지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2003.9
- 수록면
- 43 - 64 (22page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The U.S.-ROK alliance was established during the Korean War and formalized by the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty after the war. The alliance was the basic framework that guaranteed security on the Korean peninsula during the Cold War. To the U.S., South Korea was perceived as a critical forward base in Northeast Asia for containing the Soviet Union, while protecting free world. At the same time, to South Korea, the U.S. was the most reliable patron in the process of building a free democratic country, while protecting itself from North Korea's military threats.
During the Cold War, the U.S. and South Korea have maintained the status quo as the best strategy on the Korean peninsula and that supported interests of the two countries. In this period, North Korea ceaselessly carried out military provocations against the U.S-ROK alliance, violating the armistice agreements. Nevertheless, the alliance took patience instead of retaliation against North Korean armed provocations. The main reason that North Korea's provocations failed to trigger the second Korean War was because the U.S.-ROK alliance focused on maintaining status quo on the Korean peninsula. And the reason why the alliance opted for status quo was due to the Cold War structure.
In the last part of 20<SUP>th</SUP> century, the Cold War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. remained a sole superpower. The new international order began to emerge, so does the fundamental change in strategic environment surrounding the Korean peninsula. Under the new strategic setting, the U.S.-ROK alliance no more has to deal with North Korean issue as a part of bi-polar global system, but a matter of one rogue state in Northeast Asia. The U.S. began to demand North Korea to take change out of the Cold War practices. Depending upon how North Korea responds to the demand, the height of tension on the Korean peninsula varies. Considering the rigidness of North Korean regime, it is highly probable that the U.S.-ROK alliance will face unpredictable and drastic change in North Korean threat in the coming years. Nevertheless, it is expected that the first part of 21<SUP>st</SUP> century will witness the transition of the Korean peninsula from division to unification and unified Korea.
The role of the U.S.-ROK alliance in the period of transition is far more important than that of the Cold War. During the Cold War, since the alliance took just defensive strategy, each partner was required mostly to hold its position based on the initial plan. When the alliance is in the period of transition, it has to manage the change, which may occur on and around the Korean peninsula. Timely and more frequent coordination between two partners of the alliance, the U.S. and South Korea, is required. First, the U.S. and South Korea need to adjust their perception of threat from North Korea. Second, the two partners of the alliance need to share the same strategic goal so that they can create best synergy effect out of the alliance. Third, both need to share the same strategic concept so that they can divide roles for the effective implementation of the strategy.
Under the new strategic environment, the U.S.-ROK alliance will manage the transition on the Korean peninsula and pave the road for broader role of regional stability in the longer period.
During the Cold War, the U.S. and South Korea have maintained the status quo as the best strategy on the Korean peninsula and that supported interests of the two countries. In this period, North Korea ceaselessly carried out military provocations against the U.S-ROK alliance, violating the armistice agreements. Nevertheless, the alliance took patience instead of retaliation against North Korean armed provocations. The main reason that North Korea's provocations failed to trigger the second Korean War was because the U.S.-ROK alliance focused on maintaining status quo on the Korean peninsula. And the reason why the alliance opted for status quo was due to the Cold War structure.
In the last part of 20<SUP>th</SUP> century, the Cold War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. remained a sole superpower. The new international order began to emerge, so does the fundamental change in strategic environment surrounding the Korean peninsula. Under the new strategic setting, the U.S.-ROK alliance no more has to deal with North Korean issue as a part of bi-polar global system, but a matter of one rogue state in Northeast Asia. The U.S. began to demand North Korea to take change out of the Cold War practices. Depending upon how North Korea responds to the demand, the height of tension on the Korean peninsula varies. Considering the rigidness of North Korean regime, it is highly probable that the U.S.-ROK alliance will face unpredictable and drastic change in North Korean threat in the coming years. Nevertheless, it is expected that the first part of 21<SUP>st</SUP> century will witness the transition of the Korean peninsula from division to unification and unified Korea.
The role of the U.S.-ROK alliance in the period of transition is far more important than that of the Cold War. During the Cold War, since the alliance took just defensive strategy, each partner was required mostly to hold its position based on the initial plan. When the alliance is in the period of transition, it has to manage the change, which may occur on and around the Korean peninsula. Timely and more frequent coordination between two partners of the alliance, the U.S. and South Korea, is required. First, the U.S. and South Korea need to adjust their perception of threat from North Korea. Second, the two partners of the alliance need to share the same strategic goal so that they can create best synergy effect out of the alliance. Third, both need to share the same strategic concept so that they can divide roles for the effective implementation of the strategy.
Under the new strategic environment, the U.S.-ROK alliance will manage the transition on the Korean peninsula and pave the road for broader role of regional stability in the longer period.
목차
Ⅰ. 서언
Ⅱ. 냉전시대의 한미동맹
Ⅲ. 신질서의 태동과 미국의 전략
Ⅳ. 새로운 국제질서와 한반도의 전략환경
Ⅴ. 새로운 전략환경에서의 한미동맹
Ⅵ. 결론
[참고문헌]
[ABSTRACT]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
전략적 제휴의 연구동향 : 국내외 주요 학술지를 중심으로
인터넷전자상거래연구
2015 .06
-
한미동맹의 위기와 동맹관리역량의 평가
국제관계연구
2004 .03
-
한반도 동맹구조와 한국의 신 대외전략
경기연구원 기본연구
2010 .11
-
인터넷을 통한 전자상거래기업의 경영전략과 전략적 제휴에 관한 연구
문화산업연구
2007 .06
-
중국 진출 다국적 물류 기업의 서비스 제휴 동기와 파트너 선정, 제휴성과, 시장성과의 관계
서비스경영학회지
2012 .12
-
중국 진출 다국적 물류 기업의 서비스 제휴 동기와 파트너 선정 기준, 제휴성과, 시장성과의 관계
한국서비스경영학회 학술대회
2012 .11
-
Allying with the United States:Changing South Korean Attitudes
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2005 .01
-
도․소매 여행업체 간의 제휴 관리역량과 관계지속성에 대한 관계 연구 : 제휴 성과의 매개효과를 중심으로
관광레저연구
2013 .09
-
한국기업의 국제전략제휴 성과 결정요인
무역학회지
2002 .09
-
Partner’s Attitude and Behavioral Directions in Strategic Alliance
한국무역학회 학술대회
2013 .05
-
한국 주도의 한ㆍ미동맹 변화에 관한 경험적 연구
한국정치학회보
2008 .03
-
한미동맹의 문제점 진단과 한미동맹 강화의 논리
국가전략
2003 .01
-
한ㆍ미 안보동맹의 형성과 변화
사회과학연구
2003 .08
-
Change and Continuity: The U.S.-ROK Alliance at 60
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2013 .01
-
60년 한미동맹의 지속과 변화
평화연구
2013 .10
-
Information Sharing Alliances in the Airline Industry: an Examination of Code Sharing Agreements
Asian International Studies Review
2005 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-350-018351460