동북아 협력안보에 관한 연구 : 비교사례를 통한 현실화 조건과 전망을 중심으로 = (A) Study on the 'Cooperative Security' in the Northest Asia : Focusing on the conditions to realization through comparative model

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This research is focus on the possibility of removing the uncertainity and of promoting inter-state cooperation in the Northest Asia. Though the cold war era had came to an end in the early 1990s, the legacies(the cold-war symptoms), such as bilateral alliance, military expenditures, ideological conflicts, the absent of inter-sate cooperation and the possibility of nuclear weapon proliferations so on, have been prevailed in the Northest Asia. That's why the reason that searcing for the methodology of 'permanent peace' in inter-state relations is valid and relevant object in Northeast Asia.
This thesis is composed of six chapter. The first chapter is a concise introduction of objective of this research. The second chapter introduces the research methods used for the research. The third and fourth chapters analyze both the examples of Europe, ASEAN and present conditions of the Northest Asia. The fifth chapter search for a R.O.K's strategic policy to the northest asia. And the last chapter synthesize a research that has been advanced before.
This study present to the model of "cooperative security" that is the only way to solve problems above mentioned. And the research takes two level approach, these are both actor-centered approach (national preference theory by prof. Moravcsik) and the institutional approach(stances presented by Robert O. Keohane, such as institution's autonomy·embodiment·universality, the role of hegemone, the level of mutual assurance, reciprocity)
This research takes Neo-liberalism paradigm. And a few hypotheses are given for the evolvement of this research in based on the Neo-liberalism paradigm. First, State is not a unitary actor, but a major factor like international institutions, regulations, International organization etc. Second, State-rationality leads to cooperate between countries. Third, international environment has a closeness effect with national preference. Fourth, international organization, regulations, and rules are effects to independent influence to cooperative security.
With this background in mind, the objective of this thesis is to analyze the present conditions and perspective of "cooperative security" in the Northest Asia. For the attainment of research's goal, this study compares with Europe(CSCE/OSCE) and ASEAN(ARF).
Based of the examples from Europe and ASEAN, there are sevral advantageous reasons for cooperative security. Firstly, states notices that anxiety of an opaque threat is increased. Secondly, national preference has been converged into cooperation through international institution. Thirdly, there are accumulating conversation and existing interventional authority. Fourthly, hegemon(hegemonic state)'s positive viewpoints have been existed. Fifthly, it has been shared in a geo-political approximation. Sixthly, inter-state issues beyond a nation-state's capability had been prevailed. And lastly the political consensus for institutional efficiency has been formed and member-states are an inclusiveness.
To put the positive options of comparative instance above mentioned in Northeast Asia, few options accord with Europe, ASEAN. But positive factors that cooperative security formed hav not formed. In detail, there are few points of positive formation. Firstly the national preferences are converged "institutional" model(R.O.K., Russia, China) and "dicretionary" model(U.S., Japan, D.P.R.K.) that most likely to propelling sub-regional cooperation from "domestic adjuster" model. And in spite of the "talk shop" corresponds to economic, cultural filed, the habit of accumulative conversations must be a positive formation. But the negative characters still exist. Most of all, there caused regional variety to the difficulty of agenda-settings and the lack of bindings(or ties). Secondly, hegemon(especially United States) have a negative option toward multilateral security cooperation in the Northeast Asia. Thirdly, a premature communication between inter-states is an obstacle to mutual assurance, weapon control and the solution of security dilemma. Fourthly, there are deficits of political binding and geo-political approximation. Fifthly, there didn't need to inter-state cooperation, because state in regional arena(especially Japan, R.O.K.) is a succesful "domestic adjustor".
Concludly the possibility of shaping "cooperative security" is very low. Though it's need more collaborative work, R.O.K.'s assignment will be clear because of being involved "institutional" model swiftly. The R.O.K's themes are ; first, serching for balancer among regional states, second, resolution of interior structural probelms(examples : consolidation of democracy, fairness of distribution, conflicts due to the accessibility of the markets(either domestic or foreign market), and so on), third, establishing duplicate strategy in intra-Korean relations, fourth, searching for sub-regional role of cooperative initiative and lastly the reinforcement of initiative to regional arms control through the process of solving conventional weapon at intra-Peninsular.
The above analyses enable us to conclude that course of cooperative security are propelling and how apply to Northeast Asia through framework of cooperative security. Especially, Considering R.O.K's realites(both the involving foreign adjuster model(institutional model) fastly and the assignment of unification), it's time to active and positive searching for more strategic foreign policies.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• 제1장 서론 = 1
• 제1절 문제제기 및 연구 목적 = 1
• 제2절 기본 전제 및 연구범위 = 6
• 가. 몇가지 전제들 : 탈현실주의와 합리적 분석틀 = 6
• 나. 연구 범위 및 논문 구성 = 8
• 제2장 다자간 안보협력에 관한 기존 연구 검토 및 이론적 기초 = 12
• 제1절. 다자간 안보협력에 관한 기존 연구 검토 = 13
• 가. 행위자 중심 접근법(actor-centered approach) = 13
• 나. 제도주의적 접근법(institutional approach) = 15
• 제2절. 현실주의 분석의 한계와 신자유주의의 적용 = 17
• 가. 현실주의 분석의 한계 = 19
• 나. 신자유주의의 적용 = 21
• 제3절. 국가선호도 분석틀 = 25
• 제4절. 국제제도의 종류와 특징 = 29
• 가. 국제레짐(international regime)이론 = 29
• 1)현실주의에서의 국제레짐:패권안정이론 = 30
• 2)패권의 쇠퇴속의 국제제도의 번영:신자유 국제레짐이론 = 32
• 나. 국가간 안보협력 양식들 = 34
• 1)집단안보체제(collective security system) = 34
• 2)집단자위동맹(collective self-defense alliance) = 36
• 3)공동안보체제(common security system) = 36
• 4)협력안보(cooperative security) = 38
• 제5절. 연구절차 = 38
• 제제3장 협력안보의 성격과 사례분석 : CSCE/OSCE, ARF = 41
• 제1절. 국제제도로서 협력안보(Cooperative Security) = 41
• 제2절. 비교사례 1 :유럽안보협력회의/기구(CSCE/OSCE) = 43
• 가. 초기형성과정 및 국면별 배경 = 44
• 나. 헬싱키선언과 제도 과정 = 46
• 다. OCSE로의 전환: 공고화 과정 = 50
• 라. CSCE/OSCE의 과제와 시사점 = 54
• 제3절. 비교사례 2 : 아세안지역포럼(ARF) = 56
• 가. 초기형성과정에서 ASEAN의 역할 = 57
• 나. 제도에 있어서 패권국의 역할:미국의 동북아 전략변화 = 58
• 다. ARF의 경과와 현황 = 60
• 1)ARF의 구성 및 회차별 주요 의제 = 60
• 2)회원국의 확대와 진행경과 = 63
• 라. ARF의 성과와 한계 = 67
• 제4절. 비교사례로사 CSCE/OSCE, ARF의 시사점 = 71
• 제4장 동북아 협력안보의 형성조건 및 과제 = 73
• 제1절. 협력안보의 현실화 조건 = 73
• 가. 협력안보 메카니즘 형성의 우호적인 조건들 = 73
• 나. 제도형성을 위한 국가 문제들 = 80
• 다. 제도화 및 공고화를 위한 지역수준의 문제들 = 80
• 제2절 동북아 협력안보 메카니즘의 현황분석 = 83
• 가. 동북아 현상적·구조적 특징 = 83
• 나. 국가 수준 분석 (State-level analysis) : 국가선호도 = 89
• 1)미국의 국가선호도:패권국의 역할과 한계 = 90
• 2)중국의 국가선호도: 경제성장과 정치안정의 양면성 = 93
• 가)탈현실주의 시각에서의 중국:중국위협론 재검토 = 93
• 나) 중국의 국가전략과 국가강도.대외교섭력 수준 = 98
• 3)일본의 국가선호도:경제력에 걸맞는 정치적 영향력 확보 = 98
• 4) 러시아의 국가선호도 : 동북아 지역 영향력 유지 = 101
• 5)한국과 북한의 국가선호도:국가선호도의 외향성 수준 = 105
• 다. 지역적 수준 분석(Regional level analysis) : 제도화와 공고화 과제 = 107
• 제5장 동북아 협력안보 전망과 한국의 전략 = 112
• 제1절 협력안보 형성과 제도화 전망 = 112
• 제2절 한국의 전략과 선택 = 118
• 가. 협력안보 추진에 있어서 제한요소 = 118
• 나. 한국의 전략과 협력안보 의제들 = 120
• 다. 동북아 다자간 안보협력의 이상형(ideal type) = 124
• 라. 한국의 전략적 과제 = 125
• 제6장 결론 = 128
• <참고문헌> = 132
• ABSTRACT = 139