한ㆍ중 FTA: 지역주의 맥락에서

주장환 아시아.유럽미래학회 2010 유라시아연구 Vol.7 No.1

This article argues that Korea's FTA has to be gone on like China and Japan from a context of regionalism, through the case of China. The aim of this research is explore the material implications to Korea through getting at root of the recognition and purpose of China and predicting her strategy. For this, first, this article examine the recognition of China about Korea-Sino FTA. More specifically, I examine the China's Strategy about Korea peninsula in this part. Second, this article analyzes the purpose and strategy of China that is designed for achieving those. Third, I present some suggestions about Korea for countermeasures on China's these approach and thinking. As a result, China positively uses FTA to realize the new foreign doctrine, 'harmonious diplomacy(Hexie Waijiao)', as a concrete tactic. So, China attaches more greater importance to diplomatic-security effect, to secure initiative of formation-process of east-asia regionalism etc. And China positively and quickly try to contract FTA with Korea. In addition, China is expected more positively setting for early contracting FTA with Korea. If so, what do Korea do? To answer this question, some preparations and countermeasure are needed as below perspectives. First, Korea has to discuss and decide the future effect after contracting FTA with China from a diplomatic-security dimension More concretely, Korea has to form a careful judgement about these problems, what position will do gain Korea in the process of reorganization of east-north asia and east-asia order in the future? Which way will do select Korea among ‘Asian-pacific way', ‘ASEAN way', ‘Japan way', ‘Chinese way' and an independent way. Second, Korea has to develop the promotion logic about economic dimension besides diplomatic-security dimension considering a particularity of Korea-Sino economic relationship. Especially, more attention is given to these situations, China has been Korea's the largest export destination since 2003 and the largest trade partner since 2004, producer goods is more than 80% in Korea-Sino trade, similarity of agriculture and fisheries industries etc. So, Korea has to set the strategy according to these particularities. Lastly, Korea has to needed analysis and judgement about type of FTA with China. As to analysis, China prefer FTA with narrow-negotiation boundary and low- tariffconcession level to the others. But, this article argues that it is a more advantageous FTA for Korea that is included service and investment issues in addition to agriculture and fisheries and manufacturing industry. Korea also is prepare to think the solution when China give Korea to 'Early Harvest Programme' that China has given to ASEAN in the negotiation-process of FTA.

한미FTA 재협상 가능성과 비준 전망

최병일 법무부 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.87

Korea and the United States have yet to ratify the Korea-US FTA('KORUS FTA'). Considering that the ruling party has majority seats at the National Assembly, ratification in Korea is not much contested. Rather than a matter of 'whether,' it is a matter of 'when.' In this regard, there has been a heated debate: some claimed the wisdom of ratifying ahead of the U.S., while others have argued for a 'wait and see' approach due to the uncertainty of the U.S. ratification of the KORUS FTA. Whereas the new Obama administration places high value on the KORUS FTA in terms of enormous economic opportunities, strengthening of the Korea-US alliance, and improving the leverage of the U.S. in the North East Asia, it is unlikely to move forward without addressing its concern on automobile. The Korean government made it clear that it would not renegotiate the auto provision of the KORUS FTA. It does not want to reopen the KORUS FTA, because it believes the current agreement reflects a well balanced interest between the two countries. On the other hand, the U.S. is still delaying the ratification of the KORUS FTA in search for a solution to deal with its concern on automobile. In this context, the moves of the two countries regarding the ratification of the KORUS FTA are strategically linked. If Korea fails to ratify ahead of the U.S. while it has a chance to do so, it will commit a major strategic blunder. Washington will consider it as a willingness of Korea to accommodate the U.S. request for renegotiation. Renegotiating the automobile provision is a flawed idea, in terms of economics, international code of conduct, and consequences to future negotiating leverage of Korea. Should the U.S. come to ask for a renegotiation in the automobile sector, Korea would be brought to demand concessions in other sectors, in order to maintain an equitable balance. In the course of this process, it is very likely that the debate will spill beyond the strict boundaries of technicality of trade negotiations, and fuel broader conflicts in the Korean society. The political instability in Korea may do harm to the Korea-U.S. alliance. Korea and the U.S. should refrain from renegotiations. Instead, they should look for a mutually acceptable course of action, because saving the KORUS FTA is in the interests of Korea and the U.S. The benefits Korea could get from an early ratification are three-fold: first, Korea will send a strong message to the world community by translating into action a perception shared by world leaders that the return to protectionism is a foil to be avoided at all costs in the search of a way to overcome the current global economic crisis, second, Korea could put an end to the domestic debates nurtured by partisan groups that seek to take undue political advantage by caviling at the KORUS FTA, third, it could put a substantial strain on a potential U.S. demand for renegotiations in the automobile sector. Washington will be less inclined to demand for renegotiations, more inclined to look for other options. The strategic approach to a way forward for the KORUS FTA has three main components: first, Seoul should seize the momentum and ratify the agreement ahead of Washington, second, Seoul needs to rally the supporters of the KORUS FTA in the U.S. so that they convey the unequivocal message to Washington that renegotiations on auto is a recipe for disaster, third, Seoul should clinch the Korea-EU FTA at the earliest possible time so that Washington comes to recognize the ever-increasing cost of delaying the ratification of the KORUS FTA. These strategic moves will substantially diminish the likelihood of the U.S. request for renegotiation and pave the way for a more amicable solution. While the complaints of the Congress and auto industry push the U.S. government to take a more aggressive stance, Washington will also have to make a room to maneuver for Seoul. The outcome of international negotiations between sovereign nations reflects the balance between the interests of domestic stakeholder and foreign counterpart. One needs to be reminded that the additional negotiations of the NAFTA eventually failed to materialize the extreme demand of the U.S. labor and environment group. The strategic moves mentioned above will remove a major roadblock for the ratification of the KORUS FTA. As a result, the enforcement of the KORUS FTA may be in sight. 한미FTA가 발효되기 위한 한국과 미국에서의 비준이 아직 이루어지지 않고 있다. 비준동의안은 현재 한국에서는 외교통상통일위원회를 통과하고 국회 본회의에서의 표결을 남겨두고 있다. 한미FTA를 지지하는 여당이 다수당인 상황에서 비준동의안 통과보다는 그 시기가 문제이다. 한국 정치권은 한미FTA의 비준시기에 대해 격론을 벌여왔다. 한국이 먼저 비준하여야 한다는 '선비준론'과 비준을 미루고 미국의 움직임을 주시하자는 '관망론'이 대립되어 왔다. 미국은 한미FTA의 경제적 기회, 한미동맹강화, 동북아시아에서의 미국의 입지강화에 긍정적인 영향을 인식하면서도 자동차분야의 불만 때문에 현재 체결된 한미FTA를 그대로 수용하는 것에는 부정적이다. 한국정부의 공식적인 입장은 "자동차분야 재협상은 없다"는 것이다. 한국정부는 현재 체결된 한미FTA를 그대로 발효시키길 희망한다. 미국은 아직까지는 어떠한 방식으로 그들의 불만을 해소할 수 있을지에 해법을 찾아내지 못했다. 이런 상황에서 한국과 미국의 비준은 전략적으로 연계되어 있다. 한국이 먼저 비준할 수 있는 기회가 왔을 때 이를 전략적으로 활용하지 않는다면, 미국은 자동차 문제 해법의 하나로 기존 협정문을 수정하는 재협상도 적극적으로 고려할 것이다. 자동차 분야 재협상은 논리적으로나, 국제협상의 관례로 보나, 향후 국제협상에서의 한국의 입지를 고려해 볼 때, 심각한 문제점들을 내포하고 있다. 한국과 미국은 재협상을 차단하면서 한미FTA를 살릴 수 있는 길을 모색해야 한다. 한국이 먼저 비준함으로써 얻게 되는 효과는 세 가지이다. 첫째, 21세기 최초의 글로벌 경제위기를 극복하기 위해서는 보호주의로 회귀해서는 안 된다는 세계지도자들의 공통된 인식을 한국이 행동으로 보여준다. 둘째, 한미FTA를 흠집 내서 정치적인 반사이익을 챙기려는 집단에게 국내적으로 한미FTA논쟁은 종결되었음을 선언하고 정부는 다른 중요한 국정과제에 집중할 수 있게 된다. 셋째, 한미FTA의 자동차 분야를 변경하자는 미국의 재협상 요구를 상당히 부담스럽게 만들 수 있다. 한국이 먼저 비준하게되면 한국은 명분싸움에서 미국을 압도하게 된다. 미국이 자동차 분야의 불만을 터트리는 와중에 한국이 FTA를 비준하지 않고 있다면, 미국은 한국정부가 재협상할 생각과 의지가 있다고 판단하게 될 것이다. 재협상을 원하지 않는 한국이 미국에게 나서서 재협상을 요구해달라고 초청하는 형국을 자초하는 셈이다. 미국이 자동차 분야 재협상을 요구하게 되면 협상의 균형을 맞추기 위해 한국은 다른 분야도 협상테이블 위에 올려놓고자 할 것이고 재협상 의제에 대한 논란이 다시 한국정국을 가열시키고, 정쟁의 수단으로 전락할 가능성이 크다. 비준을 미루는 경우, 한국이 챙길 경제적인 실리도 없다. 미국이 재협상을 고집하는 경우 그 파장이 어떨지 미국도 내다 볼 수 있다. 한국과 미국 모두 한미FTA를 성공적으로 비준하기 위한 전략적 접근법의 기본방향은 세 가지이다. 첫째, 한국은 미국 보다 먼저 비준할 수 있는 기회가 앞에 있을 때 적극 활용해야 한다. 둘째, 미국 내 한미FTA 지지세력을 적극 활용하여 자동차 재협상은 한미FTA를 파괴할 수 있음을 인식시킨다. 셋째, 한-EU FTA를 조속히 타결시켜 미국으로 하여금 한미FTA 비준을 계속 지연하는 경우 그들이 입게 될 손실을 확실하게 인지시킨다. 이러한 접근법은 한국이 원하지 않는 미국의 재협상요구 가능성을 약화시킬 수 있으며 미국으로 하여금 재협상이 아닌 보다 창조적인 해법을 모색하게 만들 것이다. 현재 미국 행정부는 한미FTA 협정문을 검토하면서 자동차분야 불만해소방안을 다각도로 고심 중이다. 미국 의회와 업계의 불만이 그들을 공격적으로 만들지만, 한국정부의 반응을 신중하게 고려하지 않을 수 없다. 국내 이해집단의 요구와 협상상대국의 요구 사이에서 국제협상의 결과는 결정되어 지기 때문이다. NAFTA의 경우에도 미국 내 노동, 환경단체들의 강경한 입장은 멕시코와의 추가협상에서 반영되지 못했음을 상기할 필요가 있다. 이런 전략적인 접근법이 실천에 옮겨진다면 한미FTA 비준의 큰 걸림돌이 제거되고 협정발효로 가는 청신호가 켜질 것으로 기대된다.

한·중 수교 20년과 양국의 군사관계 -평가와 전망을 중심으로-

기세찬 ( Se Chan Ki ) 한국군사학회 2011 군사논단 Vol.65 No.-

This study attempts to estimate the relations between Korea-China after the Korea-China amity and suggests the way of developments between Korea-China military relations. The relations between Korea-China has been growing throughout all the branches of politics, economics, cultures, and militaries over twenty years. But after 2008, the international situation around Korea-China became even worse due to the global financial crisis, deterioration of North Korea-U.S. relations, and impasse of South Korea-North Korea. As we have seen from the attack against the ROK corvette Cheonan and the shelling Yeonpyeong Island, the two countries failed to keep close contact to deal with those incidents and to sustain strong ties that had shaped since the beginning of the amity based on the growth of trades. Therefore, Korea-China relationship needs to develop not rhetoric but content. Although Both Korea and China have exposed differences over some problems, it is important to build two countries will be advanced to be more practical and cooperative relationship for the benefit of the two countries. To achieve this, the two countries have to have proper plans, preparations, and upgrade military relations beyond economics. We could say Korea-China military relations is a mutual exchange relationship. To develop the Korea-China relations at the practical level, we need to consider overall the relations between U.S.-China and North Korea-China that directly affect the Korea-China relations. We can`t establish the higher level relations, unless China adjusts China-North Korea alliance or the U.S. understands the development of Korea-China relations.

한몽FTA의 정치경제적 의미에 관한 연구

구해우 한국몽골학회 2011 몽골학 Vol.0 No.30

National strategies including Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as a high priority have emerged as an important agenda for Korea since 2006 when U.S.-Korea FTA was started to be seriously negotiated. Particularly, as U.S.-Korea FTA will be ratified by national assemblies in each country this year, FTA once again becomes a controversial issue in Korea. Along the same line, it seems it is right time to examine political and economic meanings of FTA with Mongolia. Under the collapse of Soviet Union, as Mongolia transformed its socialist system into reform and open policy, it has established a new diplomatic ties with western countries such as United States. Besides, in the form of the increased world competition for energy resources, various countries, for say, Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and European countries, express strong interest in Mongolia's natural resources; Mongolia recently possesses great strategic value. Mongolian agriculture and farming are also expected to play a critical role in Korea's food security. For Korea, this trade and cooperation with Mongolia would not just remain as it is, but it would perform a significant base for extended further cooperation with central Asian countries and Russia and China. Thus, it is worth examining what Korea-Mongolia FTA means from political and economic perspectives; then, based on this research, the Korea-Mongolia FTA should be developed. Although Mongolia is rich in natural resources and has excellent potential in political and economic sense, cooperation between Korea and Mongolia has been below the level expected. First of all, it has to be examined what the characteristics of Mongolian economy are. This is summarized as seven features in the paper. Then, considering current cooperation between these two countries, it is necessary to assess their relations up to date. Comprehensive analysis for Korea-Mongolia relationship would develop the future prospects. In terms of economic implications, there are four ways to increase Korea-Mongolia economic cooperation. First, Korea and Mongolia should break the tradition that focused all the investments on the restaurant and service businesses. Korean companies that make good use of Mongolian local mineral resources and raw materials to do manufacturing should enter the Mongolian market. Second, Korea and Mongolia should strengthen their cooperation in the energy and resources areas. Third, Korean construction companies should go into Mongolian housing and construction market. Fourth, Korean government and private companies should work together to understand the local demands for development in agriculture, farming and tourist industry, which seems very promising business for Mongolia. Political implications of Korea-Mongolia FTA are also important. There seems three means to enhance their bonding. First, Korea and Mongolia have to come to an agreement on visa waivers; it is the task that should be done once Korea-Mongolia FTA is accomplished. Second, Korea should set up research institutions in Mongolia. Collaborative academic work between Korea and Mongolia will lead tight, long-term cooperation in other fields. Third, Korea has to review more ODA towards Mongolia. Korea and Mongolia seem to start their relations after establishing diplomatic ties in 1990; indeed, they have more intense relations since ancient times. This is why they are understood as brother countries. Moreover, international relations surrounding by world powers, United States, China, Japan, and Russia, for Korea and Mongolia put them into the relatively similar situation. Thus, Korea-Mongolia FTA will contribute to not only both countries' political and economic benefit but also peace in northeast Asia.

한일회담 단절을 통해서본 한국의 독도등대설치와 일본-일본의회 독도관련 속기록을 중심으로, 1953~54-

곽진오 한국일어일문학회 2011 日語日文學硏究 Vol.76 No.2

The suspension of the Korea-Japan conference was a burdensome incident to both countries. The Japanese Diet's internal record on Dokdo is an important source that shows Japan's responsive policies to Korea at that time. During the process of the Korea-Japan conference, oral arguments over the right of claim led to suspension of the conference. It took four years and six months to restart the Korea-Japan conference, and during the suspension, The Japanese Diet discussed a variety of policies regarding the Korean peace line and Dokdo issue. There were strong voices claiming that Korea's peace line issue should be solved by military power, and the Dokdo issue by the ICJ. The Korea-Japan conference suspension, however, was not the problem of only Korea and Japan,but also the problem of the U.S. which had deep interest relations in East Asian security issues within the Cold War system. Thus, the Japanese Diet's policies toward Korea do not progress as planned, and the decreased importance of the Japanese Department of Foreign Affairs due to the discontinuity of Korea-Japan conference is one cause of this poor progress. As communication between Korea and Japan becomes difficult due to the cease of the conference, the Japanese Diet claims that Japan take the Dokdo issue to the ICJ and form a stronger claim over Dokdo sovereignty. This research paper is constituted of the following four chapters. The first chapter explains this research's difference from previous ones and this research's contribution to the academic field. The second chapter analyzes the Korea-Japan conference suspension and the Japanese Diet's response, and the third chapter analyzes the Korean lighthouse establishment in Dokdo and the Japanese Diet's response and limits. Finally, the fourth concluding chapter analyzes why Dokdo is Korea's territory, and the limits of Korean Dokdo policies according to the Japanese Diet.

한중안보협력 방향과 추진전략

정경영 ( Kyung Young Chung ) 한국군사학회 2011 군사논단 Vol.65 No.-

Korea-China military relation has been more comprehensive, interactive than any other nation in the region. Shilla-Ding combined forces played a pivotal role in unifying the three kingdoms, Ming deployed forces to Chosun to repel Japanese invasion, which eventually deteriorated Ming`s power. Ching, which was defeated at Sino-Japanese War, lost hegemony on the Korean peninsula. Chinese intervention on the Korean War forced South Korea to fail in reunification. In particular, North Korea`s provocation including the sinking of the Cheonan and artillery attack against Yeonpyung Island had a tremendous impact on the relations between the Republic of Korea and People`s Republic of China. Big argument on how to perceive China as aggressor or partner was followed by, the incidents. Some insist that the ROK should prepare for China`s threat with trilateral ROK-U.S.-Japan cooperative regime as well as the ROK-U.S. alliance. In the mean rime, since the ROK should consider China`s factor in resolving North Korea`s nuclear program, contingency situation in North Korea and reunification, the ROK should make every effort to develop security cooperation with China. There are prerequisites for the security cooperation between South Korea and China as follows: the ROK should cooperate with China on the conditions that South Korea retain values of free democracy and market economy and human rights, and maintain national pride and respect. Korean government and people tend to get along with either the U.S. or China. Liberal administration including the DJ and Roh Moo-hyum administrations retained more favorable relationship with China and maintain assertive diplomacy toward the U.S. Lee Myung-bak administration has focused on strengthening the relationship with the U.S. To maintain more balanced relationship between South Korea and the U.S. and China is vital for the ROK`s national interest. The ROK should not exacerbate uncomfortable relations with China as potential threat, which easily leads both nation to face contradictory interest. The ROK could cooperate with China in the areas of North Korea`s contingency, building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and establishing a security regime in the region. The ROK, the U.S. and China should conduct strategic talks to deal with North Korea`s sudden change to prevent regional conflict. The agenda might conclude non-military areas such as natural disaster, and atomic leakage from nuclear site. Two Koreas, the U.S. and China should resume mutilateral talks to enhance military confidence measures to build a peace regime on the peninsula. The ROK and China should take the co-initiative in reshaping cooperative, enduring security order from the Cold War security structure in Northeast Asia. The Republic of Korea, which is a role model for the third world`s nation building strategy, should reinforce self-reliant defense posture to manage North Korea threat. South Korea should demonstrate diplomatic power to establish security cooperative relation with China based on the ROK-U.S. alliance as backbone of South Korea`s national security. First, to get well with China as well as the U.S is complementary interest not contradictory for South Korea. Policy makers need to have deep understanding of both nations. China also might to maintain cordial, friendship relations with South Korea to ensure China`s global leadership. South Korea is not a shrimp among whales. South Korea demonstrated its potentialities including host nation at G 20 summit and the 7th largest export country in 2010. Second, solidarity among nations could result from good relations reinforced by personal, informal relations including think-tanks. We need to exert synchronized efforts by the integration of security and economy like the strategic-economy dialogue between the U.S. and China, exchange visitation program for South Korea-China`s junior officer and exchange of student officers at National Defense University. Third, the ROK and China should cope with trans-national threats, such as international crimes including piracy, disaster including earthquake and environment degradation. Both nations need to conduct bilateral and multilateral exercise with the U.S. and Japan against the transnational threats. The proactive cooperative security will contribute to deterring provocation of North Korea. In that context, we anticipate a role of the secretary general office which will be established this year in South Korea in 2011 in accordance with the agreement of the 2010 trilateral summit among China-Japan-South Korea. Finally, the ROK should pay much more attention to inevitable situation which South Korea join China`s power sphere in or around twenty or thirty years later China`s economic power exceed that of the U.S. It is imperative for South Korea to develop reunification strategy and national will to achieve unified Korea from now.

한,중 국방교류의 확대와 제한요인에 관한 연구 -한,중의 대북 인식요인을 중심으로-

하도형 ( Do Hyung Ha ) 현대중국학회 2008 현대중국연구 Vol.9 No.2

Korea-China relationship has made rapid progress in their exchange for 15 years since amity signed. However, contrary to other fields, there merely appeared the dramatic change of the current in military area in 2000s. This article studies military exchange between Korea and China and its restrictive factors, focusing on North Korea factor among the causes for that. With the theoretical dimension, the forms of defense diplomacy are sorted around the strength of military diplomacy. Based on this, these analysis were tried: in which stage the Sino-Korea defense exchange is situated, and why the relations cannot be improved into a far stronger form. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that North Korea factor affected the beginning and expansion progress of the Korea-China defense exchange. But the reason why such expansion cannot develop into the gradation of defense exchange or the stage of military exchange to of military entente is that China does not recognize the seriousness of North Korea`s threat as much as Korea does, and that therefore there is little understanding about ``common threat``.

한미 동맹과 한중 전략적 협력 관계:G2시대 한국의 전략적 선택을 중심으로

차창훈 국가안보전략연구원 2012 국가안보와 전략 Vol.12 No.3

The critical key for the 21th century’s peace and prosperity in the Korean Peninsula will be a path-dependent way of Korea-US alliance and Korea-China relationship. Korea-US alliance was established at the beginning of cold war with combination of US security interest for containment policy toward Soviet Union and Korean security interest for North Korean threat. Korea- China relationship was developed with the initiative of China’s open-door policy and Korea’s northward policy. The relationship remarkably achieved economic and human exchanges but the region’s security structure of alliance system restrained development of security and military relationship. Not withstanding that growing economic interdependence surrounding Korean peninsula raised the indispensability of balance between economic and security structure, Korean’s embedded preference for the value of Korea-US alliance is highly deep. This fairly reflects that the institution of Korea-China relationship has been less developed than that of Korea-US relationship. With the being of North Korea as an independent variable Korea-China relationship will not be accepted as an substitute for Korea-US relationship by Korean people. There is a reality, at least in nominal term, that Korea-US defense treaty might clash with North Korea-China treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance. Therefore, to get over the dilemma of alliance system, whether entrapment or abandonment, there necessarily requires a multilateral security cooperative institution in Northeast Asia. The settlement of North Korean nuclear matter and change of North Korea’s policy will be a turning point for a start of imagining the institution. As for Korea, institutional design for the multilateral security cooperative organization should be searched for the sake of Korea to establish the perpetual peace system in Korean peninsula sharing interests and concerns of neighboring big powers. 21세기 한반도의 평화와 번영에 핵심적인 열쇠를 쥐고 있는 것은 바로 한미 동맹과 한중 관계의 발전 방향일 것이다. 한미 동맹은 2차 세계대전 후 냉전의 시작과 함께 설정된 미국의 대소 안보 전략적인 이해관계와 한국전쟁 이후 한국의 대북 위협에 따른 안보적 이해관계의 합치에 따라 성립되었다. 한중 관계는 개혁개방 정책으로 전환한 중국의 경제적 이해관계에 따라 한국과의 국교수립의 필요성과 한국의 북방정책이 조응하면서 발전되기 시작하였다. 양국의 급속한 경제적·인적 교류는 놀라운 발전을 이룩하였으나, 동맹중심의 한반도 안보구조는 한중 관계의 군사적·안보적인 발전을 제약하는 요인이 되었다. 한국과 중국, 미국과 중국, 그리고 일본과 중국의 경제적 상호의존성의 증대는 이 지역의 안보구조가 경제 구조와 조응하는 형태로 재편성될 필요성을 제기하고 있지만, 한국 내에서는 한미 동맹은 고정적인 관념으로서 뿌리 깊게 제도적으로 자리잡고 있다. 한미 동맹과 관련된 군사 안보적인 제도가 운영 및 유지되고 있고, 국민들의 한미 동맹에 대한 선호도가 강하다. 반면 한중 관계와 관련된 군사 안보적인 측면의 제도적인 측면은 미미하게 발전되어 왔다. 북한 변수가 존재하는 한 한미 동맹을 대체하는 한중 관계와 같은 다른 대체제는 용인되지 않을 수도 있지만, 한미상호방위조약과 북중우호조약이 그 조약문의 내용에서 한반도를 둘러싼 무력충돌이 여전히 존재함을 명목적으로 나타내고 있는 현실에서 동맹의 딜레마를 극복할 수 있는 방법으로 동북아시아의 다자간 안보협력기구의 제도화가 절실히 필요하다. 북핵문제의 해결과 북한의 대외정책 방향의 전환은 동북아 지역의 다자간 안보협력기구를 발전시키는 시발점이 될 것이고, 이러한 과정에서 한국의 국익을 투사할 수 있는 제도적 방안 등에 대한 연구와 조사가 시급한 문제로 대두될 것이다. 결국, 동북아 지역에서 항구적인 평화체제를 정립하기 위해서는 미국과 중국을 비롯한 주변 강대국들의 이익과 관심을 공유시키기 위한 한국의 정책 방향 설정이 중요할 것이다.

한,일 양국의 한일협정 반대운동 논리

박희진 ( Jin Hee Park ) 민주화운동기념사업회 2007 기억과 전망 Vol.16 No.-

Korea-Japan Treaty itself not only meant the reopening of diplomatic relationship between tow countries, but also a distinct joining of anti-Communist policies and Economics-driven ideologies throughout the North-Eastern Asian community. But reviewing the Korea-Japan treaty, we can see it was not based upon remorse or regret over the past history. And a desirable new course which should have been pursued and by everyone, was not an item that could be produced by the treaty. Therefore there was an opposition public opinion from Korea and Japan. It Criticized the humiliating diplomatic attitude of the government from Korea. The doubt regrading a northeast Asia military alliance was proposed from Japan. The Japanese government disapproved this opinion. The Korean government looked away a past history, it exchanged a Property claims for a Peace line. These were the point at issue of Korea-Japan Talks. After the liberation in 1945, Korea produced a manifest of properties damage and loss of human resources that occurred during Japan`s imperial occupation of Korea. In January 18, 1952, Korea declared the `Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas`, so-called `Peace Line`, which was signed by President Rhee, Syngman. The objective of establishing this Peace Line was to protect Korean fishery resources, prevent any kind of fishery disputes with Japan from ever happening, and secure the sovereign authority of Korea in its nearby sea areas. They were problems it nor be able concede. But Korea-Japan Treaty was contracted. The Treaty was based upon a Cold war sentimentality and economical pragmatism. This Kind of treaty was nor what the Koreans intended of wanted.

무슬림 이주자들의 사회적 네트워크와 이슬람 문화 실천에 관한 한-일 비교 연구

이희수 ( Hee Soo Lee ),조영주 ( Young Joo Joh ) 한국이슬람학회 2013 한국이슬람학회논총 Vol.23 No.1

Korea and Japan have similar history in Islam and common experience in dealing with recently established Muslim migrants in many aspects. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia started to bring Central Asian Muslims to Korea and Japan. Among many Turks of various races who had sought political asylum under the Japanese government, some 200 persons succeeded in entering Korea and 200 others moved to Japan. This is the first experience for Korea and Japan to deal with foreign Muslim migrants. Now two countries have similar number of Muslim migrants (about 100,000) and their social networking, acculturation process, practice of Islamic way of life. In this sense, this study is to dig out Muslim migrants` social networking and the practice of Islamic way of life in Korea and Japan, which is based on comparative survey results done by Academy of Human Science of Waseda University in 2006 and Anthropological Team of Hanyang University in 2011. Compared to migrants overall, the Muslim migrants in Korea and Japan Korea and Japan have similar history in Islam and common experience in dealing with recently established Muslim migrants in many aspects. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia started to bring Central Asian Muslims to Korea and Japan. Among many Turks of various races who had sought political asylum under the Japanese government, some 200 persons succeeded in entering Korea and 200 others moved to Japan. This is the first experience for Korea and Japan to deal with foreign Muslim migrants. Now two countries have similar number of Muslim migrants (about 100,000) and their social networking, acculturation process, practice of Islamic way of life. In this sense, this study is to dig out Muslim migrants` social networking and the practice of Islamic way of life in Korea and Japan, which is based on comparative survey results done by Academy of Human Science of Waseda University in 2006 and Anthropological Team of Hanyang University in 2011. Compared to migrants overall, the Muslim migrants in Korea and Japan The comparative survey shall contribute to designing future multicultural plan for Korea and establishing more adequate strategies in dealing with Muslim migrants in Korea.