• 안보군사학연구
• /
• 통권4호
• /
• pp.351-379
• /
• 2006

Former ministers of national defense and foreign affairs, intellectuals such as former and incumbent professors, and various NGO groups are demanding the South Korean government to stop promoting independence in operational control which is currently held by the United States Armed Forces in Korea commander. Although the Korea should exercise operational control independently in the future, orientation on the direction which should be taken under consideration in promoting this transfer should be assumed. First of all, South Korea must sufficiently examine the criticisms and dissenting opinions, and reflect them in promoting independence in operational control. From now on, the South Korean government should reflect the opinions of experts in operational control, and must promote the transfer with national consensus. Unilateral enforcement of the transfer may cause serious errors and aggravate conflicts Second, ROKA's exercise of independence in operational control should take place only after gaining restraint on North Korea's attack against the South, and the issues on nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction(WMD) has been resolved, and a peace regime has been reached. Furthermore, exercise of independence in wartime operational control should be promoted only if there is a guarantee that international trust and the military collaboration will be restored to a level beyond the present state. Third, the USFK and the Korean-US alliance is providing South Korea with national security, not to mention tremendous diplomatical, and economical benefits However, if the alliance between the two countries become weakened due to the exercise of the independence in operational control, we might suffer a great deal of loss. Even though reasonable justification and external independence may be gained through promoting independence in operational control, it should be promoted in a longitudinal manner because national security problems and conflicts may be intensified, and there is no actual profit in doing so. Fourth, if the Korean-US alliance becomes weakened and therefore the United States decides to discuss eastern-asia strategies, North Korea deterrence strategies, and Japanese rearmament issues with other neighboring countries, South Korea may become diplomatically isolated and a subordinate to surrounding countries, destroying the independence we have now instead of restoring it Therefore searching for means to reinforce international trust and collaboration between South Korea and the United States, and leaving ROKA’s independence in operational control as a long term objective would be a more realistic method.

• 경제분석
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.34-83
• /
• 2020

본 연구는 통일한국에서 남한 중심으로 추진되는 통일정책을 분석하고 북한 주민들이 소득재분배와 관련한 의사결정에 참여할 때 어떤 정책이 채택되는지 살펴본다. 구체적으로 두 가지 정책을 분석한다. 첫째는 남한 중심의 이주 및 재분배정책으로서 남한의 중위 투표자가 가장 선호하는 이주 비율과 세율이 채택된다. 둘째는 북한이 참여하는 재분배정책으로서 이주가 자유롭고 통일한국에서 중위투표자가 세율을 선택하며 동 세율이 남북한 모든 주민들에게 동일하게 적용된다. 북한 주민들의 남한 이주문제를 명시적으로 분석하기 위해서 이주 의사결정을 내생화한다. 남한으로 이주를 선택하지 않는 북한 주민들은 새로운 정부를 구성하거나 통일 직후 남한으로부터의 재정 독립을 선언할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 남한 중심의 재분배정책 하에서 소득재분배가 이루어지지 않는다는 것을 보인다. 북한의 중위투표자는 소득재분배가 이루어지지 않는 상황에서 재정독립을 통해 자체적으로 소득재분배를 수행하는 것을 선호한다. 북한 참여 정책 하에서는 보다 적극적인 재분배 정책이 이루어지고 재정독립이 일어나지 않는다는 것을 보인다.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제35권5호
• /
• pp.92-99
• /
• 2007

Korea began preserving and managing natural monuments in 1933 under the Japanese Colonization, but South and North Korea had to establish natural monument management policies separately because of the division after the Korean Independence. The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the natural monument designations of South and North Koreas between 1933 and 2005 to introduce advanced polices for Oneness-Korea. The following are the results: According to data of December 2005, South Korea has 358 and North Korea has 474 natural monuments. North Korea has 116 more natural monuments than South Korea. In addition, over half of South Korea's designations are plants, whereas North Korea's designations are relatively well-balanced. Both South and North Korea designate plants(mostly trees) that are old and large. However, South Korea emphasizes the historical value of village forests, contrary to economic value in North Korea. Also, North Korea preserves many traditional fruit trees which have not been well-preserved in South Korea. As for animals, South Korea designates migratory wild animals by type and not by region to protect them at a national level, whereas North Korea designates the specific habitats of each type of wild animal. In addition, North Korea protects each region's cattle and chickens to preserve native traits of domesticated animals. Geologically, North Korea preserves 18 hot springs and 11 springs, whereas South Korea has none. Geographically, North Korea preserves 81 waterfalls, lakes, etc. In the conclusion, advanced natural monument management of South and North Korea is necessary to achieve effective preservation of natural monuments.

• 한국과 국제사회
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2017

이 연구는 북한 핵위협에 대한 대응과 미래 한반도 통일과정에서 한 미 중 3개국의 공조체제와 협력구상에 관한 것이다. 북핵문제와 한반도 통일문제에서 한 미 중의 공조와 협력 및 역할과 책임에 있어서 한국은 민족분단의 당사자이고, 미국은 국제문제의 책임국가이자 북한과는 적대적 미수교국이라는 점이며, 중국은 전통적 사회주의 우호관계의 당사국이자 북한 후견인 당사국이라는 점을 지적할 수 있다. 북한의 핵무기와 탄도미사일 등의 전략무기는 국제적 문제로서 향후 김정은의 돌발적 행동에 대비하기 위해서는 한 미 중 3국의 적극적인 공조와 협력 등 대응방안이 모색되어져야 할 시점이다. 그러나 북핵문제의 로드맵에 있어서 G2체제의 미국과 중국의 인식과 대응방법은 유엔안 보리결의사항인 대북제재 이행에서 미묘한 차이를 보이고 있다. 미국은 북핵위협에 대해 한미동맹차원에서 공동위협에 기반한 대북제재와 대북군사력 억제정책을 강력히 추진한 반면, 중국은 북핵위협에 대해 미국의 한반도개입에 대한 안보불안 등으로 북핵해결 과정에서 소극적인 입장을 보이고 있다. 북한은 체제생존 차원에서 중동국가들과 전략무기 거래를 지속적으로 해 온 전례국가라는 점에서 세계평화유지 차원에서라도 중단된 6자회담 다자안보 채널가동 등 압박과 외교협상의 현실적 방안으로 전환해야 한다. 한반도 통일문제는 남북한 당사자의 문제가 전제되어야 함에도 남북한은 민족적 문제를 강대국에 논리에 편승하려는 기현상을 보이고 있다. 그럼에도 북핵과 남북통일문제는 민족 당사자문제로서 국제적 지지를 확보하지 못한 북한의 해법보다는 한국주도의 평화적 해법에 더 설득력이 있어 보인다. 하지만 한 미 중은 한반도 평화정착을 위한 북한에 대한 '대북제재'와 '북한과의 대화'라는 투트랙 전략을 전방위적으로 강구해 나갈 필요성이 있으며, 북한자체의 경제적 자생력을 꾸준히 향상시키는 지원노력을 지속적으로 추진해 나가야 한다.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.79-111
• /
• 2016

Malaya attained independence on August 31, 1957 from Britain. However this new nation faced a communist insurgency known today as the "Malayan Emergency" (1948-1960). Then in 1961, Tunku announced a wider federation of "Malaysia", viz. Malaya, British Crown Colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo, and the protectorate of Brunei. Countering communism was a principal motive for "Malaysia". Sarawak's leftist elements were rejected with an armed opposition. Malaysia was formed excluding Brunei. Amidst its birth pangs, Malaysia faced hostile neighbors Indonesia and the Philippines; the former objected by way of Konfrontasi (1963-1967) while the latter laid claim to Sabah (formerly North Borneo). Malaya/ Malaysia was borne in the midst of the Cold War (1947-1991), a bipolar world between the US and the USSR. Malaya/Malaysia is utilized as a case of analysis and evaluation in the context of the twin trends of continuities and transformations in tracing the historical developments from the 1950's to the 1990's. The risks, motives, and challenges that prompted the shift in foreign relations reveal as much of the personality of the political leadership, the prevailing situations, and conditions from within and circumstances from without.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제35권2호통권121호
• /
• pp.71-80
• /
• 2007

Korea began preserving and managing natural monuments in 1933 under Japanese Colonization, but North Korea and South Korea were forced to establish separate natural monument management policies because of the division after the Korean Independence. The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the natural monument management policies of both south and North Korea between 1933 and 2005 to introduce new policies for Korea unification. The following are the results: First, South Korea manages every type of cultural asset, including natural monuments, through the 'Cultural Heritage Protection Act,' whereas North Korea managing its cultural assets through the 'Cultural Relics Protection Act' and the 'Landmark/Natural Monument Protection Act.' Second, South Korea preserves and utilizes natural monuments for the purpose of promoting the cultural experience of Korean people and contributing to the development of world culture, whereas North Korea uses its natural monuments to promote the superiority of socialism and protect its ruling power. Third, North and South Korea have similar classification systems for animals, plants, and geology, but North Korea classifies geography as one of its natural monuments. Unlike South Korea, North Korea also designates imported animals and plants not only for the preservation and research of genetic resources, but also for their value as economic resources. Fourth, North Korea authorizes the Cabinet to designate and cancel natural monuments, whereas South Korea designates and cancels natural monuments by the Cultural Heritage Administration through the deliberation of a Cultural Heritage Committee. Both Koreas' central administrations establish policies and their local governments carry them out, while their management systems are quite different. In conclusion, it is important to establish specified laws for the conservation of natural heritages and clarified standards of designation in order to improve the preservation and management system and to sustain the diversity of natural preservation. Moreover it is also necessary to discover resources in various fields, designate protection zones, and preserve imported trees. By doing so, we shall improve South Korea's natural monument management policies and ultimately enhance national homogeneity in preparation for the reunification of the Koreas in the future.

• 벤처창업연구
• /
• 제16권6호
• /
• pp.107-117
• /
• 2021

본 연구는 북한이탈주민의 경제적 자립과 안정적인 정착을 지원하는 하나의 방안인 창업을 촉진하기 위해서 이에 관련된 변인들의 인과관계를 살펴보는데 목적이 있으며, 구체적으로 첫째, 외향성, 자아성취욕구, 사회적 가치체계인 개인주의와 집단주의가 창업의도에 미치는 영향력을 살펴 보고자 하며, 둘쨰, 사회가치체계와 창업의도 간의 관계에서 사회적응성의 매개효과를 검증하고자 한다. 이를 위해 북한이탈주민을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였으며, 실증분석 대상은 북한이탈주민 223명 이었으며, 개인성향과 창업의도 간의 인과관계, 가치체계와 창업의도 간의 인과관계에 대한 검증을 위해 PLS 구조방정식을 사용하였으며, 가치체계와 창업의도 간의 관계에서 사회적응성의 매개 효과 검증을 PROCESS for SPSS Macro를 사용하였다. 실증분석결과를 살펴보면, 외향성이 북한이탈주민의 창업의도 수준에 정(+)의 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 분석되었으며, 자아성취욕구 요인은 창업의도에 정(+)의 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 개인주의적 가치를 중시하는 비사회주의적 가치관이 북한이탈주민의 창업의도에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 집단주의 가치는 창업의도에 유의한 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서 개인주의와 집단주의와 창업의도간의 사회적응성의 매개효과를 검증한 결과 개인주의는 사회적응성을 거쳐 창업의도에 미치는 간접효과는 부(-)의 유의한 영향력을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 시시점을 언급하였다.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권31호
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2013

The United Nations Command (UNC) and the communist North failed to reach an agreement on where the maritime demarcation line should be drawn in the process of signing a truce after the Korean War because of the starkly different positions on the boundary of their territorial waters. As a result, the Armistice Treaty was signed on July 1953 without clarification about the maritime border. In the following month, Commander of the UNC unilaterally declared the Northern Limit Line (NLL) as a complementing measure to the Armistice. Referring to this, North Korea and its followers in South Korea wrongfully argue that the NLL is a "ghost line" that was established not based on the international law. However, one should note that the waters south of the NLL has always been under South Korea's jurisdiction since Korea's independence from Japan on August 15, 1945. There is no need to ask North Korea's approval for declaring the territorial waters that had already been under our sovereign jurisdiction. We do not need North Korea's approval just as we do not need Japan's approval with regard to our sovereign right over Dokdo. The legal status of the NLL may be explained with the following three characteristics. First, the NLL is a de facto maritime borderline that defines the territorial waters under the respective jurisdiction of the two divided countries. Second, the NLL in the West Sea also serves as a de facto military demarcation line at sea that can be likened to the border on the ground. Third, as a contacting line where the sea areas controlled by the two Koreas meet, the NLL is a maritime non-aggression line that was established on the legal basis of the 'acquiescence' element stipulated by the Inter-Korea Basic Agreement (article 11) and the Supplement on the Non-aggression principle (article 10). Particularly from the perspective of the domestic law, the NLL should be understood as a boundary defining areas controlled by temporarily divided states (not two different states) because the problem exists between a legitimate central government (South Korea) and an anti-government group (North Korea). In this sense, the NLL problem should be viewed not in terms of territorial preservation or expansion. Rather, it should be understood as a matter of national identity related to territorial sovereignty and national pride. North Korea's continuous efforts to problematize the NLL may be part of its strategy to nullify the Armistice Treaty. In other words, North Korea tries to take away the basis of the NLL by abrogating the Armistice Treaty and creating a condition in which the United Nations Command can be dissolved. By doing so, North Korea may be able to start the process for the peace treaty with the United States and reestablish a maritime line of its interest. So, North Korea's rationale behind making the NLL a disputed line is to deny the effectiveness of the NLL and ask for the establishment of a new legal boundary. Such an effort should be understood as part of a strategy to make the NLL question a political and military dispute (the similar motivation can be found in Japan's effort to make Dokdo a disputed Island). Therefore, the South Korean government should not accommodate such hidden intentions and strategy of North Korea. The NLL has been the de facto maritime border (that defines our territorial waters) and military demarcation line at sea that we have defended with a lot of sacrifice for the last sixty years. This is the line that our government and the military must defend in the future as we have done so far. Our commitment to the defense of the NLL is not only a matter of national policy protecting territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction; it is also our responsibility for those who were fallen while defending the North-Western Islands and the NLL.

• 한국전문물리치료학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.87-91
• /
• 2023

Most advanced countries that are members of the World Physiotherapy have established a 4-year education system or specialized graduate school system for physical therapists based on national standards. They have also expanded their laws and systems to provide physical therapists with the autonomy and independence to offer services in their clinics. However, compared with developed countries in North America and Europe, there are issues with the autonomy and independence of physical therapists in Korea related to national regulations. Social status and recognition of the profession are also lagging. Korea is expected to become a super-aged society by 2025. To reduce the financial burden of healthcare and welfare on the government, it is necessary to extend the time spent by older adults on independent activities and minimize their time spent using medical services. To achieve this goal and maximize the active life of older adults, a plan to efficiently use licensed physical therapists in the country should be prepared. Korea should increase the license utilization rate of physical therapists to reduce waste at the national level and increase the professional hope of the younger generations of physical therapists. To create a healthcare policy focusing on the use of physical therapy personnel, similar to that in advanced countries, it is necessary to unify educational systems and produce excellent physical therapists. Providing professional autonomy can help physical therapists develop a sense of job satisfaction. Outstanding talent will choose physical therapy as a profession if they can see hope for their future careers, and if physical therapy services in Korea are similar to those delivered in advanced countries, physical therapy in Korea can develop into a healthcare service that people desire.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제53호
• /
• pp.61-107
• /
• 2017

올해로 한반도가 남과 북으로 분단된 지 72년이 흘렀다. 1945년 8월, 일제로부터 해방과 동시에 남쪽은 자본주의, 북쪽은 공산주의(사회주의) 이념을 바탕으로 한 체제 갈등과 대립을 해왔다. 이러한 남북분단은 단순히 정치 경제체제에만 머물지 않고 법제도 역시 동질성을 찾기 어려운상황이 되어 버렸다. 그동안의 분단은 법제분단도 함께 동반되는 사회적현상의 결과를 낳게 되었다. 일례로 북한은 해방과 동시에 구 소련군의 주둔 하에 북한지역을 지배하면서 법적 안정을 위한 조치를 빠르게 취했다. 마르크스와 엥겔스의 역사적 유물론을 바탕으로 한 토지사유화 폐지 등 이데올로기적 상부구조의 변화를 가져왔다. 이러한 작업은 구 소련 등 다른 사회주의 국가들의경우와 같이 생산수단인 토지사유화 폐지 절차를 거쳐 국유화 정책을 단행하기에 이르렀다. 북한 정권은 민족적 독립완수와 반제적 반봉건적 관계 청산이라는 미명하에 토지개혁을 실시함으로 인해 분단 이후 남북한체제 간의 현격한 변화를 가져왔다. 본 논문에서는 우선 남북법제를 중점으로 지난 72년간 사회주의의 실험과정에서 자본주의와 대결하면서 단절된 북한 법제의 특성과 법적 환경을 탐구하고자 한다. 한편, 현재 통일을 위해 진행 중인 법제통합 연구의 현황에 대해서도 간략히 진단해 본다. 그리고 법제분단을 극복하기 위해 남북분단에 따른 남과 북 각각의 국가로서 법적 지위를 규명해 보고, 남북관계의 법적 성격과 북한법제가 갖는 한계성에 대해 살펴본다. 아울러 법제통합을 위한 기본방향을 모색해 보고, 법제분단 해소 방안을 제시하고자 한다.