• Strategy21
• /
• 통권30호
• /
• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

본 논문은 5대 국제항공테러범죄협약, 다시 말해서 UN의 전문기구인 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서 제정된 1963년 도쿄협약, 1970 헤이그협약, 1971 몬트리올협약, 1988년 몬트리올 의정서 그리고 1991년 가소성폭약협약에 규정된 관할권조항의 내용과 그 문제점을 연구하였는데 국제항공테러 협약의 관할권을 연구하면서 얻은 결론을 다음과 같다. 첫째, 항공테러협약의 관할권규정에서 공통으로 발견되는 것은 어느 협약도 관할권의 우선순위를 명시하지 않고 있다는 점이다. 결국 하이재킹 된 항공기가 착륙한 국가와 항공기등록국간 관할권문제가 발생하는데 대부분의 경우 착륙국이 하이재커를 처벌하는 예가 많다. 둘째, 국제법상 전통적인 관할권이론에서 많은 이론이 제기되었던 소극적 국적주의(passive personality principle)가 국제항공테러협약의 제정 이후 각종 국제테러협약에서 점차적으로 발전되어가고 있는 경향을 볼 수 있다. 1973년의 뉴욕협약 제3조 1항, 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (d) 그리고 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (b)가 그 예이다. 또한 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (c)와 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (c)에서는 자국에게 작위 또는 부작위를 강요하기 위한 범행의 경우에도 그 대상국가가 관할권을 행사할 수 있도록하고 있다. 만일 장래에 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 경우에는 국제항공 테러범죄를 좀 더 효과적으로 억제하기 위하여 소극적 국적주의를 고려할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약은 범인의 국적주의를 부여하고 있지않으나 인질협약은 제5조 1항 (b)에 인질억류범의 국적국가에게 관할권을 부여하고 있다. 만일 A국가의 국민이 어떤 국가나 제3자의 작위나 부작위를 강요할 목적으로 B국가에서 인질을 억류했다면 A국가도 그자에 대한 관할권을 행사할 권리를 가진다는 것이다. 따라서 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 때는 이 문제도 고려할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 인질협약 제 5조 1항 (b)는 무국적자가 상주하는 국가에서 만약 그가 인질억류범죄를 행했고, 그 국가가 그렇게 하는 것이 적절하다고 고려하는 경우 그에 대하여 관할권을 행사할 권리를 부여한다. 이와 같은 목적에서 볼 때 무국적거주자를 국민과 동일하게 보고 있는데 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약에서는 없는 조항이다. 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이될 때는 이 문제도 함께 고려할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.