• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2015

Geopolitics or Political Geography is an essential academic field that should be studied carefully for a more comprehensive analysis of international security relations. However, because of its tarnished image as an ideology that supported the NAZI German expansion and aggression, geopolitics has not been regarded as a pure academic field and was rejected and expelled from the academic communities starting from the Cold War years in 1945. During the Cold War, ideology, rather than geography, was considered more important in conducting and analyzing international relations. However, after the end of the Cold War and with the beginning of a new era in which territorial and religious confrontations are taking place among nations - including sub national tribal political organizations such as the Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations - geopolitical analysis again is in vogue among the scholars and analysts on international security affairs. Most of the conflicts in international relations that is occurring now in the post-Cold War years can be explained more effectively with geopolitical concepts. The post - Cold War international relations among East Asian countries are especially better explained with geopolitical concepts. Unlike Europe, where peaceful development took place after the Cold War, China, Japan, Korea, the United States, Taiwan and Vietnam are feeling more insecure in the post-Cold War years. Most of the East Asian nations' economies have burgeoned during the Cold War years under the protection of the international security structure provided by the two superpowers. However, after the Cold War years, the international security structure has not been stable in East Asia and thus most of the East Asian nations began to build up stronger military forces of their own. Because most of the East Asian nations' national security and economy depend on the oceans, these nations desire to obtain more powerful navies and try to occupy islands, islets, or even rocks that may seem like a strategic asset for their economy and security. In this regard, the western Pacific Ocean is becoming a place of confrontation among the East Asian nations. As Robert Kaplan, an eminent international analyst, mentioned, East Asia is a Seascape while Europe is a Landscape. The possibility of international conflict on the waters of East Asia is higher than in any other period in East Asia's international history.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.39
• /
• pp.140-162
• /
• 2016

The construction of Jeju Naval Base was finally completed and donated to the Republic of Korea Navy on February 26th this year. There is no doubt that the new base will contribute to the substantial augmentation of Korea's naval power and maritime security. However, we should note that the new naval base took a long and hard twenty-three years to be completed. In the 21st century, Korea should adopt a new strategy that can fulfill the security requirements of Korea for the new age of international relations. The 21st century is characterized by globalization, and in the world of globalization, a national boarder has become meaningless. In the late 20th century, after the Cold War, trade between countries have greatly increased and so did the importance of the seas. Having transformed from an agricultural country into a commercial country, Korea went from a continental state to a maritime state. Korea has become the 9th largest trading state, and obviously, the importance of the sea has become significant. Korea's national strategic focus needs to be on the sea for national survival. Thus, since the 1990s, the Korean Navy has planned to build the Jeju Naval Base. Jeju, due to its geopolitical characteristics, is extremely important to the 21st century Korea's economy and national security. Jeju is the starting point of the sea route that reaches out to the world, and at the same time, the ending point of the sea route that heads towards Korea. Jeju is located in the center of Northeast Asia and thus, Jeju Naval Base is extremely important for the area's security and order. Jeju Naval Base will be very useful not only for the maritime security of Korea, but also for keeping peace and order in Northeast Asia. Jeju Naval Base was the minimal effort against the six sea route security threats towards Korea. The six sea route threats are: 1) Threat from North Korea; 2) China's Threat towards Korea's sovereignty; 3) China's treat towards Korea's fishery; 4) Threat from Japan; 5) Threat towards Korea's sea routes; 6) Threat from recent phenomena of isolationism of the United States. Jeju Naval Base is built for both warships and civilian ships--such as cruise ships--to use. Just like the United States' Pearl Harbor, Jeju Naval Base will become not only the largest military base, but a beautiful tourist site.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.43-70
• /
• 2021

This study started from questioning our general view that the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) is a natural result of Japan being a prosperous and island country. Japan's naval power collapsed after World War II. The initial power of the JMSDF, founded in 1954, was very small and not different from the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN), mostly consisting of ships given by or borrowed from the US. Although growing into the world's second-largest economy and the geographical characteristics of an island nation acted as an opportunity to increase naval forces, there were also difficulties in the early stage, such as a temporary severance with the Japanese Navy, strategic thinking centered on land forces, and an economic crisis caused by the oil crisis. As a result, the JMSDF has become a world-class naval power and is developing into a four helicopter carrier operating system, which may change the basic concept of exclusive defense. There are various factors behind the growth of Japan's naval power, but this study explores how to develop Korean naval forces by analyzing how Japan developed their escort fleet, the core of the JMSDF, focusing on the eight (艦)-eight (機) fleet system, which was the basic logic behind building the JMSDF.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.37
• /
• pp.193-241
• /
• 2015

China, Japan and Korea are the world's top 10 energy consumers, and so very interested in the development of seabed hydrocarbon resources in order to meet their energy demands. The East China Sea is the tri-junction area where three countries' entitlements on the maritime boundaries are overlapped. There are abundant oil reserves in the East China Sea, and therefore competitions among countries are growing to get control of them. Although these countries have concluded the bilateral agreements to jointly develop resources in the East China Sea, they do not function as well. Because joint development and management of seabed petroleum resources can lead to stable development system, and to lower possibility of legal and political disputes, the needs for joint development agreement among three countries are urgent. Meanwhile, Northeast Asian seas are semi-closed seas, which are geographically closed and vulnerable to marine pollution. Moreover there are a lot of nuclear power plants in coastal area, and seabed petroleum resources are being developed. So it is likely to occur nuclear and oil spill accidents. Fukushima nuclear disaster and Bohai Bay oil spill accident in 2011 are the cases to exhibit the potential of major marine pollution accidents in this area. It is anticipated that the risks become higher because power plants and offshore oil platforms are extending gradually. Therefore, the ways to seek the joint marine environmental protection agreement focused on regulation of nuclear power plant and offshore oil platform have to be considered. In this paper, we try to find the way to make joint development and joint environmental protection agreement in Northeast Asian seas. We concentrate on the measure to drive joint development of seabed petroleum deposits in East China Sea's overlap area, despite of maritime delimitation and territorial disputes, and we try to drive joint marine environmental protection system to respond to marine pollution and accidents due to offshore oil platform and nuclear power plants. Through these consideration, we seek solutions to deal with lack of energy, disputes of maritime territorial and boundary delimitation, and marine pollution in Northeast Asia.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• 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.

• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.695-710
• /
• 2018

Following the collapse of Hanjin Shipping, building a strong maritime cluster is one of the policy measures for the re-construction of the Korean shipping and shipbuilding industries. Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop a policy alternative for building a maritime cluster. Using Porter's diamond models, we analyzed the Imabari maritime cluster of Japan, which is characterized by cooperation between key industries, such as shipping, shipbuilding, shipbuilding equipment, and finance. The Imabari Maritime Cluster is equipped with complete domestic demand conditions and related supporting industry conditions. Although the strengths of the production conditions include excellent family-based management and strong support from regional administration and banks which develops independency among cluster members, the weak points include the absense of robust port services and difficulty in recruiting young talent in small and medium-sized cities. We can confirm that the company's strategy is focused on stable management, rather than a short-term view.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.82-114
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this article is to analyze the progress of North Korea's SLBM threat, and to assess the technological capacity and threat level of its SLBMs. Currently, North Korea has approximately 1000 ballistic missiles, such as the SCUD, Musudan, and Nodong, in stock. This article pays close attention to the background and strategical implication behind North Korea's obsession with developing SLBMs despite possessing sufficient means to launch provocations with its current arsenal of ground based ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. Based on the abovementioned analysis, this article will recommend possible response directions for the ROK Armed Forces to North Korea's SLBM threat. It is highly difficult to detect SLBMs due to its stealthy nature, as it is launched underwater after covert infiltration. North Korea's SLBM is considered a game changer in that even one SLBM can significantly change the strategic balance of North East Asia. North Korea's SLBM test launch in August has made a 500km flight, landing 80km inside the JADIZ (Japan Air Defense Identification Zone), and as such, it is assessed that North Korea already possesses underwater ejection and cold launch capabilities. The most realistic response to North Korea's imminent SLBM threat is bolstering anti-submarine capabilities. ROK Armed Forces need to upgrade its underwater kill-chain by modernizing and introducing new airborne anti-submarine assets and nuclear-powered submarines, among many options. Moreover, we should integrate SM-3 missiles with the Aegis Combat system that possess strong detection capabilities and flexibility, thereby establishing a sea-based Ballistic Missle Defense (BMD) system centered around the Aegis Combat System, as sea-based ballistic missile threats are best countered out in the seas. Finally, the capabilities gap that could arise as a result of budgetary concerns and timing of fielding new assets should be filled by establishing firm ROK-US-Japan combined defense posture.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.153-173
• /
• 2017

On 15 December 2015, China seized an underwater drone belonging to the U.S. in the South China Sea. The underwater drone was then about to be retrieved by the Bowditch, a U.S. naval ship.Although China returned the underwater drone to the U.S. on 20 December 2016, the incident resulted in the considerable controversy involving the use of underwater drones. The reason for this is that the seizure of the underwater drone happened in the exclusive economic zone (hereafter referred to as "EEZ") of the Philippines. Part XIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereafter referred to as "UNCLOS") governs the matters of marine scientific research (hereafter referred to as "MSR"). If a State intends to use an underwater drone in the EEZ of another coastal State for the purpose of MSR, the former has to obtain the consent of the latter in accordance with relevant provisions included in Part XIII of the UNCLOS. However, it is not obvious whether the consent of a coastal State should be required to launch an underwater drone in the EEZ of the State for the purpose of hydrographic surveying or military surveying. Maritime powers such as the U.S. regard hydrographic surveying or military surveying as part of "other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines" found in Article 58(1) of the UNCLOS, or part of the freedom of the high seas. This interpretation is not incompatible with the implications that the UNCLOS has. Nevertheless, Korea cannot accept this kind of interpretation that is supported by maritime powers. The freedom of hydrographic surveying or military surveying could imply that the EEZ of Korea would be full of underwater drones launched by China, Japan or even Russia. Hence, Korea should claim that the data collected for the purpose of MSR cannot be distinguished from that collected for the purpose of hydrographic surveying or military surveying. This means that hydrographic surveying or military surveying without the consent of a coastal State in the EEZ of the State should not be permitted.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.149-173
• /
• 2020

While the United States and other Western states are in trouble with COVID-19 crisis, China is continuing its aggressive ocean expansion with its Gray-zone strategy. The Gray-zone strategy, which China uses around the South China Sea, refers to a strategy that promotes a change in international politics by creating an unclear state, neither war or peace. China, which is trying to expand its influence across East Asia, will also try to project a Gray zone strategy on the Korean Peninsula. The possible scenarios are as follows: 1) South Korea is accidentally involved in a dispute in the South China Sea, 2) Military conflicts between South Korea and China is caused by illegal fishing of Chinese boats in Yellow Sea, 3) China tries to interfere with Socotra Rock, 4) Unlikely, but possible in the future that China induce the military conflicts between Korea and Japan on the Dokdo issue. In order to cope with these scenarios, Korea should prepare the following measures from a long-term perspective: the creation of an Asian maritime safety fleet, the integ rated operation of the navy and the coast guard in the framework of the national fleet, and strengthening the conflict control system for China's provocations.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.30
• /
• pp.99-142
• /
• 2012

Withe increased North Korea's security threats, the South Korean navy has been faced with deteriorating security environment. While North Korea has increased asymmetric forces in the maritime and underwater with the development of nuclear weapons, and China and Japan have made a large investment in the buildup of naval forces, the power of the Pacific fleet of the US, a key ally is expected to be weakened. The biggest threat comes from China's intervention in case of full-scale war with North Korea, but low-density conflict issues are also serious problems. North Korea has violated the Armistice Agreement 2,660 times since the end of Korean War, among which the number of marine provocations reaches 1,430 times, and the tension over the NLL issue has been intensifying. With tension mounting between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo issue and conflict escalating with China over Ieo do Islet, the US Navy has confronted situation where it cannot fully concentrate on the security of the Korean peninsula, which leads to need for strengthening of South Korea's naval forces. Let's look at naval forces of neighboring countries. North Korea is threatening South Korean navy with its increased asymmetric forces, including submarines. China has achieved the remarkable development of naval forces since the promotion of 3-step plan to strengthen naval power from 1989, and it now retains highly modernized naval forces. Japan makes an investment in the construction of stat of the art warship every year. Since Japan's warship boasts of its advanced performance, Japan's Maritime Self Defense Force is evaluated the second most powerful behind the US Navy on the assumption that submarine power is not included in the naval forces. In this situation, naval power construction of South Korean navy should be done in phases, focusing on the followings; First, military strength to repel the energy warship quickly without any damage in case of battle with North Korea needs to be secured. Second, it is necessary to develop abilities to discourage the use of nuclear weapons of North Korea and attack its nuclear facilities in case of emergency. Third, construction of military power to suppress armed provocations from China and Japan is required. Based on the above naval power construction methods, the direction of power construction is suggested as follows. The sea fleet needs to build up its war potential to defeat the naval forces of North Korea quickly and participate in anti-submarine operations in response to North Korea's provocations. The task fleet should be composed of 3 task flotilla and retain the power to support the sea fleet and suppress the occurrence of maritime disputes with neighboring countries. In addition, it is necessary to expand submarine power, a high value power asset in preparation for establishment of submarine headquarters in 2015, develop anti-submarine helicopter and load SLAM-ER missile onto P-3C patrol aircraft. In case of maine corps, division class military force should be able to conduct landing operations. It takes more than 10 years to construct a new warship. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish plans for naval power construction carefully in consideration of reality and future. For the naval forces to safeguard maritime sovereignty and contribute to national security, the acquisition of a huge budget and buildup of military power is required. In this regard, enhancement of naval power can be achieved only through national, political and military understanding and agreement. It is necessary to let the nation know that modern naval forces with improved weapon system can serve as comprehensive armed forces to secure the command of the sea, perform defense of territory and territorial sky and attack the enemy's strategic facilities and budget inputted in the naval forces is the essential source for early end of the war and minimization of damage to the people. If the naval power construction is not realized, we can be faced with a national disgrace of usurpation of national sovereignty of 100 years ago. Accordingly, the strengthening of naval forces must be realized.