러시아 개정 헌법(2020) 제67조와 남쿠릴열도

배규성(Kyu Sung Bae) 영남대학교 독도연구소 2022 독도연구 Vol.32 No.-

본 논문은 2020년 개정된 러시아 헌법의 내용, 특히 제67조의 분석을 통해, 개정 헌법이 남쿠릴열도를 둘러싼 러시아와 일본 간의 영토분쟁에 미치는 영향을 분석했다. 2020년 개정된 러시아 헌법은 다음과 같은 권위주의적 특징과 영토적 의미를 가진다. 첫째, 대통령의 임기와 관련하여, 임기 제한에 대한 규정의 재설정을 통해 푸틴 대통령의 권위주의적 장기집권에 대한 헌법적 기반을 마련했다. 이로서 푸틴 대통령은 독재, 즉 권위주의적 장기집권이 가능하게 되었고, 이러한 독재의 정통성 확보를 위해 과거 러시아 “제국(empire)”의 회복을 노릴 수 있게 되었다. 이러한 “제국”의 회복은 영토문제에 대한 강경한 정책과 입장을 기초로 한다. 둘째, 개정 헌법에서는, 국제법 또는 러시아가 체결한 국제조약보다 헌법을 우선시 한다. 이는 영토수호의 최후보루로서 헌법을 내세우며, 국제적 정세나 국가 간 관계에 의해 영토문제가 영향을 받을 가능성을 미리 차단하고 있다. 셋째, 특히, 제67조의 개정 및 신설(영토할양 금지) 조항은 장기집권 푸틴 대통령의 권위주의적 정권이 영토적 통합성을 내세우며, “분쟁 영토”에 대한 강경한 정책과 입장의 헌법적 기초를 마련해 주었다. 특히, 이 조항은 2014년 크림반도의 병합과 2차세계대전 이후 일본과 벌여온 남쿠릴열도에 대한 분쟁에서 러시아의 양보할 수 없는 영토적 권리주장에 강력한 기반을 제공한다. 결론적으로, 러시아 헌법 개정(2020) 이전까지 남쿠릴열도(북방4개도) 문제를 해결하는 기초로 여겨졌던 러시아와 일본 간의 2차세계대전을 종결 짓는 평화협정과 후속협정이 체결되더라도, 이제는 국제법이나 국제조약보다 헌법을 우선시하고 더욱이 영토 할양을 금지하는 러시아의 개정 헌법에 의해 극복해야 할 장벽이 하나 더 생긴 것이다. 즉, 러시아와 일본 간의 남쿠릴열도를 둘러싼 분쟁의 해결은 더 어려워졌다는 것이다. This thesis analyzes the effects of the Amendment of Russian Constitution (2020) on territorial disputes between Russia and Japan over the Southern Kuril Islands through the content of the Amendment, especially Article 67. The Amendment of Russian Constitution has the following authoritarian characteristics and territorial significance. First, with respect to the president's tenure, the constitutional basis for Putin's long-term authoritarian rule was laid by resetting the rules on the term limit, zeroing Putin’s presidential terms. This made it possible for Putin to maintain a dictatorship, that is, long-term authoritarian rule, and in order to secure the legitimacy of this dictatorship, he was able to aim for the restoration of the former Russian “empire”. Russia's invasion of Ukraine which has been taking place since February 24, 2022, can be interpreted in this context. The restoration of “Empire” is based on a strong policy and position on territorial issues. Second, the Amendment takes precedence over international law or international treaties concluded by Russia. It advocates the constitution as the last bastion of territorial protection, and blocks, in advance, the possibility of territorial issues being affected by the international situation or relations between countries. Third, in particular, the revision and new provisions of Article 67 laid the constitutional basis for the long-standing Putin's authoritarian regime to establish territorial integrity and to establish a strong policy and position on “disputed territory”. In particular, this provision provides a strong basis for Russia's claim of inalienable territorial rights in the dispute over the Southern Kuril Islands with Japan after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. In conclusion, even if the peace treaty to end World War II between Russia and Japan, which was considered the basis for resolving the Southern Kuril Islands (four northern islands) conflict, and subsequent Agreement are concluded, now, there is one more barrier to overcome by the Amendment, which prioritizes the constitution over international law or international treaties and prohibits territorial concession. That is, it became more difficult to resolve the dispute over the Southern Kuril Islands between Russia and Japan.

유럽과 러시아

배규성(Bae Kyu Sung) 한국국제정치학회 2003 國際政治論叢 Vol.43 No.2

러시아 북방 토착 소수 민족의 법적 권리: 법적 규범과 현실

배규성 ( Bae Kyu Sung ) 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2020 한국시베리아연구 Vol.24 No.1

The Indigenous Numerically Small Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation were able to practice their traditional way of life and economy in the territory owned by their ancestors and to inherit and maintain their traditional culture, language and knowledge through historical practices, customary law rights, current constitutional and legal rights and status, and support of international regimes for the aboriginal peoples. However, if they have limited opportunities to protect themselves in various ways by the direction of the policy of the Russian government, which focuses on development rather than conservation, they will be confronted with various kinds of complex life situations in the future. This is because the territories inhabited by them have abundant natural resources, including water, wood and flora and fauna, as well as gold, uranium, mercury, oil, gas and coal. Despite recent legislations improving legal rights and emphasizing respect for the indigenous cultures, there are significant differences between the international standards of indigenous rights and their real situation in the North of Russia. This paper highlights these gaps and analyzes the actual rights and status of the Indigenous Numerically Small Peoples of the North of Russia. As the recent trends show, if the Russian government lacks the political will to protect the rights and culture of indigenous minorities and focuses on the development of a resource-driven national economy, it will maintain a discriminatory pattern for the indigenous minorities, reduce their involvement in decision-making affecting the indigenous community, extend restrictions or violations of the indigenous rights to use land and resources, and ultimately threaten the survival of the indigenous peoples.

벨기에의 다자주의적 대외정책 결정의 구조분석: CFSP를 중심으로

배규성 ( Kyu Sung Bae ),이승근 ( Seung Keun Lee ) 대한정치학회 2005 대한정치학회보 Vol.12 No.3

동북아 해양 레짐의 가능성: 이론과 현실

배규성(Kyusung, Bae) 영남대학교 독도연구소 2013 독도연구 Vol.- No.14

최근 동아시아 지역의 해양 도서 분쟁은 불신과 경쟁으로 특징 지워진 이 지역을 위기로 몰고 가고 있다. 잠재적으로는 국가 발전의 원동력이 될 해양(EEZ와 대륙붕) 자원에 초점이 맞춰져 있지만, 외형상으로는 해양 영토의 보전과 국가안보의 확보라는 형태를 띤 쟁점들이 동아시아 국제관계의 핵심적 과제로 떠올랐다. 그 결과 해양 쟁점이 아시아 지역안보의 최우선 과제로 떠올랐다. 그러나 해양 레짐은 이런 갈등을 완화하고 협력에 대한 믿음을 창출한다. 아시아 지역의 확고한 다자간 해양 레짐의 부재는 수용가능하고 관련 당사자들 모두에게 이익이 되는 레짐을 발전시키기보다 현상유지를 통해 얻을 수 있는 보상과 위기와 손실과 이익을 고려하는 민족국가들의 정치적 계산을 반영하고 있다. 아시아 국가들은 단지 아직까지 어업자원의 관리와 해양 환경보호에 초점을 맞춘 다자간 해양 레짐의 심각한 필요성을 충분히 인식하지 못하고 있다. 종합하면, 이런 상황은 특별하고(ad hoc) 특정쟁점에 전문적인(issue-specific)다자간 해양 레짐 건설의 발전적 과정을 강력하게 요구하고 있다. 그런 과정을 동북아 지역으로 이동시키려면, 관련 당사국들은 동북아 다자간 해양 레짐의 목적과 원칙을 논의하기로 합의해야 한다. 해양관할권의 확장과 관련하여, 몇몇 어업에 대한 양자간 협정이 이미 재협상되고 있다. 그것들은 양자간 협정들을 조정하고 그런 레짐에 지역의 모든 국가들을 포함시킴으로서 종합적인 지역 협정의 무대와 기초를 형성한다. 비록 진보가 더디긴하지만, 다자간 대화가 이런 과정을 가속화시킬 수 있다. 동해의 환경보호레짐 건설은 이런 가속화 과정의 좋은 예가 될 수 있다. Recently, Maritime issues including territorial conflicts around the islands between China and Japan, Korea and Japan, are rising to the forefront of Asian security concerns. The Northeast Asia is characterized by historical distrust and competitions. Security concerns which are seemingly directly related to the territorial integrity and national security, in fact focused to the natural resources in EEZ and Continental Shelf. But maritime regimes can constrain conflict and create confidence in co-operation. In Northeast Asia, there are no multilateral maritime regimes, owing to the political calculations of the rewards and risks and losses and benefits regarding of developing regimes by the states. Northeast Asia is simply not yet sufficiently aware of the need for maritime regimes that focus on the management of fisheries resources and maritime environmental protection. All and all, this situation demands a strong issue-specific evolutionary multilateral maritime regime. To meet this demand, the parties concerned might agree to begin discussing objectives and principles for multilateral maritime regimes in Northeast Asia. Indeed, with extension of jurisdiction(EEZ and Continental Shelf), several bilateral agreements on fisheries have already been renegotiated. They could set the stage and construct the basis of more comprehensive regional agreements or maritime regime. Although progress has been slow, a multilateral dialogue could make the road to wider regional agreements or maritime regime. The building of an environmental protection regime for the East Sea will be a good example.

북극 거버넌스와 비국가 행위자 - 북극 이사회에서의 원주민 조직의 영향력 증가를 중심으로

배규성 ( Kyu-sung Bae ),김준엽 ( Jun-yeup Kim ) 국제지역학회 2021 국제지역연구 Vol.25 No.1

Arctic governance can be represented by Arctic Council (AC) which is the high-level intergovernmental forum of Arctic countries. Both the Senior Arctic Officials(SAOs), representatives of the Member States as state actors and the ‘Permanent Participants’ (PP) as non-state actors have been trying to secure their own authoritative status, especially as political actors representing the state and its peoples. The indigenous peoples’ organizations as permanent participants (PP) have full power of participation and full consultation in all Arctic Council activities such as SAO meetings and ministerial meetings. By this power of participation and consultation, the indigenous peoples’ organizations have greater opportunities and voice to represent their interests and influence the Arctic Council's decision-making process. However, the most successful practice of authority in the Arctic Council has been developed by member states with sovereignty and national interests. Owing to their lack of capacity and funding, the indigenous peoples’ organizations have to rely on member states which have resources and veto power. Nevertheless, in the Arctic Council, member states cannot acquire authority by representing nation and people. The authority in the Arctic Council, representing the entire Arctic Circle, rests on multi-faceted, multi-level mechanism of cooperation between various actors interacting with each other within the broad framework of Arctic governance. In particular, member states as a key actor of the AC have to consult and cooperate with the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations.

대구 2·28민주운동

배규성(BAE, Kyu Sung) 동아시아국제정치학회 2011 국제정치연구 Vol.14 No.1

February 28, 1960 in Daegu, a milestone democratic movement in the modern history of South Korea happened. The instruction of the Sunday school to hinder erection campaign of opposition party, made eight high school students to protest the coup protests, which eventually collapsed Rhee Seungman" dictatorship. So far, little discussions on the 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu were made, while 3?15 Masan Movement and 4?19 revolution have been mentioned a lot. As the breaking point of dictatorship, the first student" Movement after the establishment of ROK, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu should be evaluated fairly for the historical significance. In 2000, the society for the 2?28 Movement for Democracy was established as a Corporation. Then, along with Memorial erected(1990), Memorial Park opened(2004), Memorial Hall is being promoted. After the Reform Bill on Democracy Foundation(2009) was passed, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu gained official legal status and honor the spirit of the democratic movement to succeed to the future generations. For the past 50 years, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu was silent and lacked the public attention for the characteristic of pure student"s movement, the regional characteristics of TK, and the lack of political intention. Now it"s time to rethink and succeed the spirit of the democratic movement.

북극 이사회 내 국가 행위자와 비국가 행위자 간의 정치적 역학관계: 고위급 관료와 과학 행위자 그룹(워킹 그룹)을 중심으로

배규성 ( Bae Kyu Sung ) 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2021 한국시베리아연구 Vol.25 No.1

This paper aims to show how the Arctic Council, the core of Arctic governance, is characterized by power relations and related norms, representations, and hierarchies among various actors. In this paper, the process of interaction between state-scientific actors at SAOs (Senior Arctic Officials) meetings of the Arctic Council will be reviewed in order to understand the kind of authority that scientific actors (WGs, Working Groups) achieve in their relationship with state actors in Arctic governance. This study of how the lines of responsibility are drawn between different kinds of actors will allow us to think comprehensively about the power relations and related norms, representation and hierarchies among various actors in the Arctic Council. Taken together, The answers to ‘who represents the Arctic Council?’, ‘what makes their authority?’ rest on a multi-faceted, multi-level mechanism of cooperation between various actors interacting within the broad framework of Arctic Council. The Arctic Council's policy development relies heavily on scientific agenda setting and scientific evidence collection carried out by the WGs, whose contributions are trusted and actively utilized by other policy sector participants. However, both the representatives of the member states as state actor and the ‘Permanent Participants (PP)’ as non-state actor are themselves political actors who are trying to secure their authoritative status against especially semi-independent WGs with long-standing secretariat and staff. This occurs mainly along the level of those representing the Arctic Council, especially in debates over ‘who will speak on behalf of the Arctic Circle in non-Arctic organizations or conferences?’ and ‘who will draw and disseminate evidence-based policy conclusions to a global audience’. Both member states and ‘Permanent Participants (PP)’ assert a redundant authority with geographic, national and ethnic roots to speak on behalf of the Arctic and Arctic indigenous peoples. These go beyond the expert knowledge-based authority that scientific actors can bring. In other words, while the Arctic policy field requires scientific input, the policy field has evolved in a way in which the most successful exercise of authority remains clearly political, rooted in sovereignty and national logic.

러시아 대외정책의 새로운 사상적 기초로서 신유라시아주의

배규성(Bae, Kyu Sung) 동아시아국제정치학회 2003 국제정치연구 Vol.6 No.1

EU의 대러시아 공동전략: 분석과 평가

배규성 ( Bae Gyu Seong ) 대한정치학회 2003 대한정치학회보 Vol.11 No.1