The purpose of this thesis is to suggest how to plan ROK(Republic of Korea) Navy's strategy concerning to JOAC(Joint Operation Access Concept) and ASB(Air-Sea Battle) concept of US(United States) armed forces. Since 2006, US armed forces has been developing CONOPS(Concepts of Operations), JOAC & ASB. These concepts will not only affect security environment for Korea Peninsula and West Pacific Area, but also will be affected to ROK Navy's Strategy. Therefore, Korea Navy has to consider and review those concepts and should discuss the way to secure peace of Korea Peninsula. JOAC & ASB have been developed for securing operational access ability of US armed forces against enemy forces. A2/AD(Anti-Access, Area-Denial) is the strategy of possible enemy forces against US forces' approaching into the operation area and impede operations within area. US forces had to overcome enemy's A2/AD strategy in coming century to protect national interest and sustain global leadership. The main concept of JOAC & ASB is "Cross-domain Synergy", which means 'to eliminate duplicate and improve joint operability containing space and cyber operation area.' Korea Navy's acceptance of JOAC & ASB without any revising is not a rational choice. Without the amendment some problems can be occurred by the Korea navy's acceptance for the original version of JOAC & ASB. Those are "Missing differences of operation environment between Korea and US", "Impediment from neighbor nations, especially PRC (People's Republic of China)", and "Impediment inside from Korea armed forces". Therefore, Korea Navy has to evaluate and find out the way to solve for JOAC & ASB to apply for their strategy and minimise those possible problems above. This thesis is expected to be the solution.

Waegu(倭寇)'s invasion in the Late Goryeo(高麗) Dynasty was huge damage for Goryeo's local society. And It was shock that Goryeo government's basic foundation of rules. Invasion background of waegu for Kyeong-in-yeon(庚寅年, 1350) was Kyushyu(九州)'s political divide because of Nihon(日本) government's confusion. Waegu was huge damage for Goryeo's Jo-wun(漕運, the shipping system of grain paid as a tax) system. So, government started military response, but it was turn out a failure and had great damage. When execution of military operations failed, Goryeo government sent diplomatic delegation to request the prevent of waegu, but the invasion continued. Since waegu invasion, Goryeo was got nowhere with defence of waegu. So, some people demanded for a new understanding of the ocean defence in the government. Lee-Saek(李穡), Woo-Hyeonbo(禹玄寶), Lee-Hee(李禧) and Jung-Ji(鄭地) were representatives of a new understanding of the ocean defence. Their demands were received attention when all operations had been failed. Therefore, Goryeo government began to reorganization of the naval forces and set up a special committee of gunpowder manufacturing named Hwa-tong-do-gam(火筒都監). This administrative reform was achieved substantial results since then. In 1380, the naval battle at Jin-po(鎭浦) was a big event that first gunpowder attack the waegu. Since Jin-po, Goryeo's naval forces gain confidence. In 1389, Dae-ma-do(對馬島) was attacked by Park-Wi(朴葳). It was meant that Goryeo's naval forces had huge offense power. Goryeo's defence system was focused on a northern race before 14th century waegu's invasion. So they were neglected their ocean defence. But after military operation of waegu's invasion was failure, they focused on the ocean defence. A new understanding of the ocean defence was foundation of that. It means to us to a new understanding of the ocean defence. Now, East Asia has maritime disputes. And we have high exposure to potential threats. So, we have a new understanding of importance of the ocean defence. And we fight for 21th century's ocean threats as foundation of sense of national security.

Not much research has focused on the combat history of the Manchu invasion of Korea. In particular, the role of the navy has not been properly examined. However, the naval forces of the Joseon Dynasty were critical to the military strategies adopted by the leaders of Joseon and the courts of the Ming and Later Jin dynasties. Therefore, by investigating the role of Joseon's navy, we can establish a better understanding of the dynamic situation in East Asia during this period. This paper traces the specific naval strategies of Joseon and also looks at the parts played by the Ming and Later Jin dynasties, based on their historical records. The main part of this paper consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 will uncover the reputation and the actual military strategies of Joseon's naval forces during this period. Chapter 2 will discuss the military strategies devised by the Ming and Later Jin courts as a reaction to each other and to Joseon's naval power. Last, Chapter 3 will examine how the naval forces of Joseon and Qing collided at Ganghwa Island in January 1637 and afterward Qing's requisition of Joseon's navy in its fight against the Ming. In conclusion, when Joseon's naval forces were strong enough to protect Joseon, they maintained the military status quo in East Asia. However, when their strength was superseded by that of the Later Jin's naval forces in a very short time, Joseon was forced to experience the worst humiliation in its history and East Asia to undergo a violent upheaval, the replacement of Ming by the Manchu/Qing dynasty.

The basic stance of the Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs was 'quiet diplomacy'. However, there had been demands for specific plans for practical protection of Dokdo. In 2011, Prime Minister Kim Hwang Sik mentioned that they are reviewing measures of stationing marines on Dokdo, while on August 10th, 2012, former president Lee Myung Bak visited Dokdo. The visit itself was meaningful as he was the first supreme commander to visit Dokdo. This paper studies on the necessity of naval power on Dokdo to maintain its effective control. The effective control must be done by a national organization in a peaceful and unimpaired method. If so, can stationing naval power, whether directly or indirectly, on Dokdo be considered a violation of 'peaceful' method? A 'peaceful' effective of control meas the right of sovereignty over a territory without other country's protest. In such terms, protecting a territory falls under practicing the right of sovereignty, and therefore does not violate 'peaceful'. In addition, looking at international cases such as Ligitan/Sipadan Case and Pedra Blanca Case, evidences such as 'navy activity', 'flyng ensign', and 'military communication facility installation' was used. In ter case of Yemen-Eritrea dispute over Hanish, methods on effective control over island and sea was also ruled by the installation of military posts and military surveillance activities. Thus, stationing naval power on Dokdo can be a way of maintaining effective control per international law. To station naval poer on Dokdo, Presidential Instruction 24 integrated Defense Guideline Enforcement Ordinance, which is domestic law, must be revised. Reason being, the Enforcement Ordinance states that the navy area of responsibility excluded Ullundo, where Dokdo is under jurisdiction of Ullungdim thus excluding navy control. In addition, considering the diplomatic situation, it is more fut to install navy radar site on Dokdo rather than 'stationing marines'. In other words, enforcing surveillance in the vicinity of Dokdo and installing radar site instead of stationing direct combatants is one way of practicing effective control without stimulating diplomatic disputes.

The purpose of this research paper is to re-valuate the factors that affected the Royal Navy's rearmament and preparation for war by conducting analysis on the discussion held in the Britain on the strategic priorities and Navy's coping measures adopted during the interwar period. After the end of the WWI, each of the military arms of the Britain faced significant difficulty in securing budget and increasing their military power all throughout the interwar period, and the Navy was not an exception. The WWII that got started on September 1939 was the turning point in which this difficulty led to full-fledged crisis. Immensely many criticisms followed after the war and problems were identified when it comes to the Royal Navy's performance during the war. This type of effort to identify problem led to the attempt to analyze whether Royal Navy's preparation for war and rearmament policy during interwar period were adequate, and to identify the root causes of failure. Existing studies sought to find the root cause of failed rearmament from external factors such as the deterioration of the Britain itself or pressure from the Treasury Department to cut the budget for national defense, or sought to detect problems from the development of wrong strategies by the Navy. However, Royal Navy's failed preparation for the war during interwar period is not the result of one or two separate factors. Instead, it resulted due to the diverse factors and situations that the Britain was facing at the time, and due to intricate and complex interaction of these factors. Meanwhile, this research paper focused on the context characterized by 'strategic selection and setting up of priorities' among the various factors to conduct analysis on the Navy's rearmament by linking it with the discussion held at the time on setting up strategic priorities, and sought to demonstrate that the Navy Department's inadequate counter-measures developed during this process waned Royal Navy's position. After the end of WWI, each of the military arms continued to compete for the limited resources and budget all throughout the interwar period, and this type of competition amidst the situation in which the economic situation of Britain was still unstable, made prioritization when it comes to the allocation of resources and setting up of the priorities when it comes to the military power build-up, inevitable. Amidst this situation, the RAF was able to secure resources first and foremost, encouraged by the conviction of some politicians who were affected by the 'theory of aerial threat' and who believed that curtailing potential attack with the Air Force would be means to secure national security at comparatively lower cost. In response, Navy successfully defended the need for the existence of Navy despite the advancement of the aerial power, by emphasizing that the Britain's livelihood depends on trade and on the maintenance of maritime traffic. Despite this counter-measuring logic, however, Navy's role was still limited to the defense of overseas territory and to the fleet run-off instead of sea traffic route production when it comes to the specific power build-up plan, and did not understand the situation in which financial and economic factors gained greater importance when it comes to the setting up of strategic priorities. As a result, Navy's plan to build its powers was met with continual resistance of the Treasury Department, and lost the opportunity to re-gain the status of 'senior service' that it had enjoyed in the past during the competition for strategic prioritization. Given that the strategic and economic situation that Korea faces today is not very different from that of the Britain during the interwar period, our Navy too should leverage the lessons learned from the Royal Navy to make the effort to secure viable position when it comes to the setting of priorities in case of national defense strategy by presenting the basis on why maritime coping should be prioritized among the numerous other threats, and by developing the measures for securing the powers needed effectively amidst the limited resources.

This article is focused how the maritime strategy between continental powered country(the Soviet, the China) and maritime powered country(the U.S.) interact with attack and defense theory. We will know, what is the maritime strategy that the U.S. of military superiority has pursued with the point of view of attack, on the other hand, relatively what is the maritime strategy that the Soviet-Sino of military inferiority has pursued with the point of view of defense. In cold war, the Soviet has counteracted to 'blue belt defense' in active defense as to the U.S. 'sea strike' and in post cold war, the China counteract to 'A2/AD' as to the U.S. 'Air-Sea Battle'. The difference between the Soviet-Sino maritime strategy is that the China has emerged the second an economic power and their leadership has a strong's will to strengthen their navy's power. although the U.S. declare the pivot to Asia, the influence on Asia of the U.S. tend to decrease because of sequest. therefore, the China will seek to the more active defense beyond the first island chain. Meanwhile, the U.S. has reinforced of 'hub and spoke strategy' to solidify the U.S. formal allies to band together regional powers and to overcome the A2/AD challenge, the U.S. has been developed that the Air-Sea Battle concept meshes with Washington's 'rebalancing' policy toward the Asia-Pacific as its vital missions to safeguard core island or semi-island allies-namely, Korea and Japan-and crucial sea lanes of communication in the region are conducted mostly from or over the sea.

In order to deal with the current economic crisis, the U.S. government, as a part of its austerity fiscal policy, implemented a budget sequester. The sequester will hit the U.S. defense budget the hardest, and as a result will most likely put the security of the international community in jeopardy. The U.S. will have to cut 46 billion dollars from its original 525 billon defense spending in 2013. And by the year 2022, will have to cut 486.9 billion dollars. Such an astronomical decrease in the U.S. defense spending will inevitably burden the friendly nations. According to recent studies, pirate related incidents in Somalia, where piracy is most active, has declined from its 226 incidents to 76 incidents per year in 2012, a 66% drop from previous years'. However, piracy threats as well as those related to firearms still remain and thus participants of anti-piracy operations, namely the U.S., U.K., France, Canada, NCC, EUNAVFOR, and NATO, are facing a problem of declining forces. Considering the current situation as well as rising expectations from the international community, Republic of Korea, a supporter of NCC's maritime security operation, not to mention its foremost duty of securing its sea, is at a stage to re-examine its operational picture. Such action will be a good opportunity for Republic of Korea to build the trust and live up to the international community's expectation. To quote from the network theory, although in relation to other friendly nations participating in the anti-piracy operation, Republic of Korea currently remains at a single cell level, this opportunity will certainly develop Korea to a 'node' nation in which power and information would flow into. Through this expansion of operational capability, Republic of Korea will be able to exert more influence as a more developed nation. Currently however, not only is the single 4,500 ton class destroyer deployed in Somalia a limited unit to further expand the scale and amount of force projection in the area, but also the total of six 4,500 ton class destroyers ROK feet possess is at a high fatigue degree due to standard patrolling operations, midshipman cruise and the RIMPAC exercise. ROK fleet therefore must consider expanding the number of ships deployed along with either deploying combat support ships or constructing logistics support site in the African region. Thus, by expanding its operational capabilities and furthermore by abiding to the rightful responsibilities of a middle power nation, Republic of Korea will surely earn its respect among the members of the international community.

서구 근대 국제관계학의 태동은 "전쟁의 원인"을 밝혀내려고 했던 유럽 지식인들의 학문적 도전에서부터 비롯되었다고 할 수 있다. 1, 2차 세계대전의 잔혹함을 겪으면서 이들은 전쟁(특히 전쟁의 원인)에 대한 좀 더 과학적인 연구를 통해 어떻게 하면 국가들 간의 전쟁을 예방할 수 있을까에 집중해 왔다. 이러한 학문적 경향을 반영한 것이 잘 알려진 미국 미시간 대학의 "전쟁 상관성 연구 프로젝트(Correlates of War Project)"이다. 이는 나폴레옹 전쟁이 끝나고 비엔나체제가 시작된 1815년 이후 국가들 간 발생한 모든 전쟁 관련 자료를 데이터베이스화하여,국제관계학자들이 전쟁(Interstate War)이나 군사분쟁(Militarized Interstate Disputes)을 정량 또는 정성적으로 연구할 수 있도록 다양한 정보들을 제공하고 있다. 최근 Paul F. Diehl, William R. Thompson과 같은 학자들은 전쟁을 분석단위로 하는 전쟁의 원인(Causes of War)을 연구하는 학풍에서 벗어나, 국가들 간의 분쟁과 전쟁을 연구하기 위해 숙적관계(Rivalry)라는 새로운 분석의 단위를 제시하였다. 숙적관계는 국제관계에 있어서 지속적으로 분쟁 또는 전쟁을 일으키는, 즉 무력분쟁의 긴 역사를 가지고 있는, 두 국가를 일컫는다. 국가들 간의 숙적관계는 학자들에 따라 Interstate Rivalry, Enduring Rivalry, Strategic Rivalry 등 다양한 정의와 성격을 갖고 있다. 이러한 국가들의 사례로는 2차대전 이전까지 프랑스-독일 관계, 2차대전 이후 중동지역 이스라엘과 아랍국가들 간의 관계, 냉전기 미소관계, 인도-파키스탄 및 남북한 관계 등을 예로 들 수 있다. 이렇게 널리 알려진 숙적관계 외에도 남미의 칠레-아르헨티나, 에콰도르-페루와 아프리카의 소말리아-에티오피아 등 학자들에 따라 1815년 이후 약 200개의 숙적관계를 제시하고 있다. 숙적관계에 대한 연구는 기존의 전쟁의 원인 중심이었던 정량적 국제분쟁 연구에 두 국가의 분쟁역사를 포함시키는 정성적 연구를 접합시키고 있다. 본 연구는 1945년 이후 숙적관계 국가들의 관계종식과 관련하여, 거시론적이고 전체론적 접근방법(Macro - level Holistic Approach)을 제시하고 있다. 먼저 1945년 이후 발생한 국가들 간의 숙적관계 종식(Rivalry Termination)을 이해하기 위해, 거시적 관점에서 숙적관계를 발생시키게 된 역사적 원인을 살펴보고 있다. 특히 1945년 이후 숙적관계와 관련된 중요한 요인들 중에서 전쟁, 영토분쟁, 그리고 근대국가 형성에 대해 살펴보고 다음과 같은 두 가지 명제(proposition)를 제시한다. 첫째, 1945년 이후의 숙적관계 형성과 지속에는 2차대전 이후 독립국가 형성, 헌팅턴이 주장한 제3의 물결(민주화), 그리고 냉전기 미소경쟁 등의 역사적 배경이 영향을 주었다는 것이다. 둘째, 이러한 역사적 배경에 더하여 1945년 이후 숙적관계는 전쟁에 의해 시작된 숙적관계와 전쟁 없이 시작된 숙적관계 등 2가지로 나눌 수 있으며, 전쟁에 의해 시작되고 영토분쟁과 근대국가 형성 문제를 내포하고 있는 숙적관계가 그렇지 않은 숙적관계에 비해 오랫동안 지속되며 관계해결이 어렵다는 것이다. 앞서 제시된 2가지 명제들과 관련하여 본문에서는 다양한 학자들이 제시한 숙적관계 정의들에 일치하는 23개의 숙적관계(Consensus Rivalries)를 선정하여 이들에 대한 비교분석(Descriptive Analysis)을 실시하였다. 이들 사례들을 1945년 이전과 이후로 나누어, 숙적관계 형성과 종식에 있어 핵심요소인 국가들 간 힘의 차이(Power Relations), 분쟁의 주요 원인(Primary Conflict Issue), 숙적관계에 있어 다른 국가들과의 연계성(Rivalry Linkage), 전쟁의 횟수와 시기 등을 통해 비교하였다. 숙적관계의 종식과 관련하여 약소국 간의 숙적관계(Minor Dyad)가 오래 지속되고, 영토분쟁(Territorial Disputes)이 숙적관계를 지속시키는 주요인이며, 다른 숙적관계와의 연계성이 적은 숙적들이 오래 지속된다는 비교분석 결과가 나왔다. 또한 전쟁의 횟수는 숙적관계 종식에 큰 영향을 미치지 못하지만 전쟁으로 인해 시작된 숙적관계가 그렇지 않은 경우보다 더욱 오래 지속되는 것으로 확인되었다. 끝으로 2차대전 이전의 숙적관계는 대부분 전쟁을 통해 종식되었지만, 1945년 이후에는 전쟁 없이도 숙적관계가 종식된 경우가 많았음을 보여 주고 있다. 본 연구의 주목적은 "1945년 이후 형성된 숙적관계를 어떻게 종식시킬 수 있을 것인가?"라는 규범적 논제를 통해, 23개의 주요 숙적관계를 발굴하여 거시적, 역사적 관점에서 비교분석함에 있다. 이는 특히 우리나라가 처한 현실과 관련하여 중요한 시사점을 갖는다. 남북관계가 갖는 특수성보다는 1945년 이후 국제정치 역사속에서 발생한 숙적관계 현상이라는 일반성의 틀에서 남북관계를 이해하고자 했다. 남북관계를 베트남, 예멘, 독일 등 분단국가의 사례들과만 비교 연구하는 제한된 시각에서 벗어나, 인도-파키스탄, 그리스-터키, 에콰도르-페루 등 유사한 숙적들 간의 관계들과 비교하는 새로운 연구의 장을 제시하고자 한다. 따라서 앞으로 숙적관계 종식에 대한 더욱 다양화된 사례연구를 통해 한반도 분쟁해결에 필요한 새로운 교훈을 얻을 수 있을 것이다. 예를 들면 2차대전 이후 발생한 국경을 접하고 있는 비강대국들의 평화적인 숙적관계 종식에 대한 사례연구는 남북한이 앞으로 지향해야 할 방향을 제시해 줄 수 있을 것이다. 끝으로 본 연구는 특정한 정책적 함의를 도출하기 보다는 숙적관계와 관련된 하나의 거시적 이론를 제시하고, 주요 숙적관계 국가들에 대한 비교설명을 통해 현존하는 숙적관계 해결을 위한 하나의 분석의 틀을 제시하는 것으로 국제분쟁 연구에 기여하고자 하였다.

2010년 초반 이래 지역 해양안보는 보다 개선된 신뢰증진을 위한 안보구도와 메커니즘을 요구하고 있다. 특히 2011년 이래 전문가들은 지역 내 어려운 해양안보 문제들을 주요 현안으로 식별하고 있으며, 아울러 다양한 다루기 힘든 개념 위주의 지역 해양신뢰구축방안들을 제시하고 있었다. 최근 동북아는 다양한 해양분쟁과 갈등으로 점철되고 있으며, 대부분 국가들은 더욱 위험한 상황을 선택하기에 주저하지 않는 위험한 현상을 보이고 있다. 이러한 문제들은 첫째, 기본적으로 기존의 개념적 목적의 해양신뢰구축방안 이행에 대한 실패, 둘째, 개념적 해양신뢰구축방안을 넘어선 기능적이며 실질적 해양신뢰구축으로 변화에 어려움 그리고 셋째, 이를 동북아에서 어떻게 적용30)해야 하는가" 하는 문제로 귀결되고 있다. 대체적으로 전문가들은 개념적 방안 보다 효과적이며 기능적 해양신뢰구축방안을 적용하고 이해하는 것이 바른 "정답"이라고 보고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 기존의 개념적 논쟁에 빠졌던 개념적 해양신뢰구축방안에 대한 과거 미련을 버리고 점차 진화된 복합적 문제로 대두되는 동북아 해양에서의 해양분쟁과 갈등을 기능적이며 실질적 해양 신뢰구축방안에 의해 해결하는 방법을 식별하여 제시하고자 한다. 이에 본 논문에서 제시하는 기술적이며 제도적 해양신뢰구축방안이 인정되면, 지금까지의 작용-반작용의 악순환적 주기를 넘어설 수 있는효과적 해양신뢰 각론, 레짐 또는 거버런스가 될 수 있을 것이다. 궁극적으로 본 논문의 목적은 고질적이고 새로운 해양갈등을 해소할 수 있는 신뢰 구축 전략을 제시하여 지역 해양안전과 평화를 유지하는 것이다.