• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.

• 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.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제3권2호
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2004

As a result of very limited access due to the military confrontation between South and North Koreas for the last five decades, ecosystems in the transboundary coastal area in the western part of Korean Peninsula have been protected from intensive developments in both Koreas. In the core of the recent two military collisions lies the fishery resources represented as blue crabs as well as the politico-military aspect. Increasing development pressures from both sides as reflected in the South Korea supporting the construction of an industrial complex in Kaesung, North Korea, is the main factor which threatens the sustainable resource base in this region. This research is aimed to develop a cooperative management system for the well-preserved transboundary coastal area between South Korea and North Korea. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework of OECD was used to assess environmental conditions, socioeconomic pressures on the environment of the region, and policy responses of both Koreas to those pressures. Protection of ecosystems, peace settlement, and prosperity of the region and the entire peninsula were proposed as the management goals of the cooperative management system. The designation of the area as a Co-managed Marine Protected Area System (COMPAS) through close cooperation among South Korea, North Korea, and international entities was suggested as a way to achieve those goals. Revision of legal and institutional mechanisms, strengthening knowledge base for optimal COMPAS management, integration of the marine protected area and DMZ (demilitarized zone) ecosystem, enhancing stakeholder participation, building international partnership, and securing financial resources were presented as six management strategies.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.25-34
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the economic ripple effect(ERE) of logistics industry by construction of Trans-Korea Railway (TKR) and present policy measures to minimize the economic loss of South Korea (SK). Research design, data and methodology: As the analysis method, exponential smoothing was used for demand forecasting, Input-Output analysis was used to estimate the economic ripple effect coefficient, and scenario analysis was used to an efficient way to invest in TKR to minimize SK's economic losses. Results: 1) the production(logistics fares) of TKR for 10 years after its completion is about 11.42 trillion won in positive relations, and 26.89 billion won in negative relations. 2) the ERE of SK in positive relations is 24.32 trillion won in production inducement effect, 8.1 trillion won in value-added inducement effect, 3.54 trillion won in import inducement effect, and 70,930 persons in employment inducement effect. But the ERE was insufficient in the negative relations. 3) SK's efficient investment method is providing materials and equipment by SK and building the TKR by North Korea in positive inter-Korea relations. Conclusions: For the successful operation of TKR, international cooperation, legalization and stable peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula are required.