중-러 영토분쟁의 해결: 그 타협의 원칙과 독도 = Resolution of the Sino-Russian Territorial Disputes: It's Negociating Negotiating Principles and Dokdo

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The historic 2005 Sino-Russian Vladivostok Treaty brought an end to their territorial disputes that had lasted for three centuries. The fact itself that such a longtime historical dispute was settled at all is remarkable. During the Cold War, China and Russia were once on the verge of all-out war in March 1969 when they clashed on Zhenbao Island (Damasky Island) in the Ussuri River. Further clashes in August 1969 along the western section of the Sino-Soviet border in Xinjiang heightened tensions to the extent that the possibility of even a nuclear war was raised. All the more because such a thorny relationship did they experience, the Sino-Russian case is interesting and worthy of scholarly attention (as a clear counterevidence against Ron Hassner’s intractability thesis on “time and the entrenchment of territorial disputes”).
This paper, by focusing on a successful case of resolution of Sino-Russian territorial conflicts, tries to get some hopeful suggestions for the ongoing territorial disputes in East Asian international relations, including Korea-Japan territorial disputes. The successful termination of the Sino-Russian territorial disputes itself is not only remarkable, but also is providing hopes for the states and people who are now suffering from territorial disputes.
The story of Sino-Russian success in resolving territorial disputes seems to provide the following theoretical or policy implications; (1) The Sino-Russian case suggests that political leadership is very important and a negative bilateral history does not necessarily determine the future of the two countries in a negative way; (2) As Gorbachev demonstrates, unilateral concessions made by a willful political leader could redirect history; (3) Fairness represented by “fifty-fifty” principle is important in solving territorial issues; (4) “Fifty-fifty” principle should not be mechanically applied, but should be applied flexibly; (5) One paradox of Sino-Soviet case is that they were successful in resolving the territorial disputes rather because there are so many flashing points along their border, which made it possible for them to “give and take” more easily and more often than Korea-Japan case, for instance.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이정남, "중국과 러시아 간의 영토분쟁 해결방식, In 중국의 영토분쟁" 동북아역사재단 48-85, 2008

2 윤영미, "중-러 영토분쟁: 아무르강 국경 획정을 둘러싼 갈등" (20) : 2004

3 Luthi, Lorenz, "The Sino-Soviet Split: Cold War in the Communist World" Princeton University Press 2008

4 Robinson, Thomas W., "The Sino-Soviet Border Dispute: Background, Development, and the March 1969 Clashes" 66 (66): 1969

5 Hassner, Ron E., "The Path to Intractability: Time and the Tntrenchment of Territorial Disputes" 31 (31): 2006

6 Walt, Stephen M., "The Origins of Alliances" Cornell University Press 1987

7 Garthoff, Raymond L., "The Great Transition : American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War" The Brookings Institution 1994

8 Axelrod, Robert, "The Evolution of Cooperation" Basic Books, Inc., Publishers 1984

9 Wang, Jianwei, "Territorial Disputes and Asian Security, In Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features" Stanford University Press 380-423, 2003

10 Fravel, M. Taylor, "Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes" Princeton University Press 2008

11 Fravel, M. Taylor, "Regime Insecurity and International Cooperation: Explaining China's Compromises in Territorial Disputes" 30 (30): 2005

12 Glaser, Charles L., "Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help" 19 (19): 1994

13 Jervis, Robert, "Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation" 40 : 1988

14 Goldstein, Avery, "Power Transition, Institutions, and China's Rise in East Asia: Theoretical Expectations and Evidence, In The United States and Northeast Asia: Debates, Issues, and New Order" Rowman & Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc 2008

15 Nye, Jr., Joseph S., "Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet Security Regimes" 41 (41): 1987

16 Yoon, Tae-Ryong, "Learning to Cooperate Not to Cooperate: Bargaining for the 1965 Korea-Japan Normalization" 32 (32): 2008

17 Breslauer, George W., "Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy" Westview Press 1991

18 Maxwell, Neville, "How the Sino-Russian Boundary Conflict Was Finally Settled: From Nerchinsk 1689 to Vladivostok 2005 via Zhenbao Island 1969" 39 (39): 229-253, 2007

19 Larson, Deborah Welch, "Crisis Prevention and the Austrian State Treaty" 41 (41): 1987

20 Hassner, Ron E., "Correspondence: Time and the Intractability of Territorial Disputes" 32 (32): 2007

21 Rozman, Gilbert, "Chines Strategic Thought toward Asia" Palgrave Macmillan 2010

22 Iwashita, Akihiro, "An Inquiry for New Thinking on the Border Dispute: Backgrounds of "Historic Success" for the Sino-Russian Negotiations, In Siberia and the Russian Far East in the 21st Century: Partners in the "Community of Asia", Vol.1 Crossroads in Northeast Asia" Slkavic Research Center 2005

23 Osgood, Robert E., "Alliances and American Foreign Policy" Johns Hopkins University Press 1967

24 Axelrod, Robert, "Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institututions, In Cooperation Under Anarchy" Princeton University Press 1986