RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기

    한미동맹의 진화요인 분석과 발전방향에 관한 연구 : 군사적 과제를 중심으로 = A study on the evolutionary factors of the Korea-US alliance and its development direction : forcing on military tasks

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14431626

    • 저자
    • 발행사항

      광주 : 조선대학교, 2017

    • 학위논문사항

      학위논문(박사) -- 조선대학교 대학원 , 군사학과 , 2017

    • 발행연도

      2017

    • 작성언어

      한국어

    • KDC

      390 판사항(6)

    • DDC

      355 판사항(23)

    • 발행국(도시)

      광주

    • 형태사항

      viii, 184 p. ; 26 cm

    • 일반주기명

      지도교수: 김재철
      참고문헌: p. 175-184

    • 소장기관
      • 국립중앙도서관 국립중앙도서관 우편복사 서비스
      • 조선대학교 도서관 소장기관정보
    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    ABSTRACT
    A Study on the Evolutionary Factors of the Korea-US Alliance
    and its Development Direction Forcing on military tasks

    Lee jooeun
    Advisor : Prof. Kim Jaechul ph.D.
    Departmant of Military Science
    Graduate School of Chosun University

    There is no doubt about the importance of the ROK-US alliance since it has contributed decisively to the Korean peninsula since the Korean War. In addition, South Korea has effectively prepared against North Korea's threats through its alliance with the United States, and has been able to achieve dramatic progress in such fields as politics, military, and economy.
    The basis of the ROK-US alliance lies in the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which was first signed in Washington, DC on October 1, 1953, after the Korean War, and ratified by both Korean and US Parliaments and entered into force on November 18, 1954. However, as can be seen in the history of the alliance, the life span of the alliance can not be flasting. In the meantime, the ROK-US alliance has repeatedly maintained cooperation and conflicts due to internal and external factors. In particular, South Korea is causing policy confusion and South-South conflict due to the limited autonomy of North Korea policy in asymmetric alliances. In order to develop the ROK-US alliance, we applied the strengthening and inhibiting factors of Walt's evolution theory and analyzed the evolutionary factors of the ROK-US alliance based on the cooperation and conflicts of the past and the recent US alliance. The analysis revealed that the strengthening factors were the hegemonic leadership of the United States, which consistently pursued an alliance maintenance policy for peace and stability in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula. It can also be seen as an institutionalization of the alliance, including the hosting of the SCM to strengthen the military alliance between the ROK and the US, the establishment of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command, and the regularization of ROK-US combined training (UFG, RSOI / FE, etc.). The impeding factor was the difference in the recognition of the threat between North and South Korea as a thorough asymmetric alliance. In other words, it can not be denied that changes in perceptions and circumstances within the United States have been a decisive factor in North Korea's policy. Therefore, Korea needs to develop the ROK-US alliance in the direction of self-reliance and practicality, focusing on the military issues that can overcome impediments and constantly develop strengthening factors.
    the development direction of the US-ROK Alliance should first redefine the role of self-defense and the ROK-US alliance. In the future, the ROK armed forces should shift their wartime operational control over US forces, while at the same time, strengthening their ability to perform their own warfare and ROK-US combined operations. The wartime operational control should have the capability of military superiority against North Korea's nuclear and missile threats prior to its transition, and the US military should be able to support it within the combined command system of the DPRK and the US. . In particular, the change of strategic flexibility, the national strategy of the United States, must be demanded in order to maintain peace in Northeast Asia.
    It is necessary to establish a military strategy focused on North Korea 's nuclear threat preparation and ground operations by analyzing the changes in military and security environment in Korea and the United States after the post - Cold War.
    The most important task is to strengthen the ROK-US combined operation system by constructing an efficient single command system that can be led by Korea when the wartime operational control is transferred. Therefore, it would be appropriate to add an integrated military command under the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when reorganizing the upper command structure of Korea, and to direct the operational forces of the USFK, including the ROKAF operations forces.
    The next step is to establish a system of military response to North Korea's nuclear threat. To this end, Korea-US information sharing and preemptive strike capability should be secured. The concept of operational information should be developed as the concept of target acquisition for preemptive strike and utilization of human information assets including current video and signal information should be actively reviewed.
    North Korea 's threats have evolved from conventional threats to nuclear threats, and it must be recognized that Kim Jong Un' s regime will never abandon nuclear development to survive. In addition, in order to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula and develop into an advanced power, Korea should continuously develop the ROK-US alliance and seek balanced development with China.
    Next, we should seek military security cooperation for the balanced development of the ROK-US alliance and the ROK-China relationship. Korea and China have established diplomatic ties in 1992, and since 2008, they have continued strategic cooperation partnership. In the meantime, the two countries have actively promoted exchanges in the economic and cultural fields with the signing of the Korea-China FTA (2015). However, the field of security cooperation has been underdeveloped due to the personal exchange between military personnel in the ministerial level. If the hegemonic rivalry between the US and China becomes visible, the scope of action in the political and military sectors should be restricted to North Korea's threat of nuclear threat.
    Finally, the domestic conflict factors of the ROK-US alliance must be properly managed. To this end, anti-American sentiment and internal conflict should be resolved. Therefore, the autonomy of Korea should be expanded through the continuous and fundamental improvement of the SOFA agreement.
    For peacekeeping and stability on the Korean Peninsula, neither the US nor China should be neglected, considering that both hold the key to resolution. Korea should maintain a virtuous circle of ROK-US alliance and North-South relations.

    Key Word : ROK-US Alliance, ROK-China Cooperation, Comprehensive Strategic Alliance, Evolutionary Factors, North Korea Nuclear Threat, Threat Recognition
    번역하기

    ABSTRACT A Study on the Evolutionary Factors of the Korea-US Alliance and its Development Direction Forcing on military tasks Lee jooeun Advisor : Prof. Kim Jaechul ph.D. Departmant of Military Science Graduate School of Chosun University There ...

    ABSTRACT
    A Study on the Evolutionary Factors of the Korea-US Alliance
    and its Development Direction Forcing on military tasks

    Lee jooeun
    Advisor : Prof. Kim Jaechul ph.D.
    Departmant of Military Science
    Graduate School of Chosun University

    There is no doubt about the importance of the ROK-US alliance since it has contributed decisively to the Korean peninsula since the Korean War. In addition, South Korea has effectively prepared against North Korea's threats through its alliance with the United States, and has been able to achieve dramatic progress in such fields as politics, military, and economy.
    The basis of the ROK-US alliance lies in the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which was first signed in Washington, DC on October 1, 1953, after the Korean War, and ratified by both Korean and US Parliaments and entered into force on November 18, 1954. However, as can be seen in the history of the alliance, the life span of the alliance can not be flasting. In the meantime, the ROK-US alliance has repeatedly maintained cooperation and conflicts due to internal and external factors. In particular, South Korea is causing policy confusion and South-South conflict due to the limited autonomy of North Korea policy in asymmetric alliances. In order to develop the ROK-US alliance, we applied the strengthening and inhibiting factors of Walt's evolution theory and analyzed the evolutionary factors of the ROK-US alliance based on the cooperation and conflicts of the past and the recent US alliance. The analysis revealed that the strengthening factors were the hegemonic leadership of the United States, which consistently pursued an alliance maintenance policy for peace and stability in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula. It can also be seen as an institutionalization of the alliance, including the hosting of the SCM to strengthen the military alliance between the ROK and the US, the establishment of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command, and the regularization of ROK-US combined training (UFG, RSOI / FE, etc.). The impeding factor was the difference in the recognition of the threat between North and South Korea as a thorough asymmetric alliance. In other words, it can not be denied that changes in perceptions and circumstances within the United States have been a decisive factor in North Korea's policy. Therefore, Korea needs to develop the ROK-US alliance in the direction of self-reliance and practicality, focusing on the military issues that can overcome impediments and constantly develop strengthening factors.
    the development direction of the US-ROK Alliance should first redefine the role of self-defense and the ROK-US alliance. In the future, the ROK armed forces should shift their wartime operational control over US forces, while at the same time, strengthening their ability to perform their own warfare and ROK-US combined operations. The wartime operational control should have the capability of military superiority against North Korea's nuclear and missile threats prior to its transition, and the US military should be able to support it within the combined command system of the DPRK and the US. . In particular, the change of strategic flexibility, the national strategy of the United States, must be demanded in order to maintain peace in Northeast Asia.
    It is necessary to establish a military strategy focused on North Korea 's nuclear threat preparation and ground operations by analyzing the changes in military and security environment in Korea and the United States after the post - Cold War.
    The most important task is to strengthen the ROK-US combined operation system by constructing an efficient single command system that can be led by Korea when the wartime operational control is transferred. Therefore, it would be appropriate to add an integrated military command under the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when reorganizing the upper command structure of Korea, and to direct the operational forces of the USFK, including the ROKAF operations forces.
    The next step is to establish a system of military response to North Korea's nuclear threat. To this end, Korea-US information sharing and preemptive strike capability should be secured. The concept of operational information should be developed as the concept of target acquisition for preemptive strike and utilization of human information assets including current video and signal information should be actively reviewed.
    North Korea 's threats have evolved from conventional threats to nuclear threats, and it must be recognized that Kim Jong Un' s regime will never abandon nuclear development to survive. In addition, in order to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula and develop into an advanced power, Korea should continuously develop the ROK-US alliance and seek balanced development with China.
    Next, we should seek military security cooperation for the balanced development of the ROK-US alliance and the ROK-China relationship. Korea and China have established diplomatic ties in 1992, and since 2008, they have continued strategic cooperation partnership. In the meantime, the two countries have actively promoted exchanges in the economic and cultural fields with the signing of the Korea-China FTA (2015). However, the field of security cooperation has been underdeveloped due to the personal exchange between military personnel in the ministerial level. If the hegemonic rivalry between the US and China becomes visible, the scope of action in the political and military sectors should be restricted to North Korea's threat of nuclear threat.
    Finally, the domestic conflict factors of the ROK-US alliance must be properly managed. To this end, anti-American sentiment and internal conflict should be resolved. Therefore, the autonomy of Korea should be expanded through the continuous and fundamental improvement of the SOFA agreement.
    For peacekeeping and stability on the Korean Peninsula, neither the US nor China should be neglected, considering that both hold the key to resolution. Korea should maintain a virtuous circle of ROK-US alliance and North-South relations.

    Key Word : ROK-US Alliance, ROK-China Cooperation, Comprehensive Strategic Alliance, Evolutionary Factors, North Korea Nuclear Threat, Threat Recognition

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • 목 차
    • 표목차, 그림목차
    • ABSTRACT
    • 제1장 서 론········································································ 1
    • 목 차
    • 표목차, 그림목차
    • ABSTRACT
    • 제1장 서 론········································································ 1
    • 제1절 연구의 목적··························································· 1
    • 제2절 연구의 방법 및 범위··············································· 3
    • 1. 연구의 방법····························································· 3
    • 2. 연구의 범위······························································ 4
    • 제3절 기존연구의 검토······················································ 6
    • 제2장 이론적 배경····························································· 11
    • 제1절 동맹의 개념························································· 11
    • 1. 국가안보와 동맹······················································ 11
    • 2. 세력균형의 실효성과 동맹········································· 14
    • 제2절 동맹의 유형과 딜레마··········································· 16
    • 1. 동맹의 유형····························································· 16
    • 2. 동맹의 딜레마·························································· 18
    • 제3절 동맹의 진화요인···················································· 21
    • 1. 동맹의 강화요인······················································· 22
    • 2. 동맹의 저해요인······················································· 23
    • 제4절 분석의 틀···························································· 27
    • 제3장 한미동맹의 협력과 갈등······································ 29
    • 제1절 한미동맹의 형성················································· 29
    • 1. 6·25전쟁과 한미상호방위조약 ·································· 29
    • 2. 월남전 파병과 동맹의 자율성 확대···························· 32
    • 3. 북한의 무력도발과 한·미 군사체제 강화····················· 33
    • 제2절 한미동맹의 갈등·················································· 36
    • 1. 데탕트시기 주한미군철수와 자주국방··························· 36
    • 2. 신군부의 등장과 반미현상 확산 ······························· 38
    • 3. 문민정부의 탄생과 북핵위기 고조····························· 41
    • 4. 진보적 정부의 등장과 남·북 교류협력 강화····················· 43
    • 제3절 한미동맹의 강화················································· 51
    • 1. 포괄적 전략동맹과 한미 FTA································· 51
    • 2. 아시아 재균형 전략과 남북관계 경색························· 55
    • 제4절 소결론······························································ 61
    • 제4장 한미동맹의 진화요인 분석·································· 64
    • 제1절 한미동맹의 강화요인·········································· 64
    • 1. 미국의 패권적 리더십············································· 64
    • 2. 한·미간 신뢰성 유지··············································· 72
    • 3. 국내 정치의 영향··················································· 78
    • 4. 동맹의 제도화··················································· 80
    • 제2절 한미동맹의 저해요인············································ 86
    • 1. 미국 내의 인식 및 상황변화······································ 86
    • 2. 한중관계의 변화······················································ 110
    • 3. 한미동맹에 대한 신뢰성 감소 ······························ 115
    • 4. 미일동맹의 전략적 가치 증가 ······························ 120
    • 제3절 소결론······························································ 122
    • 제5장 한미군사동맹의 발전방향······································ 127
    • 제1절 자주국방과 한미동맹 역할 재정립 ······················ 127
    • 1. 전시작전통제권의 한국군 전환추진···························· 127
    • 2. 한국의 독자적 전쟁수행능력 구비···························· 131
    • 3. 한미 연합작전 수행체계 강화······························· 136
    • 제2절 북핵 위협에 대한 군사적 공동대응체계 구축·········· 139
    • 1. 한·미간 정보공유 및 선제타격능력 확보···················· 139
    • 2. 미사일 방어능력 향상············································ 145
    • 3. 핵 확장억제 실효성 보장········································ 151
    • 제3절 한미동맹과 한중관계의 균형발전······················· 153
    • 1. 한미동맹과 한중협력 관계의 범주 설정·················· 153
    • 2. 한·중간 안보협력관계 발전·········································· 156
    • 3. 동북아 차원의 다자협력 강화···································· 159
    • 제4절 한미동맹의 국내 갈등요인 관리······················ 163
    • 1. 반미감정과 남남갈등 해소······································ 163
    • 2. 방위비 분담문제····················································· 166
    • 3. 한미동맹과 남북관계의 선 순환관계 유지··········· 168
    • 제6장 결 론······································································ 171
    • 참고문헌············································································ 175
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1. , 고재남, 년 12월 12일(1면), , 2016

    2. 안전재난과, 가평군, 년 을지연습 준비계획 , 2016, , 2016

    3. 『핵의 세계사』, 정욱식, 서울 : 아카이브, , 2013

    4. “월츠의 환영,”, 양준희, 『한국과 국제정치』, 제27집 제3호, , 2001

    5. 『현대국제정치학』, 이경희, 형설출판사, 서울 : 나남, , 1992

    6. (a),『국제관계이론』, 이상우, 서울 : 박영사, , 2013

    7. 『남북관계 변천사』, 김형기, 서울 : 연세대학교 출판부, , 2010

    8. 『한국의 외교정책』, 김달중, 오름, 서울 : 오름, , 1998

    9. 『한미동맹의 변화』, 이상우, 성남 : 세종연구소, , 2008

    10. 『우리도 핵을 갖자』, 송대성, 서울 : 도서출판 기파랑, , 2016

    1. , 고재남, 년 12월 12일(1면), , 2016

    2. 안전재난과, 가평군, 년 을지연습 준비계획 , 2016, , 2016

    3. 『핵의 세계사』, 정욱식, 서울 : 아카이브, , 2013

    4. “월츠의 환영,”, 양준희, 『한국과 국제정치』, 제27집 제3호, , 2001

    5. 『현대국제정치학』, 이경희, 형설출판사, 서울 : 나남, , 1992

    6. (a),『국제관계이론』, 이상우, 서울 : 박영사, , 2013

    7. 『남북관계 변천사』, 김형기, 서울 : 연세대학교 출판부, , 2010

    8. 『한국의 외교정책』, 김달중, 오름, 서울 : 오름, , 1998

    9. 『한미동맹의 변화』, 이상우, 성남 : 세종연구소, , 2008

    10. 『우리도 핵을 갖자』, 송대성, 서울 : 도서출판 기파랑, , 2016

    11. 『-2021 국방중기계획』, 고재남, 2016, , 2017

    12. 『광주 5월 민중항쟁』, 전인화, 이수인, 풀빛, 서울 : 풀빛, , 1990

    13. 국방백서 서울 : 국방부, 고재남, 1999, , 1999

    14. 국방백서 서울 : 국방부, 고재남, 2000, , 2000

    15. (b),『국제정치학 강의』, 이상우, 서울 : 박영사, , 2005

    16. 『미 중외교와 한반도』, 오수열, 부산 : 신지서원,

    17. 『한국의 안보와 국방』, 백승주, 한국국방연구원, 서울 : 한국국방연구원, , 2010

    18. 『주한미군과 안보협력』, 강성학, 성남 : 세종연구소, , 1996

    19. “한국의 안보전략 구상,”, 김계동, 『국가전략』, 제3집 제1호, , 1997

    20. 『국방개혁 -2030 기본계획』, 고재남, 2014, , 2014

    21. 『안전보장의 국제정치학』, 함태영, 서울 : 사회평론, , 2011

    22. “교환동맹 모델의 교환성,”, 장노순, 한국국제정치학회, 『국제정치논총』,제36집 제1호, , 1996

    23. “북핵문제와 한국의 대응,”, 전성훈, 『국제평화』, 제4집 제1호, , 2007

    24. “한미동맹의 이론적 제고,”, 김우상, 『한국과 국제정치』, 제20집 제1호, , 2004

    25. 냉전기 한국의 지역주의 외교, 조양현, 한국정치학회보, 제142집 제11호,

    26. 『동북아 국제정치와 한반도』, 김강녕, 신지서원, 부산 : 신지서원, , 2002

    27. 『주한미군:역사, 쟁점, 전망』, 김일영, 서울 : 한울, , 2003

    28. 『하나의 동맹, 두 개의 렌즈』, 신기욱, 서울 : 한국과 미국, , 2010

    29. “한미동맹과 전략적 유연성,”, 이상현, 한국국제정치학회, 『국제정치논총』, 제46집 제4호, , 2006

    30. 『북핵 위협시대 국방의 조건』, 박휘락, 파주 : 한국학술정보, , 2015

    31. “갈등하는 동맹: 한미관계 60년”, 장준갑, 역사비평사, 서울 : (주)역사비평사, , 2010

    32. “협력적 자주국방과 한미동맹,”, 박종철, 『합참』, 제25호, , 2005

    33. 한미군사협력 관계의 발전과 전망, 오관치, 한국전략문제연구소, 서울 : 세정사, , 1990

    34. 한미동맹과 한국의 군사적 자율성, 장용구, 한국학술정보, 파주 : 한국학술정보, , 2014

    35. “한 중 군사협력의 현안과 과제”, 기세찬, 안보현안분석 , 제1104호, 국가안전보장문제연구소, , 2015

    36. 『21세기 국제환경변화와 한반도』, 문정인, 서울 : 오름, , 2004

    37. 『강대국의 동북아정책과 한반도』, 오수열, 신지서원, 부산 : 신지서원, , 2004

    38. “QDR 분석 : 한미동맹에 대한 함의,”, 이상현, 『정세와 정책』, 3월호, 2006, , 2006

    39. “페리프로세스와 한?미?일 협력방안, 통일연구원, 통일연구원, 서울 : 통일연구원, , 2000

    40. “동맹의 변환과 한국인의 대미인식”, 이내영, 『국제정치논총』, 제45집 제3호, , 2005

    41. “새정부의 한미안보협력 정책과제,”, 백종천, 한국군사학회, 『군사논단』, Vol.14 No.1, , 1998

    42. “북핵의 국제정치와 한국의 딜레마,”, 서동구, 통일연구원, 『통일정책연구』, 제23집제2호, , 2014

    43. 『남북 정상회담 이후 한미관계 변화』, 이대우, 세종연구소, 성남 : 세종연구소, , 2002

    44. 데탕트 국면에서 박정희 행정부의 선택, 조동준, 재단법인 동아시아연구원, 『EAI 국가안보패널 연구보고서』, , 2014

    45. “한미관계 위기의 본질은 무엇인가?,”, 박태균, 역사문제연구소, 『역사비평』, 제79호, , 2007

    46. 『21세기 한국과 육군력 : 역할과 전망』, 이근욱, 한울아카데미, 파주 : 한울빔플러스, , 2016

    47. 『국가안보 : 위협과 취약성의 딜레마』, 김열수, 법문사, 파주 : 법문사, , 2015

    48. “미국의 NMD구축과 한반도의 안전보장”, 전성훈, 통일연구원, 서울 : 통일연구원, , 2001

    49. 『미국의 對韓 핵우산정책에 관한연구』, 전성훈, 서울 : 통일연구원, , 2012

    50. “2014년 QDR 평가 및 한국안보에의 함의,”, 부형욱, 『동북아 안보정세분석』, 2014, , 2014

    51. “동북아 안보질서와 한미동맹의 변화,”, 이기완, , 2005

    52. “특수작전 수행능력 향상을 위한 제언”, 경봉수, 『육군 정책연구』, 제36호, 육군 정책연구위원회, , 2016

    53. “오바마 대통령의 아시아 순방과 방한,”, 하영선, 재단법인 동아시아연구원, 『EAI 논평』, No.5, , 2009

    54. “미국의 북핵정책 변화 및 우리의 대응,”, 박창권, KIDA 연구보고서, , 2009

    55. “사드와 AIIB를 둘러싼 미중관계와 한국,”, 이기완, 동아시아국제정치학회, 『국제정치연구』, Vol.18 No.1, 동아시아 국제정치학회, , 2015

    56. “유라시아 이니셔티브와 협력전략 연구”, 이재영, 한국슬라브유라시아학회, 『슬라브학보』, 제30집 제2호, , 2015

    57. “한 미 군사관계의 역사적 분석과 전망,”, 윤종호, 『정책연구보고서 97-10』, , 1997

    58. 『G2시대를 대비한 중국 대외전략의 변화』, 유동원, 국방대학교 국가안전보장문제연구소, 서울 : 국방대학교 국가안전보장 문제연구소, , 2010

    59. 부시행정부의 , “ 대북정책과 북미관계 전망, 이석수, 국방대학교, ”『교수논총』, 제24집, , 2002

    60. (d), “년 동북아 안보질서 변화와 한국의 대응, 김재철, ” 군사학논단 (경남대학교 군사연구소, 2013), , 2013

    61. “한국의 전략적 선택: 동맹.자주.다자안보.”, 윤덕민, 외교안보연구원, 서울 : 외교안보원, , 2005

    62. “G2 시대 미중관계 변화와 우리의 대응전략,”, 김은옥, 『이슈브리핑』, , 2014

    63. “부시 정부의 신 동아시아 전략평가와 전망,”, 이강석, 『동아시아 안보와 한반도』, , 2001

    64. “한미정상회담과 한반도 정세, 평가와 과제,”, 정지웅, 『코리아연구원 현안 진단』, 제265호, , 2015

    65. “동북아 안보 다자주의와 인식공동체의 역할”, 설규상, 연세대학교 동서문제연구원, 동서연구 제120집 제11호, , 2008

    66. “미 중의 패권전쟁과 박근혜정부의 대외정책,”, 김일수, 『대한정치학회보』, 제122집 제4호, , 2014

    67. 한반도 전략환경의 “ 변화와 한미동맹의 재정의, 조성렬, ”『통일정책연구』, , 2003

    68. “북한문제의 경과와 쟁점, 그리고 정책적 제언,”, 양무진, 『현대 북한 연구』, 제16집 제3호,

    69. “중국의 반접근(A2) 지역거부(AD) 군사능력 평가,”, 김성걸, 『군사논단』, 제70집. 한국군사학회, , 2012

    70. “해외주둔 미군 재배치계획과 주한미군의 미래”, 김일영, 한국군사학회, 『군사논단』, , 2004

    71. “군사동맹의 지속성, 세력균형론과 세력전이론,”, 황영배, 『한국정치학회보』, 제29집 제3호, , 2001

    72. 「동북아 다자안보협력에 대한 중국의 인식과 전략, 이동률, 중국학연구회, 중국학연구소 제45집, , 2008

    73. “대북정책 재정립 방향과 정치 군사분야의 과제,”, 장규섭, 통일연구원, 『통일정책연구』, 제11집 제2호, , 2002

    74. “한미동맹 미래 구상: 지휘구조 개편을 중심으로.”, 박원곤, 국방대학교 국가안전보장문제연구소, 제57집 제3호, 국방연구, , 2014

    75. “한미동맹체제의 구조와 기능 : 과거, 현재, 미래,”, 김성한, 『외교안보연구』, 제2호, , 2007

    76. “북핵전략과 한국의 대응전략‘『통일연구원논총』, 정영태, 통일연구원, , 2014

    77. “김대중 정부의 대북정책과 남북관계: 쟁점과 평가,”, 김용복, 『동북아 연구』, Vol.8, , 2003

    78. 『한반도의 분단과 전쟁 : 민족분열과 국제개입 갈등』, 김계동, 서울대학교 출판부, 서울 : 서울 대학교 출판부, , 2000

    79. 『북한 비핵화를 위한 한 미 전략적 협력에 관한 연구』, 전성훈, 통일연구원, 서울 : 통일 연구원, , 2009

    80. 『자주국방과 한미동맹: 바람직한 관계정립을 위하여』, 한용섭, 서울 : 통일연구원, , 2005

    81. “한국형 미사일 방어체계의 효율적 구축 및 발전방향”, 김남기, 『합동 군사대학교 전반기 합동성 강화 세미나 자료집』,

    82. 『한반도신뢰프로세스2.0: 억제, 관여, 신뢰의복합추진』, 하영선, 동아시아연구원, 서울: 동아시아 연구원, , 2014

    83. “전략적 협력 동반자 시대의 한 중 군사관계 발전방향”, 이창형, 『주간 국방논단 , 제1420호(서울 : 한국국방연구원, , 2012

    84. 『한미동맹의 형성 및 변화 결정요인 분석과 향후 전망』, 김종석, 한국경제연구원, 서울 : 한국경제연구원, , 2008

    85. “역대정부별 북한인식과 대북정책 상관성에 관한 연구”, 김형석, 경기대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 2011

    86. “부시행정부의 동아시아 안보‧군사정책: 지속과 변화,”, 윤진표, 『안보학술논집』, 제12집 제1호, , 2001

    87. “3차 북핵실험 이후 중국 대북정책의 변화 : 가능성과 한계,”, 유동원, 국방대학교 국가안전보장문제연구소, 『국방연구』, 제56집 제3호, , 2013

    88. “미완의 개혁 : 년대 전반기 미행정부의 주한미군철수 논의,”, 마상윤, 『한국과 국제정치』, 제19집 제2호, 2003, , 1960

    89. “시진핑 방한의 성과와 과제 : 일장중몽과 흔들리지 않는 여론, 김지윤, 『이슈브리프』, , 2014

    90. “남북한 실질적 통합과정에서 주한미군의 위상과 역할 연구,”, 허문영, 통일연구원, 『통일연구원 협동연구총서』, , 2002

    91. “한미동맹 60년의 성찰 : 포괄적 전략동맹으로의 변화와 과제”, 이수형, 『육군군사연구소』,군사연구 제135집,

    92. 『동북아 4국의 대외전략 및 대북전략과 한국의 통일외교 전략』, 배정호, 통일연구원, 서울 : 통일연구원, , 2014

    93. “동맹안보문화와 동맹결속력 변화 : 한미동맹 사례연구, - 2005,”, 지효근, 연세대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문, 2006, , 1968

    94. 북한핵보유 상황대비 자위권 선제공격론의 개념과 전략전 선택방향, 권태영, 신범철, 전략연구, , 2011

    95. “한미동맹과 한중협력간의 조화 : 한국의 중장기 전략 및 추진중점”, 김태호, Strategy 21 , 제17집 제1호, 한국해양전략연구소, , 2014

    96. “북핵문제 해결을 위한 미․중의 역할과 한국의 군사적 대응전략연구”, 박재완, 조선대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문, , 2016

    97. “한국의 군사전략과 방위산업(민군협력과 국제협력의 국가전략 분석)”, 이준구, 박사학위논문, 경기대학교 정치전문대학원, , 2012

    98. “신현실주의의 기원과 한국국제정치의 이론적 함의,”『국제정치논총』, 최종건, 제53집 제4호, , 2013

    99. “한국의 자주국방과 한미동맹 : 역사적 고찰과 양립가능성에 관한 연구,”, 한용섭, 『군사사 연구총서』,제4집,

    100. “카터행정부의 주한미군 철수결정에 대한 한국 정부의 대응에 관한 연구,”, 조관행, 『국가전략』, 제21집 4호, , 2015

    101. 『아베정부의 안보정책 전환과 미국의 재균형 전략 : 한 미 일 관계를 중심으로』, 김준형, 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소, 제58집 제4호, , 2015

    102. 탈냉전 이후 한미동맹의 쇠퇴요인에 관한 연구: Stephen M.Walt 동맹이론의 비판적 고찰, 나승학 ( Seung Hak Na ), 한국동북아학회, 『한국동북아논총』, 제76호, , 2015

    103. “한미동맹의 도전과 과제 : 한미관계와 동북아 내 미국의 역할에 대한 한국인의 인식, 최강, 아산정책연구원, ”『아산레포트』, , 2014

    104. “중추적 중견국가와 새로운 외교안보전략 모색 : 기교전략과 헤징전략을 중심으로,”, 이수형, 『한국평화연구학회 동계국내학술회의』. 한국평화연구 학회, , 2011

    105. (a), “21세기 한미전략동맹의 안보적 과제와 대비 방향”, 대한정치 학회보 제17집 제2호, 김재철, 대한정치학회, , 2009

    106. (b), “전시작전 통제권 전환정책의 변경요인 분석과 대안 : 한 미의 국가이익을 중심으로, 김재철, ” 한국동북아논총 (한국동북아학회, , 2016

    107. “안보파트너십과 한미 안보동맹의 제도화: 한미연합군사령부 창설 과정을 중심으로~1978),”, 윤형호, 국민대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, 2010, , 1953

    108. “오바마 정부의 아시아중시정책: 년 세계경제위기, 중국의 부상 그리고 미국의 패권 재건축,”, 김대홍, 중앙대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문, 2013, , 2008

    109. (c), “김정은 정권의 도발요인 분석과 재도발 억제전략 : 핵 미사일 도발과 국지 무력도발을 중심으로, 김재철, ” 한국동북아논총 (한국 동북아학회, , 2016

    110. “대북정책에 있어 보수, 진보논쟁에 대한 고찰 : 대외위협 인식의 역사적 고찰을 통한 현재의 조명,”, 김용호, 경남대학교 극동문제연구소, 『한국과 국제정치』, Vol.23 No.3, , 2007

    111. “신현실주의 이론을 통한 중국의 대한반도 군사개입연구 : 1592년, 1627년, 1894년, 그리고 년 사례를 중심으로,”, 박홍서, 『한국정치학 회보』, 제40집 제1호, 2006, , 1950

    112. 1965년 한일국교 『정상화와 베트남 파병을 둘러싼 미국에 대한외교 정책』,『한국정치외교사논총』제26집 제1호, 전재성, 한국정치외교사학회, 2004, , 2004

    113. 『미 오바마 행정부의 동아시아 중시 전략과 한국의 대응전략 : 북핵문제 해결과 한반도 평화확보를 위한 외교정책 모색』, 홍현익, 성남 : 세종연구소, , 2014

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼