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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The purpose of this thesis is to establish the proper understanding of "Anticipatory Self-Defense" and, as being the present and critical issue at the Korean Peninsular, to seek the Justice of a ‘Preemptive Attack’ as the correspondence concept of response to a nuclear threat of North Korea.
Republic of Korea government has adopted ‘Active-Positive Deterrence Strategy’ which is a military strategy against North Korea to overcome a practical nuclear threat itself of North Korea. The basic concept of this strategy, when being acquired the indications of provocation of a attack of nuclear by North Korea, is of Positive Deterrence Strategy based Anticipatory Self-Defense which eliminate nuclear threats and the facilities of conduct of a war on North Korea in advance by preemptive attacks which have the method of attack with dominant power.
It is not the concept of Preventive war of Bush Doctrine(Anticipatory Doctrine) to lay out a preemptive attack to the probability of provocation of North Korea. But it is very limited way of attack which can be only applied to a nuclear threat of North Korea under such conditions of urgent situation. This attack should be planned and developed in the concept of Anticipatory Self-Defense, which should be built on the urgency of risk and the limited use of armed force.
It is a compelling deterrence to North Korea that is necessary the best way to prevent nuclear war. because it is based on the sure the threat of loss to which a aggressor with the probability of provocation can not accept. But this threat, when it is happen at an unexpected situation and the sufficient protection of nuclear war, is composed by a notice to enemy country against which this threat can be carried out by its intention and will. Therefore, the focus of deterrence of war by nuclear weapon has not an intention to destroy enemy, but if the enemy set his face to tyranny they should be undergone to the threat of perishment.
Therefore a deterrence to North Korea should be thoroughly to keep a balance against threat and invasion of North Korea. On this wise, it is suggested to emphasize that the responsibility of government is the deterrence of war by building up stronger deterrence to North Korea rather than now. Even though, if it should be inevitably needed to launch a preemptive attack, as it was previously stated, it must be an attack which is against limited objectives and limited areas the by sophisticated the cutting edge of weapons. That is, it can be only justified to launch a preemptive attack by the methods of attack of which is modernized and being precise, being distinguished the situation of nuclear from the situation of non-nuclear under such conditions that are met by the principle of balance and distinction, so that it does not incur civilian damage.
Republic of Korea government has adopted ‘Active-Positive Deterrence Strategy’ which is a military strategy against North Korea to overcome a practical nuclear threat itself of North Korea. The basic concept of this strategy, when being acquired the indications of provocation of a attack of nuclear by North Korea, is of Positive Deterrence Strategy based Anticipatory Self-Defense which eliminate nuclear threats and the facilities of conduct of a war on North Korea in advance by preemptive attacks which have the method of attack with dominant power.
It is not the concept of Preventive war of Bush Doctrine(Anticipatory Doctrine) to lay out a preemptive attack to the probability of provocation of North Korea. But it is very limited way of attack which can be only applied to a nuclear threat of North Korea under such conditions of urgent situation. This attack should be planned and developed in the concept of Anticipatory Self-Defense, which should be built on the urgency of risk and the limited use of armed force.
It is a compelling deterrence to North Korea that is necessary the best way to prevent nuclear war. because it is based on the sure the threat of loss to which a aggressor with the probability of provocation can not accept. But this threat, when it is happen at an unexpected situation and the sufficient protection of nuclear war, is composed by a notice to enemy country against which this threat can be carried out by its intention and will. Therefore, the focus of deterrence of war by nuclear weapon has not an intention to destroy enemy, but if the enemy set his face to tyranny they should be undergone to the threat of perishment.
Therefore a deterrence to North Korea should be thoroughly to keep a balance against threat and invasion of North Korea. On this wise, it is suggested to emphasize that the responsibility of government is the deterrence of war by building up stronger deterrence to North Korea rather than now. Even though, if it should be inevitably needed to launch a preemptive attack, as it was previously stated, it must be an attack which is against limited objectives and limited areas the by sophisticated the cutting edge of weapons. That is, it can be only justified to launch a preemptive attack by the methods of attack of which is modernized and being precise, being distinguished the situation of nuclear from the situation of non-nuclear under such conditions that are met by the principle of balance and distinction, so that it does not incur civilian damage.
목차
1. 들어가는 말
2. ‘선제적 자위(Anticipatory Self-Defense)’의 시대적 변천 과정
3. 핵무기시대 정당한 전쟁론(Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello)
4. 북한의 핵위협과 선제공격의 정당성
5. 나가는 말
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (54)
참고문헌 신청
[단행본] - Nicholas Fotion / 2000 / Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and case / Rowman& littlefield publishers : 21 ~ 22
[보고서] - 하버드대학교 케네디 스쿨 / 1998 / 한반도 운명에 관한 보고서 : 20 ~ 26
[단행본] - 강진석 / 2013 / 크라우제비츠와 한반도, 평화와 전쟁 / 동인 : 422 ~
[기타자료] - / 2015 / 일본 방위상 북한기지 공격할 수 있다 / 중앙일보(2015.5.19.1면)
[단행본] - Hans Kelsen / 1959 / Principles of Internatioanal Law / Rinehart&Company․ Inc : 34 ~
[보고서] - 하버드대학교 케네디 스쿨 / 1998 / 한반도 운명에 관한 보고서 : 20 ~ 26
[단행본] - 강진석 / 2013 / 크라우제비츠와 한반도, 평화와 전쟁 / 동인 : 422 ~
[기타자료] - / 2015 / 일본 방위상 북한기지 공격할 수 있다 / 중앙일보(2015.5.19.1면)
[단행본] - Hans Kelsen / 1959 / Principles of Internatioanal Law / Rinehart&Company․ Inc : 34 ~
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
북핵의 군사적 활용 시 예상되는 북한의 핵전략 분석: “전략 = 목표 + 방법 + 수단”의 방정식 활용
국방연구
2017 .12
-
South Korea’s Defense Posture against the North Korean Nuclear Threat: Dangerous Reluctance
Asian International Studies Review
2015 .01
-
미국의 국가안보와 핵억지 전략의 변화: 트루먼-트럼프 행정부까지
세계지역연구논총
2019 .01
-
북한 핵무기 위협에 대한 총력적 대비의 실태와 과제
군사
2016 .06
-
북핵 선제타격 가능성과 TDS의 억지 충족성 평가 연구
한국군사학논총
2024 .06
-
북한의 임박한 공격에 대한 선제적 대비
한국국가전략
2017 .01
-
North Korea’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy under the Pretext of Minimum Deterrence: Implications for the Korean Peninsula
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2015 .01
-
North Korea’s Growing Nuclear Threat: Implications for the U.S. Extended Deterrence in the East Asian Region
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2017 .01
-
북핵 위협 고도화에 따른 정부 역할의 실태와 과제
의정논총
2017 .01
-
일반적 핵대응 포트폴리오에 의한 한국의 북핵 대응사례 평가
국제정치연구
2018 .06
-
북핵문제와 한국의 대응 : 북핵 확산을 중심으로
국제정치연구
2016 .06
-
The Evolution of North Korea’s Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine : Implications for nuclear negotiations
IFANS FOCUS
2017 .06
-
북한 핵문제의 고찰과 전술핵 배치에 대한 연구
대한정치학회보
2017 .01
-
The War in Ukraine and the Security Environment on the Korean Peninsula
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2022 .12
-
북핵 대응에 대한 한국의 비핵(非核) “플랜 B” 검토: 자체 억제 및 방어태세의 보완
의정연구
2019 .01
-
전략무기 증강에 따른 북한 핵전략의 분석
한국군사학논집
2021 .02
-
북한의 핵 위협에 대응한 한국의 군사전략
국가전략
2017 .01
-
북핵 해법에 대한 세대간 인식차이 : 대북 선제공격 대(對) 대북 원조
미래정치연구
2018 .06
-
북핵 고도화와 대응방안 모색 : 선제공격 제한성의 극복방안을 중심으로
국가안보와 전략
2017 .01
-
A Thought on North Korea’s Nuclear Doctrine
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2017 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-390-001897227