend on professionals and various kinds of negotiations.

한·미 연합방위체제에 관한 연구 : 전시작전통제권 환원을 중심으로

허성민 연세대학교 대학원 2002 국내석사

본 연구의 목적은 한국 방위의 근간이 되고 있는 한·미 연합방위체제에 대한 분석을 통하여 1950년 유엔군 사령관에게 이양된 이래 현재까지 미군 장성인 한·미 연합사령관이 행사하고 있는 한국군의 전시 작전통제권의 환원의 필요성과 당위성을 제시하고 한·미 연합방위체제의 발전방향을 제시하고자 한다. 1970년대 박정희 정권은 미군의 일방적 철군에 대한 불안감으로 보다 자주적인 안보외교정책을 개진하기 시작하였고, 이러한 노력은 결국 현재의 한미 연합방위체제를 이루어 냈다. 경제력 성장을 바탕으로 초기 일방적 의존에서 벗어나 미국과 방위비를 분담하고 나아가 국제사회에 기여하고 있는 상황에까지 이르렀다. 그러나 북한과 대치하고 있는 분단 당사자의 입장에서 볼 때 한국군의 작전통제권을 미군이 행사한다는 구조적 모순 속에서 이러한 자주적인 노력들은 한계에 직면하지 않을 수 없었다. 국제 안보환경과 한·미 관계는 냉전의 종식과 한국의 경제·방위력의 발전과 더불어 상당부분 변화하였지만 한국은 대미 군사관계에서나 대북 관계에서 여전히 정치·안보적 주권을 행사하지 못하고 있다. 최근 잇따른 주한미군 관련 문제발생과 남북정상회담을 계기로 하여 주한미군에 대한 근본적인 의문을 나타내는 목소리가 높아진 것은 이러한 상황을 반영한 것이라 하겠다. 미군의 주둔 필요성은 인정한다 하더라도 SOFA 개정문제, 기지사용 문제, 전시 작전통제권의 환원 등 미군 주둔에 따른 한·미 관계의 불평등 요소들을 시급히 해결해야 한다는 여론은 계속 높아지고 있다. 새로운 부시 행정부하의 미 국방정책의 변화 가능성과 대북 관계 변화와 맞물려 한·미 관계의 발전적인 전환이 불가피하다는 의견이 지배적이다. 더욱이 미국은 탈냉전 후 NATO, 일본 등과의 동맹관계를 재조정하여 왔으며 한국과도 동맹관계 재조정을 추진한 하였으나 북 핵문제의 돌출로 유보된 바 있다. 이러한 환경 속에서 한국은 새로운 차원의 발전적인 한·미 관계의 유지와 한반도 문제해결의 주도적 역할을 위해 상당 수준 발전한 국력과 방위력에 상응하는 군사주권 확보의 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 여기서 제기되는 군사주권의 확보를 위해서는 우선 현행 한·미 연합방위 체제에서 연합사령관이 가지고 있는 한국군의 전시작전통제권 환수가 무엇보다도 근본적이고 시급한 문제이다. 현재 한국의 작전통제권은 이원화된 상태로 1994년 12월 1일 평시 작전 통제권은 한국의 합참의장에게 이양되었지만, 전시 작전통제권은 여전히 유엔군사령관을 겸하고 있는 한·미 연합사령관이 갖고 있다. 이원화된 작전통제권은 적지 않은 혼란을 야기할 수도 있다. 정부는 평시 작전통제권 이양으로 독자적인 작전지휘 체계를 확립하고 주권국가로서의 위상을 제고했다고 평가하고 있으나 실질적인 내용을 보면 평시 작전통제권은 한계를 가지고 있다. 전시작전체계의 수립, 조기경보를 위한 연합정보관리, 한·미 연합군사훈련의 주관, 연합교리의 발전 등 핵심적인 지휘권은 여전히 한·미 연합사령관에게 위임되어 있기 때문이다. 한·미 연합방위체제가 한반도 안보와 전쟁억제의 근간이었음을 부정할 수는 없지만 그 기여가 아무리 크다하여도 한·미 군사협력을 위하여 독립 주권국가의 주권 수호적 차원에서 작전통제권을 미군이 행사하도록 하는 것은 시급히 시정되어야 한다. 미국은 많은 국가들과 군사동맹 또는 협력관계를 맺고 있지만 일국의 작전통제권을 전적으로 이양 받아 소유·행사하는 국가는 한국이 유일한 것이다. 과거 미국의 지원이 한국군 전력 증강과 군사력 발전에 기여한 것도 사실이지만 무기체계의 종속과 지상군 위주의 편향 발전 등 적지 않은 문제점도 파생되고 있다. 전시 작전통제권의 결여로 인해 한국은 대북 관계와 주변국과의 외교에 있어서 미국의 그림자에 가려 항상 주도권을 갖지 못하였으며, 북한과의 군비통제나 군사대화에 있어서도 북한의 선전선동과 전술적 횡포에 제대로 대응할 수 없었다. 주한미군의 역사를 보면 언제든지 미국의 필요에 따라 감축과 철수를 반복하였으며 앞으로도 마찬가지이다. 이미 2001년 QDR에서 해외 미지상군에 대한 조정 가능성을 내비추고 있다. 한국은 북한과의 군사력 균형 유지에 있어 당장 저울추를 끌어올릴 수는 없지만 주한미군에 유지하고 있는 조기경보체계, 공군력 등 첨단전력의 증강에 주력하여야 한다. 독자적인 군사지휘체제를 갖추고 있는 북한군과 비교하여 상대적 열세에 있는 독자적인 작전수행 능력과 전쟁기획 능력을 배양하기 위해서는 전시 작전통제권을 환원과 이를 통한 한국군 주도의 한·미 연합방위체제를 발전시켜 나가야 할 것이다. 우리와 비교적 비슷한 상황 하에서 미국과 협력하고 있는 미·일의 군사지휘관계처럼 서로 독립적인 지휘체제를 유지하며 유사시 협조기구를 통해 협력하는 방안도 참고가 될 것이다. The purpose of this thesis is to present necessities and justifications of the restoration of the Korean Military's operational control in wartime that has been exercised by the ROK-U.S. combined commander, an American general, since it was handed over to the UN commander in 1950 and to present a future course of the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System by analyzing the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System as the basis of Korean Defense. In 1970s, the Park Jung-hee Administration that had some anxiety for the American military withdrawal one-sidedly, set forth more independent diplomacy policy for national security and their efforts made the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System at this time. Today we get out of one-side dependence at early time through economic growth, bear expense in common with U.S. and contribute to International community. These independent efforts, however, cannoThelp facing its limits because of the structural contradiction that the U.S military exercise the Korean's operational control, when we consider that as a party of the partition that is standing face to face with the North Korea. The South Korea cannot exercise the sovereign power on its national security and on its own governing in the relations to America and in the relation to the North Korea, although the international situation of security and the relation of ROK-U.S. have been changed with the end of the Cold War and the increase of ROK's capability on economy and national defense. These days, with constant problems of U.S. armed force in Korea and with the South-North Summit-level Conference, many have expressed doubts about the exist ence of U.S. armed force in Korea, which reflect s these situations. Although they admit the necessity of American army's stationing, the public opinions that many problems including the SOFA reformation, the use of military bases, and the restoration of the right for operational control in wartime must be solved are increasing. Moreover, dominant opinion is that the developmental reorientation of ROK-U.S. relation is necessary, according to the possibility of U.S. national defense policy's changing under new Bush Administration and to the change of the North Korea-U.S. relation. The U.S. has promoted the reorientation of the alliance with NATO, Japan and ROK after the post-Cold War, but they were reserved because of the doubt that North Korea had nuclear weapon. In these situations, ROK wants to have the military sovereignty suited to its development national power and defense capability for the maintenance of the ROK-U.S. relation in the new dimension and for playing a dominant role in Korean Peninsula problems. For the insurance of the military sovereignty, it is urgent to restore the Korean Military's rights for operational controling in wartime that has been exercised by the ROK-U.S. combined commander, an American general, in the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense Setup. Now the ROK's operational control is divided, and that means the operational control in peacetime was handed over to Korean general in December 1, 1994 while the operational control in wartime is given to the American general, a UN commander. The divided operational control may cause no less confusions. Korean Government estimate that the handing over made it establish independent operational controling system and save its authority. But in the practical dimension, the operational control in peacetime has limits because the combined commander, an American, has the important rights including the formulation of operation system in wartime, combined management of information for early warning, the supervision of ROK-U.S. combined troop drill, and the development of combined doctrine. No one can deny that the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System is the base of security in Korean peninsula and war restraint. However, the rights of operational control must be given to Korea in side of protection of sovereignty. Korea is the only one state that hand over its whole rights for operational control to America while America has many military alliance and military cooperation with many states. In the past, the American supports helped Korea increase war potential and develop military capability, but there are no less problems including the dependence of arms' system and one-side development to a ground army. Without the rights of operational controling in wartime, Korea could not dominate its diplomacy with North Korea and other countries, and could not correspond properly to North Korea's wrong propaganda and tactical violence. In the history, U.S. armed force in Korea has repeated reduction and withdrawal according to American will, and I think that it will be repeated again and again. In 2001, QDR already express their possibility of mediating American army abroad. Korea should increase war potential in ultramodern style including early warning system and Air Force capability though it has some difficulties in making balance with North Korean military capability. It is necessary that Korea restore its operational control and through it, Korea should develop the ROK-U.S. Combined Defense System as a dominant position, for developing independent operation-exercising capability and the capability of war-formulation that are inferior compared with North Korea, having independent military controling system. We can consider the case of U.S.-Japan military relation that maintain their independent controling system and cooperate through cooperative organization in urgent time.

韓·美 聯合防衛體制 發展方案 硏究

정진섭 東國大學校 行政大學院 2002 국내석사

During the past half century, ROK-US Combined Defense Structure has changed several times and enabled war deterrence on the Korean peninsula and immense economic development of Korea despite occasional disagreement between the two nations. However, currently Republic of Korea is not equipped with self defense capabilities since United States has provided security support for the past half century. This fact generated Korean people will to receive the wartime operational control authority following the transfer of Armistice (peacetime) operational control authority in 1994. Current ROK-US Combined Defense Structure is advantageous in that it can effectively conduct missions under single command structure in contingency. However, It has descended korean people's efforts and willing for self defense. And also Combined Forces Command that conduct operational control authority in wartime has structural and operational problem. Combined defense structure led by United States has been criticized for being based on US security policy rather than ROK-US alliance, especially in critical situations on the Korean Peninsula. In addition, since the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty has undergone no change whatsoever since it was concluded in 1953, there are elements contradicting current situation. Therefore, this study provides course of action for building a more powerful ROK-US Combined Defense Structure through improvement on legislative and systemic problems and proposes reconstruction method for the ROK-US Combined Defense Structure. In addition, this study includes issues related to the reconstruction of ROK/US Combined Defense Structure and pros and cons in Republic of Korea receiving the wartime operational control from Combined Forces Command. In the future we must pursue parallel combined defense structure as it the case for Japan and United States and Germany and the United States since it is the aspirations of the Korean people. The new combined defense structure must also consider the merits of the defense structure of Japan and United States and the security situation of Korean peninsula. But parallel combined defense structure has some limits. In order to resolve this problem, existing Combined Forces Command (CFC) and Military Committee(MC) should be changed to Combined Coordination Center(CCC). To enlarge combined operational capability the Military Planning Group (MPG) will be organized under Combined Coordination Center (CCC). Also this study provides the course of action for partnership system for regional security through mediation of USFK function and size and coordination between Korea, United States and Japan, China, Russia. In the end, current ROK-US Combined Defense Structure will be changed in accordance with situation change and mutual agreement between ROK and US. But there is no change in the near future. So we have to enhance our combined defense structure by improving legislative and systemic and recognizing of the security situation of Korean peninsula. And in preparing for the transition of the wartime operational control authority, we have to design the best ROK/US Combined Defense Structure and do utmost effort to prepare development of new defense structure. It will contribute to materialize self defense of Korea more early timeframe.

統一韓國의 韓美 聯合防衛體制 硏究

임성채 崇實大學校 統一政策大學院 1996 국내석사

한미 군사협력의 발전방향 : 연합방위체제 중심으로

김광석 서강대학교 공공정책 대학원 2000 국내석사

한미 연합작전수행능력 분석과 대비방향 : 2015년 전시 작전통제권 전환에 따른 신방위체제를 중심으로

양성안 조선대학교 정책대학원 2011 국내석사

작전통제권은 6·25 전쟁 초기인 1950년 7월 당시 이승만 대통령이 유엔(UN)군 사령관인 맥아더 장군에게 한국군에 대한 “지휘권”을 이양하게 된 것을 기점으로 반세기 동안 한반도에 대한 한·미 연합방위체제로 자리매김 되어온 지휘체계로서 북한군과의 군사적 견제속에서 법적, 제도적으로 시대적 상황, 국가 이익 등과 연계되어 변화하고 유지되어 왔다. 그리고 한국은 자주권을 가진 국가로서 1994년도에 평시(정전 시 포함) 작전통제권을 환수(withdrawal)하였지만 전시 작전통제권은 아직 환수하지 못해 국가 원수인 대통령이 통수권 행사 차원에서 자국의 군대에 대한 전시 작전권을 행사하지 못하는 기이한 현상과 비극을 자아내고 있다. 물론 전시 작전통제권 전환을 위해 노무현 대통령의 참여정부 시절 미국과 2012년 4월 17일에 전환하기로 합의했지만 이명박 정부가 들어서면서 보수세력의 반대와 여론, 천안함 폭침 사건 등을 계기로 미국의 오바마 대통령과 합의하여 「한·미 연합사 해체 및 전시 작전통제권 이양 시기」를 2015년 12월 1일로 연기하게 된다. 그래서 지금까지 그래 왔듯이 한국의 국가수반인 대통령은 군 통수권의 핵심인 작전 지휘권을 전시 작전통제권 전환 시까지 제한적으로 행사해야 한다. 그리고 전시 작전통제권 전환은 한국의 주권 회복차원에서 중요한 의미가 있으며, 북한의 군사적 위협을 냉철하게 고려하고 국가안전을 보장하는 차원에서 신중하게 해결하여 돌이킬 수 없는 시행착오를 없애야 할 것이다. 한국은 2015년이 전시 작전통제권 전환의 최종시한(最終時限)이라는 비장한 각오로 내실 있고 치밀하게 준비해 나가야 한다. 그러기 위해서는 일방적 대미(對美) 의존에서 탈피하고 상호 호혜(互惠)와 한·미 연합방위를 주도할 수 있는 우리 군의 능력을 구비해야 한다. 우리 군의 능력을 구비하기 위해 군사력의 기반을 구축하고, 한·미 동맹의 질적 개선과 전략적 비전(Vision)을 제시할 수 있도록 소모적인 논쟁이나 정쟁을 지양하고 범정부 차원에서 관심과 지원에 총력을 기울여 소홀함이 없어야 할 것이다. 전시 작전통제권을 전환한 이후 한국군은 미국의 해외 주둔 미군 재배치 계획과 주한 미군의 전략적 유연성에 대한 대안을 마련하고 한반도 전구 작전을 지휘할 수 있는 능력을 하루빨리 갖춰야 한다. 그리고 과거 경제적 빈곤과 세계적 경제 불황을 극복한 국제사회의 책임 있는 국가로서 안보적 측면에서 미국의 안보 우산에서 과감히 탈피하여 자주 국방 태세를 확립하고, 국력의 신장을 도모하여 국격(國格)을 한 층 격상시킬 수 있는 중요한 전환점으로 활용해야 할 것이다. 앞으로 미국과의 관계는 피를 나눈 형제 이상의 혈맹으로 구축된 한·미 동맹을 기초로 천안함 폭침사건(2010. 3. 26), 연평도 기습 포격(2010. 11. 23) 등과 같은 북한의 도발에도 한 치의 흔들림이나 갈등도 발생하지 않도록 미래 지향적인 전략적 동반자 관계와 동맹체계 유지를 위해 최고 수준의 신뢰와 안정적인 우호관계를 유지해야 할 것이다. Since the early stage of Korea War (6․25 war), the wartime authority of operational control which was transferred to US from ROK by president Lee, Seung-Man, has been positioned as a line of command under the ROK and US Mutual Defense Treaty for a half century. In the capacity of ROK with his sovereignty, OPCON in peacetime was transferred to ROK from US in 1994, but OPCON in wartime has not been transferred yet. It is a curious and tragic drama that the Armed Forces are not under the presidential control. During the term of President Rho, he came to an agreement on the transfer of OPCON in wartime by 17 April 2012, but President Lee postponed it and the disorganization of Combined Forces Command by 1 Dec 2015. The ROK President only has limited authority on his Armed Forces. From this point of view, it is very important for ROK to recover it's sovereignty. We have to consider that the North Korean armed forces have become more threaten than before and we must be careful in order to secure our national security and not to waste our efforts. It has to be fixed firmly in our memory that the deadline is 2015, therefore ROK needs to prepare for the transference with carefully thought-out plan and must make a heroic decision. To achieve this, we must break away the lopsided dependence upon US, and possess our own capability of national defense in the ROK and US Mutual Defense level. And, we have to drive out the basis of the military power in order to possess the capability of Armed Forces. In addition, we must avoid exhausting arguments or a political strife to build a comprehensive alliance relationship in quality and show strategic visions. After withdrawal of armistice OPCON of ROK forces from CDR, CFC by the ROK government, Korean forces not only need to prepare alternatives against Global Defense Posture Review and strategic flexibility of US forces, but also prepare to conduct operations in KTO as soon as possible. And it is time to grow out of situation under the umbrella of nuclear offered by US and then we have to use this chance which might change our international position from lower to higher level. The ROK and US relationship was cemented in blood, and their alliance needs to remain steadfast in its commitment to ensure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. And they must keep the partnership for peace and for sharing strategic vision. Key words : (Authority of) Operational Control, ROK-U.S Alliance, Combined Operations, New Allied Defense System

韓·美 軍事協力關係의 發展方向에 關한 硏究

김태훈 忠南大學校 行政大學院 2002 국내석사

During past 50 years, the ROK-US combined defense system was a decisive security assurance device, which has deterred the aggression of North Korea. And it will also contribute greatly to ROK's securing an overwhelming strategic superiority in Korean peninsula and furthermore to ROK's role of a strategic power in Northeast Asia region. However, during past 10 years after the Cold War is over, the strategic environment around ROK had been shown structural changes in a more fundamental dimension. As a result, in the South-North relation dimension and the Northeast Asia region dimension, ROK's strategic role is also changing in quality. After 1995 when it became 50 years that the ROK-US security cooperative relation has been estabilished, the Korean peninsula has been at the center of changing. And this has given us challenges as well as oportunities toward future. Now, the readjustment of the ROK-US security alliance relation in the 21st century is becoming our crucial issue in step with the changes of peripheral security conditions. As this time, the purpose of this study is to reexamine the researches of ROK-US security cooperative relation for the past half-century and to find it's desirable directins of development as the international order has changed. Especially, focuring on whether the ROK-US Combined Forces Command(CFC) and it's combined force are reasonable to our security strategic requirements which will be rasied in near future, this study seeks to find it's problems and solutions and to design new forms and contents of ROK-US military cooperative relation for the middle and long term period. This study consists of 6 chapters and the contents of each chapter are as follows. The first chapter, as an introductin of this study, describes the purposes, methods, and designs of study. Chapter 2 presents a future desirable model of ROK-US military cooperative relation through considering NATO and US-Japan military cooperative relation. Chapter 3, as a 'history', this study's theoretical background, considers the establishing process of ROK-US military cooperative relation from 1945 through Korean War to present as well as the basic structure and employment of CFC's command system which has been the basis of ROK-US combined defense system. Chapter 4, as a 'situation', analyzes major aspects as international order has been changed, assesses the positive side and negative side of present ROK-US combined defense force and raises it's necessity, and presents the considerations when we deal with this problems. Chapter 5, as a 'prospect's of the chapter 3 and 4, presents promoting policy plan(starting point, policy objective, promoting plan, agreements with US) for each step and some 'policy proposals' needed to consider when policy-making process. Chapter 6, as a 'conclusion', summarizes this study. Though this study ends with the level of presenting some problems, I eagerly hope that some of things that this study focuses will be utilized in making and promoting related policies.

韓·美間의 國家安保戰略에 關한 硏究 -聯合防衛體制를 中心으로-

양재구 中央大學校 大學院 1996 국내석사

한·미 동맹관계의 증진방안에 관한 연구

김용훈 조선대학교 정책대학원 2004 국내석사

Republic of Korea(South Korea) and the United States of America have not only shared the universal worth of democracy in the guises of freedom and peace, but have also formed alliances for half a century. The most important aim of the alliance is to prevent the outset of war; thus, restoring peace amidst destructive events, like the diffusion of enormous killing weapons internationally and the 9-11 terror. However, even if the alliance put an end to the cold war in Korea, the division still remains. The alliance between the two nations is beneficial. On one hand, it diminishes the threats posed by the military menace of North Korea. On the other hand, it largely contributes to the economic development of Korea and the maintenance of peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The alliance, however, is lacing new issues and challenges, such as the retraction of the cold war, the progress of the North and South Korea peace talks, and the anti-America campaign of Koreans. Because the two countries failed to adapt to the changing environment, the alliance still has more rooms for improvement The two countries must be resilient enough to keep the alliance strong, especially in the Korean Peninsula. They should also strive to maintain this alliance for the stability of Northeastern Asia although the peace regime has already been built and unified the nations. Accordingly, there is a need to adopt or formulate new methods or practices which can deal with the changing or transitional factors. It is not enough to maintain the alliance for 50 years, but certain things have to be done in order to keep it strong. This paper aims to reaffirm the importance of the alliance between South Korea and the United States of America, with emphasis on its significant contributions. Chapter Ⅰ I presents the aim, method and scope of the study. It also includes a summary of the direction of the South Korea-U.S.A. alliance. Chapter Ⅱ traces the beginnings and development of the South Korea-U.S.A. alliance. Chapter Ⅲ discusses the importance and the benefits of the alliance between South Korea and the U.S.A. Chapter Ⅳ contains suggested solutions to address the problems regarding the alliance. Chapter Ⅴ reconsiders the importance of the alliance between South Korea and the United States of America through the understanding of the U.S Armed Forces stationed in Korea, and traces the cause of the anti-American campaign among Koreans, finding out a solution for it. Chapter Ⅵ summarizes all the important points and suggests the improvement plan for the Korea-US alliance. According to the dictionary, an alliance involves two or more people or organizations that help each other under international conditions. In relation to the study, two allied nations must be true to their aim in order to uphold the democratic ideology. It should not be forgotten that allied countries like South Korea and U.S.A. cooperate with each other in terms of various aspects like military, economic etc.