• 해양안보
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.103-128
• /
• 2024

노르트스트림 폭발, 발트해와 홍해에서의 해저케이블 훼손 사건은 전 세계적으로 해저전에 관한 관심을 불러일으키고 각국은 대응방안을 준비하고 있다. 하지만 한국은 해저케이블에 네트워크 대부분을 의존하고 북한과 주변국의 위협에 취약한 상황이지만 해저전(Seabed Warfare)이라는 용어조차 익숙하지 않다. 본 논문은 해저전의 정의와 특징, 각국의 현황을 분석하고 대응방안을 제시하는 국내 최초의 연구물이다. 해저전 대응을 위해 국제적으로 규칙기반의 질서를 공유하는 국가 간 소다자주의에 의한 협력체계 구축, 국내 관계 기관 및 업체와의 거버넌스 구축, 거부적 억제와 보복적 억제에 기초한 군사적 대응방안을 제시한다.

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.573-600
• /
• 2009

최근에는 WTO의 다자주의 체제에 대비되어 지역주의 또는 양자주의를 표방하는 FTA의 체결이 급격히 증가하고 있다. FTA 체제하에서 무역구제제도는 존립 필요성 및 내용과 관련된 다양한 이슈를 가지고 있다. FTA체제 하에서 무역구제제도의 존립근거는 GATT 제24조에서 찾아 볼 수 있는데, 공식적인 무역구제제도는 반덤핑, 상계, 세이프가드가 있고 본 연구는 이러한 협의의 무역구제제도 개념에 국한하여 이루어졌다. FTA체결 시에는 한국의 경제상황과 국내산업 보호 필요성을 충분히 고려하고 FTA협상 상대국 별로 다른 무역구제제도를 도입하는 것이 필요하다. 현재, 한국의 기 체결된 FTA에서 무역구제제도는 대체로 WTO협정의 권리와 의무를 유지하고, 일부 FTA 무역구제분야에서 상황에 따라 협정의 일부를 변경하고 있다. 본 연구는 위의 분석결과를 실제 한 중 FTA의 무역구제 협상에 적용하였는데 즉, 중국과의 산업전반 및 주요 교역품목에 관한 경쟁력 우열관계를 고려하여 무역구제제도가 결정되어야 할 것이다. 따라서 FTA의 체결 목적을 충분히 고려하고, 예상치 못한 경제상황 변화에 대비한다는 취지에서 무역구제조치의 발동 근거를 마련할 필요가 있다. 또한 민감품목에 대해서는 추가로 특별세이프가드 규정을 도입해야할 것으로 생각된다.

• 한국항만학회지
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• pp.93-110
• /
• 1992

The most change in this century is supposed to be declination of ideology, and block of world economy. Addition to down full of cold war atmosphere around Northeast Asia, not only economic and social mood in this region is dramatically changed, but also it gave birth to the block of Northeast economy that accerlated new hub of world economy. According to dramatic change of economic surroundings the dynamic potential of growth in this region will be guided to enlarge inter-regional trade and increase volume of trade, thus suggests to grow steadily transportation. cargos in this region will have to arrange the system of delivery and inner transportation, accessary facilities, inter-regional harbors if North America and EC has connected easily. As have accerlated GATT and UR represented multilateralism and regionalism, it has regulated to increase trades of region due to relief of the trade barrier through specific areas has agreed with separately. The flow of regionalism of world economy has appeared to realize EC and NAFTA centered U.S.A, and also has presented to free trade region or one-size market agreement in Asia as APEC, EAEG in Malaysia, and etc. In defense to this block and internationalism of world economy, Pusan has to come forward to the hub of Northeast others has proposed a project to dominate the Northeast, Economy Association Agreement as Far East comprehensive development project in USSR, Hunchun development project in NK, and East Sea development project in PRC, Niigate regional development in Japan, Duman River development project in NK, and East Sea development project in Korea. As this exercise has proceed, Pusan also have arranged development strategy definitely and prepared provisions systematically. Engaging to participate center of delivery system is meant to be completed complex functions, namely the transfer storage processing & assembly function of international commodity. Pusan has ability to be terminal point of TSR. it had been connected to EC as the biggest economy block and TKR as complex transportation root to Far East, it would be the center of inground and seabase delivery terminal to Rotterdom as the biggest container pier and major piers to North-East and South East Asia. In order to provide a Role of 21 century's internationalization, Pusan has appealed to participate in management information research and development connected to Pohang-Ulsan-Changwon-Masan, and has utilized efficiently the resources such as man, material, money and information.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제7권3호
• /
• pp.1-26
• /
• 2023

This article will analyze and forecast important variables and dynamics in global power politics after the war in Ukraine. It tries to use several perspectives to analyze international relations, particularly liberal internationalism and structural realism. In short, core variables are as follows; First, how is the US-led liberal international order and globalization being adjusted? Second, how will the U.S.-China strategic competition, which is the biggest and structural variable, cause changes in the international order in the future? The third variable, how stable are Sino-Russia relations in the context of a structuring U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle? Fourth, to what extent will third middle hedging states outside the U.S. and China be able to exercise strategic autonomy in the face of multipolarization? To summarize, the first of these four variables is the largest basic variable at the global political and economic level in terms of its impact on the international community, and it has been led by the United States. The second variable, in terms of actors, seems to be the most influential structural variable in global competition, and the US-China strategic competition is likely to be a long game. Thus the world will not be able to escape the influence of the competition between the two global powers. For South Korea, this second variable is probably the biggest external variable and dilemma. The third variable, the stability of Sino-Russia relations, determines balance of global power in the 21st century. The U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle, as seen in the current war in Ukraine, will operate as the greatest power variable in not only global power competition but also changes in the international order. Just as the U.S. is eager for a Sino-Russia fragmentation strategy, such as a Tito-style wedge policy to manage balance of power in the early years of the Cold War, it needs a reverse Kissinger strategy to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship, in order to push for a Sino-Russia splitting in the 21st century. But with the war in Ukraine, it seems that this fragmentation strategy has already been broken. In the context of Northeast Asia, whether or not the stability of Sino-Russia relations depends not only on the United States, but also on the Korean Peninsula. Finally, the fourth variable is a dependent variable that emerged as a result of the interaction of the above three variables, but simultaneously it remains to be seen that this variable is likely to act as the most dynamic and independent variable that can promote multilateralism, multipolarization, and pan-regionalism of the global international community in the future. Taking into account these four variables together, we can make an outlook on the change in the international order.