• Proceedings of the Military Operations Research Society of Korea Conference
• /
• 2005.10c
• /
• pp.81-112
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the Military Operations Research Society of Korea Conference
• /
• 2006.03a
• /
• pp.50-70
• /
• 2006

• Defense and Technology
• /
• no.5 s.171
• /
• pp.48-55
• /
• 1993

탈 냉전의 여파로 급속히 확산되는 평하분위기에도 세계 각국은 양적으로는 군사력을 감축하는 듯이 보이지만, 기술개발을 통한 질적 군사력 신장을 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 이에 선진국을 중심으로 각 나라의 주요장비와 개발실태, 그리고 앞으로의 방향에 대해 살펴보고자 합니다. 이번호에는 항공기에 관해 살펴보았고 계속해서 미사일과 함정 등으로 이어집니다

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.151-184
• /
• 2021

Global warming due to climate change is one of the biggest challenges in the 21st century. Global warming is not only a disaster that threatens the global ecosystem but also an opportunity to reduce logistics costs and develop mineral resources by commercializing Arctic routes. The Arctic paradox, in which ecological and environmental threats and new economic opportunities coexist, is expected to have a profound impact on the global environment. As the glaciers disappear, routes through the Arctic Ocean without passing through the Suez and Panama Canals emerged as the 'third route.' This can reduce the distance of existing routes by 30%. Global warming has also brought about changes in the geopolitical paradigm. As Arctic ice begins to melt, the Arctic is no longer a 'constant' but is emerging as the largest geopolitical 'variable' in the 21st century. Accordingly, the Arctic, which was recognized as a 'space of peace and cooperation' in the post-Cold War era, is now facing a new strategic environment in which military and security aspects are emphasized. After the Cold War, the Arctic used to be a place for cooperation centered on environmental protection, but it is once again changing into a stage of competition and confrontation between superpowers, heralding 'Cold War 2.0.' The purpose of this study is to evaluate the strategic value of the Arctic Ocean from geopolitical and geoeconomic perspectives and derive strategic implications by analyzing the dynamics of the New Cold War taking place in the Arctic region.

• Defense and Technology
• /
• no.2 s.156
• /
• pp.52-61
• /
• 1992

미.일 양국정부는 탈냉전의 시대를 맞이한 오늘날 양국관계가 새로운 정치.경제적 과제에 직면하고 있음을 인식함은 물론, 전후 양국이 구축해온 긴밀한 협력이 양국사회에 이익이 되었음을 인식하며, 이 기반위에 더욱 긴밀한 파트너십을 구축할 것을 약속한다. 따라서 미.일 양국정부는 이와 같은 가치에 근거한 글로벌파트너십 하에 손을 맞잡고 공정하고, 평화로우며, 번영하는 세계의 구축을 지원하는 21세기의 과제를 위해 노력할 것을다짐한다(동경선언 중에서)

• Strategy21
• /
• s.32
• /
• pp.160-191
• /
• 2013

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.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.63-67
• /
• 2017

With the rise of China, the power and hegemony is moving to China in East Asia. The foreign policy of the China government is directly or indirectly affecting Korea, neighboring countries and the world. China is advocating a new international policy, a new security system, silk road policy and a new paradigm. China is a newly emerging powerful nation in Asia, and it is clear that China has the economic power to reestablish the Asian order and take over the hegemony. In addition, we want to run the world supremacy with the United States in political, economic, military and diplomatic sectors. In order to overcome the crisis of the Korean peninsula, which is being triggered by North Korea's nuclear and missile development, we are in the position to do our best to cooperate with Korea, the United States and Japan and further improve relations with China. In this study, I analyzed the policy of Southeast Asia and China macroscopically.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2019

Historically, the United Nations supported the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea after liberation and played a decisive role in defending liberal democracy and peace by sending peacekeepers during the Korean War. With the political and military support of the United Nations, the Republic of Korea was able to grow into the world's 10th largest economy today, and now it is time to fulfill its responsibilities and roles to contribute to peace and prosperity in the international community as a middle power. The international peace operations of the United Nations are comprehensive concepts encompassing conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping, and peace building, and are implemented in accordance with the Security Council resolutions based on the UN Charter. In order to effectively respond to changes in the international security environment and conflict factors after the post-Cold War, the UN promoted a paradigm shift in international peace operations through the 2000 Brahim Report and the 2015 High-Level Panel Report on UN Peace Activities. Therefore, this study aims to assess the Korean military's international peace operations at a limited level, such as reconstruction assistance and humanitarian assistance, and to present development measures for more active participation as a middle power in the future. To this end, we reviewed the history and specificities of conflict, the conflicting factors after the post-Cold War, and the new paradigm of UN peace operations, focusing on the African region where a number of UN peacekeeping missions are stationed. And it also suggested ways to develop international peace operations that the Korean military should pursue in the future.

• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.421-440
• /
• 2010

This paper examines middle powers' ODA policy in the post cold war era and discusses its implication for Korean aid strategy. Middle powers' ODA has been more successful than that of super powers in promoting donors' positive images and in stimulating recipient countries' development. Middle powers tend to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems often by taking a mediator role, and their ODA policies set them apart from the great players in international politics. Middle powers' ODA is primarily aimed at reducing poverty and protecting human rights in least developed countries where humanitarian aid needs the most rather than promoting donors' interests. Also, middle powers have provided bilateral untied aid in the sectors of food aid and emergency relief and steadily devoted about 0.7% of their gross national income to ODA. Meanwhile, Korea as an emerging middle power and a new donor has been implementing its own aid strategy under the name of the Korean development model since the post cold war period. The Korean ODA was not successful in building donors' positive images by simply following the short term strategies of US and Japan. Yet, its ODA policy has been quite effective in sustaining local development by creating specific niches in which the country can specialize in. In specific, Korea has focused on developing the sectors of information and communication technology and industry energy in recipients' countries by maximizing its comparative advantage.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2018

The WTO was established in 1995 as an organization which protects and promotes free trade among its members. However, since about this time they have signed many bilateral and multilateral FTAs and joined many other new international agreements and organizations, the purpose of which at times overlaps with that of the WTO. Some existing works on international organizations contend that these FTAs and many other IOs could weaken the role of the WTO as a promoter of free trade. However, the results of regression analyses on the use of the WTO do not support this argument, but show that the experiences of WTO members in these FTAs and many other IOs help them to use its dispute settlement mechanism more frequently