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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Armistice talks was a step that would ‘book-end’ the Korean war, and it was also an opportunity to design a new status-quo which came about after the war. The United States and China lead the Armistice talks in terms of their intentions and agreement. South and North Korea were given the responsibility to comply with the implementation of the final agreement. They had no right to decide on armistice talks and conclude agreements, and they were not responsible for implementation of the armistice terms.
Truce talks agenda was limited to military issues . cease fire conditions and assurances of future non-hostilities; the political agenda was left until after the war. The final Armistice Agreement, referred to many issues, such as establishment of a military demarcation line and a demilitarized zone, banning of military reinforcement and buildup, organization of a neutral monitoring body, and devising a peaceful resolution for the Korean peninsula through political discussion. Negotiations to discuss the return of prisoners was the last step to end the war. The political agenda to hold talks seeking a peaceful resolution for the Korean peninsula has great significance, when viewed in the framework of the armistice talks.
Unfortunately, the political conference ended in failure, and the armistice regime is still maintained in the Powers’ status-quo policies and hostile relations between the two Koreas. It is a still significant and meaningful if the two Koreas keep to the postwar items of understanding between North and South as stipulated in the Armistice Agreement and, in particular, the requirement that South and North Korea willingly strive for a peaceful resolution of the problem.
Truce talks agenda was limited to military issues . cease fire conditions and assurances of future non-hostilities; the political agenda was left until after the war. The final Armistice Agreement, referred to many issues, such as establishment of a military demarcation line and a demilitarized zone, banning of military reinforcement and buildup, organization of a neutral monitoring body, and devising a peaceful resolution for the Korean peninsula through political discussion. Negotiations to discuss the return of prisoners was the last step to end the war. The political agenda to hold talks seeking a peaceful resolution for the Korean peninsula has great significance, when viewed in the framework of the armistice talks.
Unfortunately, the political conference ended in failure, and the armistice regime is still maintained in the Powers’ status-quo policies and hostile relations between the two Koreas. It is a still significant and meaningful if the two Koreas keep to the postwar items of understanding between North and South as stipulated in the Armistice Agreement and, in particular, the requirement that South and North Korea willingly strive for a peaceful resolution of the problem.
목차
머리말
1. 휴전회담 의제와 쟁점
2. 군사분계선과 NLL
3. 포로협상과 납치 문제
4. 정치회담과 정전체제
맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-900-002480164