Dokdo issue reaches beyond economic and security interest to Koreans, as it is regarded as symbol of her independence. Albeit the fact that Japan has merely no legitimate title over Dokdo, Japan has been tenaciously insisting their jurisdiction over Dokdo since the independence of Korea. Under such circumstances, public outrage towards Japan is most certainly understandable. Yet, mere outrage itself, lacking in logic and factual grounds, can contribute little if not any, to the desirable solution of the problem. Precedents reveal that dealing maritime issues amid lack of profound understanding in international law has often led to undesirable results, such as the inclusion of Dokdo in the Joint Management Fisheries Zone in 1999 Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement. In a sense, adroit use of international law is a critical element in preserving Korea's sovereign rights against persistent Japanese plans to rob Dokdo once again. The Dokdo issue is inextricably bound to international law; the legal status of Dokdo as island, the equitable solution of maritime boundary delimitation and effective control, existence of dispute. Yet, the public policies and arguments made by pundits are generally in lack of understanding in international law. It is now the time for Korea to commence on long-term cross-academia / department plans to establish Dokdo strategy as part of the nationwide maritime strategy effectively using international law as its stronghold.

To control the sphere, it required a strategic understanding to sphere and a power for overcome to it. In the early 20th century, the Pacific-War is a confrontation between the U.S. and the Japan for holding supremacy a pacific ocean sphere, building on maritime geopolitical perception. The Pacific ocean is a large of sphere, so if a country pursues a Pacific region supremacy, it needs a strategic perception and capability to control the sphere. After the U.S. has unified the continental, it has formed geopolitical perception in the Pacific ocean and by the way to control the Pacific ocean selected a naval power. The U.S. must have overcome a Pacific sphere for getting through to the Pacific region, this concept has developed the War Plan Orange(war plan relations with the Japan). Meanwhile, at this point of time, the Japan has recognized to a geopolitical point of view about security environment in the Pacific ocean. like as the U.S. has the War Plan Orange in mind for building on geopolitical perception of the Pacific ocean, the Japan also has learned geopolitical perception from the U.S. Because of this, the Japan has established the Interception-Attrition strategy(war plan relations with the U.S.). If we don't have overcome a sphere of the Pacific ocean, we don't hold hegemony of the Asia-Pacific region. So the analysis of perspective maritime geopolitics about the Pacific war is a meaningful study.

In these days, 1949 revolt of admirals has a variety of evaluations. In 1949, many people thought that revolt of admirals is simply disobedience to Secretary of Defense. Revolt of admirals was considered that Navy was defeated to Air force. At that time, many people didn't put too much meaning this case. But at long last, the confidential documents about revolt of admirals opened to the public. This historic event's value was re-evaluated. Many researches were progressed in USA, On the other hand only some researches were progressed in Korea. So I try to study this topic and discover another meaning. Then, I will apply this lesson that obtained through study to our Korea Navy.

This study began to confirm or review the balance of power theory by applying scientific methods through experiential cases. Though there are several kinds of national power, this study supposes military power as a crucial power when it comes to war and peace. This research covered balance and imbalance through comparing relative military power between nations or nations' group. Comparison of relative military power can be achieved by statistically processing the values of which has been converted into the standard variables in same domain, then calculating the values of nation's power which has been synthesized different experiential factors. In addition, the criteria of experiential experiment is highly dedicated to European countries, USA, Japan prior to 1st and 2nd World War, as well as USA, Soviet Union and North East Asia during Cold War era. In addition, the balance of power theory has been redefined to review the action of the state upon the changes of power as mentioned in the theory. To begin with, the redefined theory states that relative level of military power between nations defines the consistency of peace and balance of power. If military power is enough to be on the range of level required to keep the power in equilibrium, peace and balance can be achieved. The opposite would unbalance the military power, causing conflicts. While the relative military level between nations change, nations seek to establish 'nations group' via military cooperation such as alliance, which also shift relative military power between nations group as well. Thus, in order to achieve balance of power, a nation seeks to strengthen its military power(self-help), while pursuing military cooperation(or alliance). This changes relative military power between nations group also. In other words, if there exists balance of power between nations, there is balance of power between nations group as well. In this theory, WWI and II broke out due to the imbalance of military force between nations and nations group, and reviewed that due to the balance of military force during the Cold War, peace was maintained. WWI was resulted from imbalance of military cooperation between two powerful states group and WWII was occurred because of the imbalance among the states. Peace was maintained from cooperation of military power and balance among the states during the Cold War. Imbalance among continental states is more threatening than maritime states and balance of power made by army force and naval force also is feasible. Also the outcomes of two variables are found military power balanced ratio of military power for balance is 67% when variable ratio of balance is 100% and standard value for balance is 0.86. Military power exists in a form of range. The range is what unstabilized the international system causing nations to supplement their military powers. These results made possible the calculation and comparison between state's military power. How balance of power inflicted war and peace has been studied through scientific reviews. Military conflict is highly possible upon already unbalanced military powers of North East Asian countries, if the US draws its power back to America. China and Japan are constantly building up their military force. On the other hand, Korean military force is inferior so in accordance to change of international situation state's survival could be threatened and it is difficult to achieve drastic increase in military force like Germany did. Especially constructing naval force demands lots of time; however but has benefit that naval force can overcome imbalance between continental states and maritime states.

This study is intended for the Maritime Boundaries(Baseline) of the Unified Korea. According to the international law, North-Korea is recognized as a nation. Then with unification, the state succession will be a very important issue. Thus we should seek for the expected problems and counter-measures, by analyzing of the State-succession. There is a conflict of the positive or negative reaction about the state succession. However, in general, 'the principle of continuity' has been applied for at the national border treaty, regardless of the type of State succession. This can be found on Article 11 & 12 of the 「1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties」, Article 62, paragraph 2 of the 「1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties」, and a series of international case law. Currently it is being understood as customary international law. In summary, although South and North Korea, China, Russia and Japan are not the parties of 「1978 Vienna Convention」, the unified Korea will necessarily have a duty to succeed national boundaries(also, maritime baseline) of North Korea. Specifically, we have an objective and rigorous review of the treaty of maritime baseline that is signed between North Korea and neighboring countries, such as 「National Border Treaty Regime between North Korea and China」 and 「Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic people's Republic of Korea on the Demarcation of the Soviet-Korea National Border」. Also, we analyzed 'Historical Bays' and 'Straight Baseline' system. By this, we are able to occupy a favorable position when renegotiating with neighboring countries, at the point of unification.

Leaving the legacies of the Cold War and other difficulties behind them, South Korea and China are building up their successful strategic cooperative partnership, moving forward toward through the development of new economic exchanges and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries, and this process is expected to gain momentum during 2015. 2015 is the third year since President Park of South Korea and President Xi of China came into office, and also the first year they have begun to implement the many declarations and promises which they have made within the context of the strategic cooperative partnership. The two nations share a common cultural heritage, and their governments should take this opportunity to leverage their partnership to enhance their economies and to improve their people's quality of life, especially for the younger generation. At a summit held in July 2014, the two leaders agreed to launch a working-level group on maritime boundary delimitation. The first meeting took place on January 29, 2015, and addressed issues of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves in the Yellow Sea, which has an area of about 380,000 ㎢. It is greatly to be hoped that the 2015 maritime boundary delimitation meeting between South Korea and China will not impair the future of bilateral relations, but rather will improve their prospects. South Korea and China must take the opportunity to secure a definitive delimitation of their maritime boundary; their strategic cooperative partnership is in good order and China is currently taking a somewhat more flexible stance on the ECS and the SCS, so an agreement on boundaries will serve as a useful model for regional maritime cooperation.

The Royal United Services Institute(RUSI) was founded in the middle of the 19th century in Britain. It was developed through 'Naval Historical Revitalization Movement' in that time. Many celebrities and people who were interested in the Navy participated in the activities of the RUSI. For example, the forums and lectures were held by prestigious persons, like Sir Garnet Wolseley and the Duke of Cambridge. It also became the milestone for guiding the flow of the Royal Navy's thought with the Naval Intelligence Department and the Naval Records Society. The forum of the RUSI was the place for debating naval hot issues. The journal of the RUSI was the space for suggesting an idea and gathering public opinions for developing Britain's sea power. Therefore, the RUSI was the public sphere for the Royal Navy in the 19-20th Century. And especially, the paper prize contest of the RUSI was the culmination of the RUSI's activities for the Royal Navy. Naval prize essays gave messages to the Royal Navy about the changing situation of European naval powers. Also, they made many meaningful debates for the Royal Navy to overcome the difficult situations in that time. Those essays were reflecting the issues of the Royal Navy and leading the way for getting over it. Besides, some people appeared through the contest and they played important roles for making the contingency and planning the war. The contest reflected the past, anticipated the future, and selected the talented persons to shape the future. This developing aspects of the RUSI could apply to the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy(KIMS). The KIMS already carries out the role of the RUSI very similarly. If the KIMS changes to the way for open-door policy to more people, it will work more efficiently for their goal. In this respect, the messages of the RUSI will be very useful for improving the activities of the KIMS.

The main purpose of this article is to provide an understanding on current maritime issues in the Northeast Asia, and thereby help formulating the right strategy for our national security. The article summarizes core arguments in the recently published 『The 21^st Century Maritime Strategies in the Northeast Asia: Dilemma between Competition and Cooperation』. It will help readers to comprehend historical backgrounds as well as recent updates related to maritime issues and strategies in the region. Also, readers may find guidance to conceive their own maritime strategies for the Republic of Korea. Currently, the U.S. is shifting its focus from Atlantic to Pacific, and increasing its naval presence in Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile, the 21^st century China views the maritime interests as the top priority in its national security and prosperity. PLA Navy's offensive maritime strategies and naval building such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are unprecedented. Japan is another naval power in the region. During the Cold War JMSDF faithfully fulfilled the mission of deterring Soviet navy, and now it is doing its job against China. Lastly, Putin has been emphasizing to build the strong Russia since 2000, and putting further efforts to reinforce current naval capabilities of Pacific Fleet. The keyword in the naval and maritime relations among these powers can be summarized with "competition and cooperation." The recent security developments in the South China Sea(SCS) clearly represent each state's strategic motivations and movements. China shows clear and strong intention to nationalize the islands in SCS by building artificial facilities - possibly military purpose. Obviously, the U.S. strongly opposes China by insisting the freedom of navigation(FON) in international waters as recent USS-Lassen's FON operation indicate. The conflict between China and the U.S. surrounding the SCS seems to be heading towards climax as Russia and Japan are searching for their own national interests within the conflict. Also, the neighboring small and middle powers are calculating their own economic and security interests. This is no exception for us in establishing timely strategies to maximize our own national security. Hopefully, this article leads the readers to the right direction.

On October 27, 2015, USS Lassen(DDG82), a 9,200 ton class Aegis destroyer of the United States Navy, began its operations within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, one of the seven artificial islands that China has built and claimed sovereignty over. The maneuver was joined by anti-submarine patrol airplanes such as P-8A and P-3. The White House press secretary mentioned that the President of the United States approved the operation. In response, China announced that it warned the US Navy ship about the 'illegal violation' by sending two destroyers(PLAN Lanzhou and Taizhou). This event represents a close call case where tension between the United States and China in the South China Sea might have been elevated to a conflict between the two navies. Moreover, considering that this happened only one month after Chinese president Xi's state visit to the United States, the event shows that the positions of the two countries have become starkly different to the extent that they are so hard to be reconciled. The United States' position is different from those of Vietnam and the Philippines. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines have been directly involved in disputes with regard to sovereignty claims across the waters in the South China sea. As for the United States, being a third party in the disputes, it still cannot be a by-stander watching the whole waters in the region fall under the influence of China. Accordingly, the United States maintains that all countries bear the rights of innocent passage and military operations in the Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZ) as stipulated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). In contrast, China claims that, historically, the South China sea has been part of China's territorial waters, and that foreign countries are not allowed to conduct military operations within the waters. It strongly accuses that such military operations are illegal. Against this background, this paper tracks the different positions of the United States and China on the issues regarding the South China sea. It also carefully looks at the possibility that, in the process of dealing with the issues, the two countries may get into an armed conflict as the phrase 'Thucydides Trap' predicts.

중국은 지난 10년간 아시아에서의 영향력 확대를 위한 팽창정책의 일환으로 인도양 주변 국가들과의 관계발전을 위해 국가 차원의 노력을 기울여왔다. '진주목걸이 전략(String of Pearls Strategy')으로 묘사되는 중국의 인도양 정책의 개괄적 성격에 관한 연구는 여러 학자들에 의해서 시도되어 왔으나, 인도양 주변 개별국과들과의 협력과 개입의 정도(The variation in the extent of China's Engagement and Collaboration with States along Its Indian Ocean sea lines of communication)에 영향을 미치는 구조적 요인에 대한 연구는 부재해 왔다. 이 논문에서는 인도양 주변 국가들에 대한 개입 및 관계발전을 위한 중국의 인도양정책을 국제정치학의 이론 중 '방어적 신현실주의(Defensive Neorealism)'의 이론적 틀에 근거한 '연성적 힘의 균형(Soft Balancing)'의 관점에서 고찰해 보고, 중국의 인도양 정책은 이 지역에서 중국의 팽창에 대한 미국의 견제 및 반발(Backlash)을 억제하고 중국의 에너지 안보를 보장하기 위한 전략적 정책의 결과임을 조명해 본다. 더불어 중국의 인도양 진출에 따른 미국의 정책대안을 예측해 본다. 본 연구의 목적을 위해 이론적 틀에 기반한 가설을 설정하고 인도양 주변의 11개 국가에 대한 교차 사례연구(Cross-sectional Case Analysis)를 통해 타당성을 검증한다.