한반도평화협정의 쟁점: 주체, 절차, 내용, 평화관리 방안 = Key Issues and Choices concerning on the Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Concluding a peace treaty can not be considered the equivalent of constructing a peace regime, although the former does have important methodological value in the construction of the peace regime. Debates of the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula have discussed place intermittently since the 1960s, but it was in the later half of 2005 that lively discussions concerning issues such as its relevance to the cease-fire agreement, the concerning parties and framework of the peace system, and the problems revolving around the US troops in Korea, other issues started to take place.
Although the contents of the cease-fire agreement have great relevance to constructing the peace regime, there is little need to state such facts as problems may rise due to the amendment procedures stated in the cease-fire agreement.
In relation to the concerned parties, those who may be involved in potential engagements in the future should be taken into consideration rather than being bound by those who engaged in combat during the Korean War. Considering all future prospects, South Korea, North Korea and the U.S. must be closely examined.
As to build a concrete framework, South-North Korea Peace Forum for the two Koreas, and the Korean Peace Forum with the U.S.
and China joining should be simultaneously established. The issues of peace management on the Korean Peninsula should be dealt with in the South-North Korea Peace Forum, while issues concerning the maintaining and securing of the peace system should be discussed through the Korean Peace Forum.
Considering that the peace system should be recognized by the international community, China and the U.S.'s participation is highly guaranteed. While the US troops in Korea should not be subjected to negotiation of any kind, including the statement that the status of the foreign troops may not be used to change specific conditions may be considered for the symbolic value that it projects. Issues such as war responsibility and post-war settlements should not be considered on the agenda.
The conclusion of the peace treaty is merely a means to an end.
Securing a permanent peace regime may only be possible through military confidence-building between the concerned parties, not the peace agreement itself.
Therefore, the peace treaty should not be considered as the conclusion, instead there should be efforts to stabilize the poli-military conditions through the peace regime.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "휴전협정체제의 대체에 관한 소고" 1991

2 "한반도평화협정의 상과 평화구축방안" 평화통일연구소 2005

3 "한반도평화체제의 모색" 경남대극동문제연구소 1997

4 "한반도평화조약의 체결" 국제법출판사 1994

5 "한반도 휴전체제 연구" 국방군사연구소 1999

6 "한반도 평화프로세스" 건국대학교 출판부 2005

7 "한반도 평화체제의 제문제 세계의 평화협정의 함의와 한반도평화체제의 주요 쟁점" 전략문제연구소 2003

8 "한반도 평화체제의 제문제" 대한정치학회 1999

9 "한반도 평화체제의 모색" 지평서원 2000

10 "한반도 평화체제 구축의 문제점과 전망" 1998

11 "한반도 평화체제 구축 방향과 평화협정의 내용" 2003

12 "한반도 평화체제 구축 방안" 2004

13 "한반도 평화체제 구축" 국정홍보처 2002

14 "한반도 평화정착 추진전략" 통일연구원 2003

15 "한국 정전협정의 평화협정체제로의 전환방안" 1994

16 "평화협정 체결시에 따른 제문제" 2001

17 "평화협정 체결과 국제적 보장 확보가 관건" 2001

18 "평화체제 구축논의와 북핵 협상문제" 2003

19 "통일과정으로서의 평화협정과 평화체제 구축" 1998

20 "북, 평화협정 주장 그 속셈은 무엇인가" 2001

21 "베트남평화협정과 월남공산화 과정의 연계성 분석" 국방연구원 1994

22 "남북한평화체제의 접근방법 및 방안" 법문사 1980

23 "군비통제 이론과 실제" 한국국방연구원 2004

24 "Two Koreas in Transiton: Implications for U.S. Policy" Paragon House Publishers: The Washington Institute Press 1998

25 "Two Koreas and the United States:Issues of PEACE, sECURITY, and Economic Cooperation" 2000

26 "Sunshine in KOREA-the South Korean Debate over Policies Toward North Korea" 2002

27 "Preparing for Korean Unification: Scenarios and Implications" 1999

28 "Korea's Place in the Axis" 81 (81): 2002

29 "Avoiding the Apocalypse: Economic Turmoil on the Korean Peninsula" Institute of International Economics 2000

30 "A Turning Point: Democratic Consolidation in the ROK and Strategic Readjustment in the US-ROK Alliance" 2005