暫定的 特殊關係의 性格과 南北韓 平和條約 締結을 위한 法的 條件

李庸中(Yong-Joong LEE) 대한국제법학회 2003 國際法學會論叢 Vol.48 No.1

본 연구의 목적은 남북기본합의서에서 명시하고 있는 남북한간 잠정적 특수관계의 현실을 법적으로 분석하고 이를 바탕으로 현재의 휴전체제를 항구적 평화체제로 변환시키기 위한 발판인 남북평화조약 체결의 환경과 기술을 국제법적 측면에서 살펴보는데 있다. 본 연구는 남북한 양측이 1991년에 체결한 기본합의서를 통하여 천명하고 있는 소위 잠정적 특수관계의 법적 함의에 대한 논의를 출발점으로 하고 있다. 남북기본합의서는 前文에서 쌍방 사이의 관계가 나라와 나라 사이의 관계가 아닌 통일을 지향하는 과정에서 잠정적으로 형성되는 특수관계라는 것을 선언적으로 밝히고 있다. 그러나 이러한 잠정적 특수관계의 현실적인 함의는 남북한의 국내법과 정책에 따른 자의적인 해석으로 인하여 본래 의도했던 것에서 상당히 변질된 것이 사실이다. 따라서 이러한 잠정적 특수관계에 대한 명확한 법적 해석과 그를 통한 정체성 확립이 남북한 관계의 안정성 확보 및 발전에 필수요건이라 할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 잠정적 특수관계의 법적 함의를 파악하기 위해서 우선 그러한 관계 양태의 淵源을 탐구해나가는 방법을 도입하였다. 이를 위하여 우선 현재의 남북한 사이에 남아있는 중요한 핵심적인 쟁점들에 대하여 논의를 전개함과 아울러 전후세계에서 특수관계를 형성, 유지했던 국가들을 예시하며 그러한 특수관계를 보편화하였던 법적, 정책적 합의들을 비교, 제시하고 있다. 이러한 쟁점들에 대한 논의를 바탕으로 본 논문은 현재의 한시적인 특수관계를 극복하고 한반도 내에서 항구적인 평화를 구축하기 위한 전제 조건인 남북평화조약 체결의 국제법적 측면들을 살펴보고 있다. 이는 남북평화조약이 지난 반세기를 지속해온 휴전체제를 극복하고 한반도에서 평화를 정착시키기 위한 노력의 첫 기착지이며 새로운 평화체제의 출발점이기 때문이다. 한편 남북한은 1991년 기본합의서 제5조를 통하여 현 정전상태를 공고한 평화상태로 전환시키기 위하여 공동으로 노력하기로 합의하였다. 따라서 기본합의서 정신의 궁극적인 실현은 남북평화조약을 체결하여 한반도에서의 항구적인 평화체제를 구축하는 것이다. 본 논문은, 이러한 평화조약 체결을 위한 국내외적 환경 문제에만 초점을 맞추던 기존의 연구와는 관점을 달리하여, 평화조약의 개념과 역사적 발전, 그리고 남북한 평화조약체결을 위한 현실적인 절차를 논하고 있다. 평화조약이 정치성을 짙게 함축하는 조약이지만 합의가 전제되는 시점에서는 법기술적 측면을 무시할 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 동서양의 평화조약 체결의 관습을 비교법적 시각에서 분석하고 있으며, 특히 동북아시아에 있어서 평화체제 유지 제도의 기원과 발전과정을 보여주고 있다. 이와 함께 남북한이 평화조약을 체결하는 경우, 관습국제법 및 Vienna 조약법 협약의 명문 규정을 통하여 어떠한 절차를 거쳐야 하는가에 관하여 제시하고 있다. 마지막으로 평화조약 체결의 일반적 절차에 대한 검토를 통하여 남북평화조약 체결에 있어서 당사자격, 조약내용, 승인, 비준, 효력 발생(휴전협정의 대치) 등 현실적인 문제들을 논의하고 있다. 근대국제법의 보편적 개념으로 발전해온 평화조약의 체결을 통하여 한반도에서의 항구적인 평화체제 구축에 본 논문이 작은 보탬이 되기를 바란다. A primary purpose of writing this paper is to analyze the current special interim relationship between North and South Korea and develop the ways of adopting inter-Korean peace treaty in the future. With the end of the Cold War, a new wave of reconciliation came to the two Koreas. Following the environmental changes around the Korean peninsula, North and South Korea finally concluded the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and Cooperation (The Basic Agreement) on 13 December 1991, which contained progressive legal measures for the shaping of new inter-Korean relations in the post-Cold War era. Reflecting the spirit of inter- Korean reconciliation and cooperation, this historic Basic Agreement declares, not only in Preface, the special interim relationship between North and South Korea under the armistice system, but also in Article 5, to transform the present state of armistice into a solid state of peace. These two provisions represent a great step forward towards establishing a durable de jure peace regime on the Korean peninsula. According to those stipulations, this paper examines the legal problems related to the establishment of a de jure peace regime on the Korean peninsula, focusing on the making of a formal inter-Korean peace treaty under international law. In Section Ⅱ, first, this paper carefully investigates the meaning of the special interim relationship existing between the two Koreas in both theory and practice. This section raises and answers a few critical questions on the origin and evolution of inter-Korean relations under the Armistice Agreement. Section Ⅲ meanwhile deals with the legal procedure for concluding inter-Korean peace treaty. Such a procedure may be generally found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (The Vienna Convention). Regarding the capacity of the parties concerned to the peace treaty -making, Article 6 of the Vienna Convention endows all states with the power to make treaties. This means that only a state can be a subject of a treaty because, under the orthodox positivist doctrine, states alone are recognized as legal persons in public international law. Under this doctrine, North and South Korea will naturally be direct parties concerned. Once committed to the making of a peace treaty, the governments of the two sides should talk about drafting the treaty text. The treaty text would include, by and large, such elements as preamble, national entity, political and territorial clauses, military detente, and economic and financial clauses, etc. The peace treaty would finally enter into force in such a manner and upon such a date as it may provide, or as soon as the consent to be bound by the treaty is expressed by the parties concerned. The completion of the peace treaty, however, requires North and South Korea to finalize another vital procedure: the replacement of the Armistice Agreement with the peace treaty. Because the Armistice Agreement does not meet the requirements for treaty termination as laid down in Article 54 of the Vienna Convention of 1969, the best way to terminate the Armistice Agreement seems for the two Koreas to explicitly agree on it based on their national consensus. The final step would then be the entry into force of the new peace treaty. The process would be completed by the ratification of the peace treaty. The peace treaty on the Korean peninsula will be a symbol of the new peace regime on the Korean peninsula.

조선의 조약체제 편입과 조약 관련전문용어의 인식 및 발전

한성민 고려대학교 아세아문제연구원 2023 亞細亞硏究 Vol.66 No.3

근대 조약체제는 19세기 이래 서양 제국주의 국가들의 주도로 성립되었다. 서양 열강으로부터 조약 체결을 강요당한 국가들은 조약이란 제도와 관련 용어들을 제대로 이해하기도 전에 그들의 위압에 불평등조약을 체결해야 했다. 조선은 1876년 일본과 ‘朝日修好條規’를 체결하면서 근대 조약 체제에 편입하였으나, 동양의 전통적인 국제질서체제가 혼용되어 불완전한 편입이었다. 조선은 당시의 조약형식에 충실한 1882년의 ‘조미수호통상조약’을 통해 근대 조약체제에 확실히 편입하였다. 조선이 근대 조약 체제에 편입하고, 朝鮮策略 이 국내에 소개되면서 만국공법과 조약 관련 용어들에 대한 사회적 인식이 크게 확산되기 시작했다. 이때 중요한 역할을 한 것이 萬國公法 인데, 청국의 문화와 언어생활에서 비슷한 뜻을 가지고 있는 용어를 차용하여 번역되었다. 이 때문에 초기에는 동양사회 에서 상대적으로 빠르게 국제법의 이해도를 높이는데 기여했으나, 점차 본뜻에 충실하지 않은 번역의 문제가 나타났다. 그리고 1880년대 후반부터는 조선 사회에서도 만국공법 및 힘에 의해 좌우되는 국제관계, 조약의 현실에 대한 회의가 표출되기 시작했다. 이는 국제 관계의 현실을 냉정하게 바라보게 되었다는 조선사회의 인식의 진보를 보여주는 것이기도 했다. 이는 조약이 결코 조항대로 작동하지 않는다는 현실 경험, 만국공법 외에 다른 국제법 서적들도 소개되어 비교가 가능해졌다는 점, 조약 및 국제법 관련 용어에 대한 새로운 번역의 시도 등이 작용한 결과였다. The modern treaty system has been established since the 19th century, led by Western imperialist countries. Countries forced to conclude treaties by Western powers had to sign unequal treaties under their pressure before they could properly understand the treaty system and related terms. Chosun was incorporated into the modern treaty system by signing the ‘Treaty of Peace, Amity between Chosun and Japan’ in 1876, but it was an incomplete incorporation because the traditional international order system of the Orient was mixed. Chosun was firmly incorporated into the modern treaty system through the ‘Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and Kingdom of Chosun’ in 1882, which was faithful to the treaty format of the time. As Joseon was incorporated into the modern treaty system and Chosun strategy( 朝鮮策略 ) was introduced in Korea, social awareness of public laws and terms related to treaties began to spread greatly. What played an important role at this time was Elements of International Law( 萬國公法 ), which was translated by borrowing terms that had similar meanings in the culture and language life of the Qing Dynasty. Because of this, it contributed to relatively quickly increasing the understanding of international law in Eastern societies in the early days, but gradually the problem of translation that was not faithful to the original meaning appeared. And from the late 1880s, skepticism about the reality of international relations, the international law and treaties swayed by power of all countries began to be expressed in Chosun society. This also showed the progress of the Joseon society's perception that it came to look at the reality of international relations calmly. It was the result of the practical experience that treaties never work according to their provisions, In addition to Elements of International Law( 萬國公法 ) other international law books were introduced and made comparable. and new attempts to translate terms related to treaties and international law.

韓國戰爭 前後, 對日講和條約 論議에 의한 아시아 내에서 日本의 安保와 位相

柳芝娥(Yoo, Ji-A) 한일민족문제학회 2010 한일민족문제연구 Vol.18 No.-

1951年9月8日、サンフランシスコで開催された講和会議で、日本は連合国との講和條約を締結し、翌年1952年4月28日その講和條約が発效することによって連合国による日本の占領は形式上、終止符を押した。この対日講和条約は日本が独立国家として復帰したという意義を持つだけでなく、東アジアで日本と戦争状態にあった国家、または日本の殖民地下においてあった国家との関係にも少ない影響を及ぼしたと言える。講和条約の特性は朝鮮戦争の勃発を前後にしてアメリカはもちろん日本でも早期講和条約に対する論議が急変した事実で明確に現われる。アメリカは中国の共産化と米ソ冷戦が固着化して行く状況で、日本をアジアで自由主義陣営の堡塁として作りあげようとする計画を推進して行った。そして朝鮮戦争が勃発すると、アメリカはその計画を早期対日講和條約と自由主義陣営のみを対象にする断片条約として具体化した。サンフランシスコで開かれた講和会議には中国が招待されず、韓国も日本との間で交戦関係ではなかったという理由で招請されなかった。即ち、共産陣営または日本の独立回復や以後日本の再建に障害の素地を提供する可能性がある国家が完全に排除された資本主義陣営国家が中心になった単独講和という形態で条約が調印されたのである。これは日本が冷戦に主体的に加わる形態を取ることで独立を回復しようとする意図を現わした選択であると言える。また、対日講和条約締結過程で現われた特徴は講和條約自体が日米安保条約の締結と一セットになって締結されたとことである。朝鮮戦争勃発後、アジアで共産化の進行と米ソ冷戦の激化によって、吉田首相を中心にした日本政府は対日講和条約準備作業の一環として安保條約案を準備した。その理由はソ連に対する牽制と共産圏に対する憂慮をあげることができる。また、アメリカも同じような理由のために日本との安保條約を準備したと言える。しかし、日本はその安保条約によってアメリカに従属されることになった。それだけでなく、日本は自らアジアを軽視する路線を取るようになった。すなわち、対日講和条約による日米安全保障体制が日本とアメリカに安保上の下敷石になったといえども、日本のアジアでの立場はより退歩する結果をもたらした。特に韓国の場合、朝鮮戦争で日本との関係で積極的な代案を出すことができなかったために、サンフランシスコ条約に参加することができなくなった。そのために以後韓日関係は日本の領土問題処理を含めて、韓日予備会談で多くの難航を経るようになった。またこのような問題は現在歴史教科書問題など、他の解決されない問題を生じさせ東アジアの国際問題として残っている状況である。 Japan concluded the writing of a peace treaty with allied powers at a peace conference held in San Francisco on September 8, 1951. In the next year, the Japanese occupation by the Allies powers ended officially, as the Treaty entered into force at April 28, 1952. The Japan Peace Treaty was symbolic of Japan's comeback as an independent nation, as well as having a considerable impact on its relationships with other East Asian countries. The characteristics of the peace treaty appear in the fact that discussions on a peace treaty in Japan have been changing rapidly in Japan and the United States since the outbreak of the Korean War. The U.S.A. promoted the plan that Japan made as a fortification of the liberal camp in Asia in the situation that the Chinese Communist Party and U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War took power and started to work more actively to Asia as soon as the Korean War began. In addition, Japan signed a Japan-US security treaty along with the peace treaty as one set. After the outbreak of the Korean War, the Japanese Government, led by Prime Minister Yoshida, prepared for the security treaty as a ancillary means to the peace treaty. This was because of the containment of the Soviet Union and anxiety about the Communist bloc; in the same context, the U.S.A. had prepared for security treaty with Japan for a similar reason. However, not only did Japan end up being a subordinate to the U.S.A., but also Japan have been neglect the rest of Asia as a result of the security treaty. In other words, it resulted in a point where the relationship between Asian countries were more backward, even though it became a footstone for security positioning in Asia due to the new Japan-US security system in Japan and the United States. Korea was not able to participate in the writing of the San Francisco treaty at the time, due to the Korean War. Therefore, the Korea-Japan preparatory meeting incited a lot of new arguments including territorial issues. In addition, such problems are now left only in history textbooks and as problems confined only to East Asia.

開港場 警察의 설치와 운영(1884∼1896)

閔會修(MIN Hoi soo) 한국사학회 2012 史學硏究 Vol.- No.108

1894년 갑오개혁으로 근대적 경찰제도가 도입되기 이전에도 조선의 개항장·개시장에는 경찰제도가 존재하였다. 이 개항장의 ‘警察官’은 일본이 개항장에 이식한 경찰제도와 더불어 개화파들이 추진했던 근대적 경찰제도 도입 구상의 영향을 받아, 개항장 행정의 총책임자인 監理휘하에서 租界地의 순찰 등을 전담하기 위하여 1884년에 인천항에 처음 도입되었다. 그런데 초창기에는 애초의 도입 취지처럼 순찰 기능에 특화된 존재는 아니었고, 조계와 관련한 각종 사무 담당 및 각종 운송 업무를 위시한 감리서 관할 사무 보조 등의 역할을 수행하였다. 그러나 감리서의 역할이 증대하고 그 조직이 확장되면서 경찰 조직 또한 확장·독립의 과정을 밟게 되어 ‘警察署’가 분리되었고, 그에 수반하여 개항장 경찰의 관할 업무 역시 개항장에 출입하는 선박에 대한 감시와 상행위의 질서 유지 등을 위시한 각종 치안업무에 보다 특화되어, 점차 근대적 경찰조직의 그것과 성격이 유사해졌다. 그러던 중 1894년 갑오개혁기에 ‘警務廳官制’가 제정되면서 근대적인 경찰제도가 도입되자, 이 개항장의 경찰제도 역시 거기에 편입되었는데, 관제 제정시에 중앙의 경무청 산하로 들어가면서 기존의 감리서와의 지휘관계가 형식적으로는 단절되었으나 현실적으로는 지속되었다. 이후 1895년에 새로운 경무청관제가 제정되고 뒤에 지방제도의 개혁 및 감리서 폐지 등을 거치면서 개항장의 경찰 조직은 다시 지방행정조직의 편제하에 들어가게 되었고, 1896년 이후 감리서가 복설되자 갑오개혁 이전처럼 감리의 통제를 받게 되었다. 이상의 과정을 살펴볼 때 개항장의 경찰제도가 1894년 이후의 근대적 경찰제도와 제도적으로는 완전히, 그리고 그 내용상으로도 일정 부분 연결된다는 사실을 확인할 수 있고, 그에 따라 한국에 있어서 근대적 경찰제도의 기원에 대한 새로운 단서를 얻을 수 있다. Even before the introduction of the modern police system to Korea during the Reform in 1894, the police system had existed at the treaty ports and open markets in Korea. This ‘Policeman(警察官)’ was first introduced to Inch’on Port in 1884 for the duty of patrol around the settlement(租界) under the control of the Gamri(監理), the Superintendent of the treaty ports, which had been influenced by the police system that Japan had introduced to Korean treaty ports and the plan for the introduction of the modern police system made by the Enlightenment Party (開化派). His role was not specialized in the duty of patrol which had been the object for introduction at the beginning, and he accomplished various works on the settlement and assisted the business of the Superintendent Office(監理署), such as various transport services and so on. But as the role of the Superintendent Office grew larger and its constitution bigger, the police system also underwent the process of expansion and independence which resulted in the separation of the police station(警察署) from the Superintendent Office. And the duties of the policeman at the treaty ports also became more specialized in that of the public peace, such as the surveillance of the ships and maintaining the order of the commercial transaction, more similar to those of the modern police. When the Official Regulations for the Police Agency(警務廳官制) was made in 1894, which means the introduction of the modern police system to Korea, the police system at the treaty ports also included in the new system. And its relationship of command and control with the Superintendent office disconnected formally as it became under the control of the Police Agency in Seoul, but continuing practically. Passing through the establishment of the new Official Regulations for the Police Agency, the reform of the local government system and the abolition of the Superintendent Office in 1895, the police system at the treaty ports again went under the command of the local administrative organization, later being controlled by the Superintendent just like before 1894 after the reconstruction of the Superintendent Office in 1896. Checking on the process in the above mentioned, we can make sure that the police system at the treaty ports are connected to the modern police system after 1894, completely in form and partly in substance, getting a new clue for the beginning of the modern police system in Korea.

베르사유 조약(Treaty of Versailles)과 유럽평화의 이상

임상우 서강대학교 유로메나연구소 2018 통합유럽연구 Vol.9 No.2

The ideal of everlasting peace of the Versailles system has been was shattered because of the outbreak of the Second World War. Accordingly, the academic analysis of the lesson of the Treaty of Versailles began to go beyond the narrow vision of assessing strategic gains and losses, presupposing international competition system. Instead, the implications of the Treaty of Versailles were assessed from a broader historical perspective, with the advent of a new movement for European integration after the Second World War. In this article, we first examine the evaluations of the Treaty of Versailles in relation to the historical situation of the time, and then consider the changes in the focus and standards of the evaluations in the light of of European history moving toward integrated Europe. The direction of this changing analysis is basically related to the growing awareness of the limitations of the balance of power pursuant to the national competition system, and to efforts to overcome the conflicts. In addition, the recognition of the limitations of such a national competition system and the increase in efforts to overcome it have ultimately provided a starting point for setting the ultimate goal of the European Union. Finally, in this sense, we reiterate that the revaluation of the Treaty of Versailles is closely related to the direction of the political future of the European Union.

정전체제와 한반도 평화

홍용표(HONG YONG PYO) 21세기정치학회 2008 21세기 정치학회보 Vol.18 No.3

The purpose of this study is to analyze the meaning and limits of the Korean armistice system, and discuss their implication for Korean peace system. For this purpose, this study first examined the process of concluding the armistice agreement, the US-Korea mutual security treaty, which have been the foundation of the armistice system. It also analyzed major contents of those agreements. Second, this paper discussed how the armistice system has contributed to protecting the renewal of an all-out war and keeping peace in the Korean peninsula. Third, as far as the limits of the armistice system concerned, this study analyzed structural, and institutional problems in the armistice agreement. It also dealt with the problems found in the process of implementing the agreement. Finally, this paper discussed how to establish peace system in the Korean peninsula, overcoming those limits embedded in the armistice system.

데탕트와 한반도, 실현되지 못한 제3의 길

박태균(Tae Gyun Park) 역사비평사 2018 역사비평 Vol.- No.124

Korea faced a crisis in the 1960s caused by the changes in international condition, in particular, a new approach of the Nixon Administration. However, the crisis provided a opportunity on the Korean Peninsula. Although the policy of the downsize or withdrawal of US forces in South Korea triggered security crisis from the perspective of South Korean government, it caused a peaceful talk between South and North on the Korean Peninsula. The US policy to reduce military budget in Korea was consistent with active responses both by South and North Korea. It was possible to replace the Armistice Agreement into a peace treaty and to neutralize the Korean Peninsula under the detente in the 1970s. Either South or North Korean government diversified diplomatic policies and sought to normalize relationship with antagonistic countries since the Korean War. The July 4th Joint Communique was an accord between South and North and the June 23 Statement in 1973 by South Korean government were results under the detente in Northeast Asia. In particular, since the 1973 statement included a clause to make it possible to join international organization both South and North separately, co-prosperity before unication would be possible. If a peace treaty were joined, economic prosperity through reduction of military expense would be possible. Even a neutralization of the Korean Peninsula was not inconsistent with US policy at the time. The opportunity in 1970s was missed ultimately, however. Focusing on South Korean condition which was chiefly analyzed in this paper, the Park government had a fundamental limitation to lead a big transition on the peninsula. It is because the government was maintained through strong anti-communism and tight control over civil society. The peace system on the Korean peninsula might weaken both anticommunism and authoritarian system. North Korea had similar condition with anti-Americanism. Although the opportunity missed in 1970s was come again in 1990s, South Korean government did not ride on the ow due to social discourse on the strong anticommunism after the democratization. Two failures in Modern Korean history could give meaningful lessons to current Korea standing in the international transition period.

샌프란시스코 평화조약과 한일관계: 한일냉전의 기원으로서 ‘제4조’ 문제

남기정 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2020 한국과 국제정치 Vol.36 No.3

This article regards the relationship between Korea and Japan since 2012 as a Cold War, and seeks its origins. The origin lies in Article 4 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In this article, I would like to confirm the dispute between Korea and Japan over Article 4 (a) and (b), and from there I would like to gauge the possibility of overcoming the 1965 regime. As for the relationship between paragraph (a) and (b) of Article 4, Korea understood it as the legal basis for Korea's right to claim reparation against Japan, while Japan understood it as a mutual waiver of claims, and the United States understood it as the basis for mutual adjustment of claims. Such conflicting interpretations among three nations had been maintained consistently since the beginning of the negotiations. There has never been a convergence of positions between South Korea and Japan in this regard, and U.S. mediation had been ambiguous. Even in the Basic Treaty and the Claims Agreement in 1965, this difference had not been fundamentally resolved. The differences have also changed the status of the Claims Agreement, making room for Japan to regard it as nothing more than an agreement on economic cooperation, while Seoul has tried to interpret it as a de facto agreement on reparation. This difference set the limits of ‘the 1965 system’, which is the root cause of the deterioration of Korea-Japan relations since 2012.

미국의 재균형화와 북한의 수정주의 국가화

이정철 ( Jungchul Lee ) 아시아.유럽미래학회 2013 유라시아연구 Vol.10 No.4

본 연구는 미국의 재균형화(rebalance) 정책 즉 주축 전략(pivot to asia)의 변화를 분석한데 기초하여 그에 대응한 북한의 정책 전환 과정을 살펴보았다. 사실 미국의 재균형화 정책은 그 본질이 중국에 대한 미국의 지정학적 대전략의 차원에서 수립된 것이지만, 한편으로는 중국과는 별개의 아시아 태평양 관리 전략이기도 하다. 이 점에서 중국 측에 비해 미 측에서는 재균형화 전략을 대중국 봉쇄라기보다는 아태 지역의 불확실성 관리와 동맹관리정책의 일환으로 바라보는 견해가 더 많다. 후자의 관점을 강조하는 견해는 2010년에 시작된 미국의 재균형화 정책은 2012년 말을 기점으로 전자 즉 대중국 봉쇄보다는 후자 즉 불확실성관리 쪽으로 확연히 기운 새로운 국면으로 진입하였다고 주장한다. 한편 본 연구는 북한이 2009년을 기점으로 상당한 정책 변화를 추진한 것으로 분석하였다. 기존의 대미 편승 전략을 포기하고 평화협정과 북미 수교를 분리(decoupling)하기 시작하였다는 논리이다. 북한이 요구하는 평화협정은 이제는 북미수교를 목표지로 하는 비핵화 협상이 아니고, 사실상 북한 자체 무력으로 한미 군사력과 상호 억지 상태를 유지한다는 것을 전제로 하는 핵군축 협상을 의미하게 되었다. 북한이 2009년 1월 이후 외무성 대변인 성명을 통해 이같은 주장을 재삼 재사 강조하기 시작한 것은 단순한 외교적 레토릭이 아니라는 것이다. 2009년 이후 스스로를 핵 국가로 자임하는 북한의 이같은 행태는 2013년 들어 더욱 더 확연해졌다. 현상유지보다는 현상타파가 자신들에게 유리할 수 있다는 인식을 드러내며 대남 압박과 공격전을 전개했다. 2013년 상반기 북한이 취한 공세적인 대남 정책이 그 한 단면이다. 재밌는 점은 미국의 재균형화 정책이 중국에 대한 봉쇄보다는 불확실성과 동맹 관리에 강조점을 두는한, 중국에게 북핵 문제는 미국과의 관계 악화를 막기 위한 수단으로 된다는 점이다. 미국의 재균형화정책이 북핵문제의 불확실성을 관리하는 것으로 목표로 하는 한, 중국이 미국의 대북 정책에 협조하지 않을 수 없게 될 것이다. 이 점에서 미국의 재균형화 정책이 중국 봉쇄보다는 리스크 관리로 전환했다는 2012년 이후 중국의 대북 압박이 관찰된 것은 우연이 아닌 것이다. 미중 협조 체제의 복귀와 같은 상황논리의 전개 과정을 잘 알고 있는 북한은 자신의 수정주의적 행보와 미국의 재균형화 정책 간의 갈등 국면을 조율하며, 6월 이후의 조정 과정에 진입한 인상이다. 그러나 미중 협력 구도에 균열이 발생하고 미국의 재균형화 정책이 대중국 정책으로 재조정된다면, 북한의 수정주의는 또 다시 노골화될 가능성이 높다는 것이 본 연구의 함의이다. This paper examined North Korea’s policy change, which is a reaction to US’ rebalance policy, ie, the pivot to Asia. Although the rebalance policy is located within and established as the United States’ larger geopolitical strategy against China in nature, it also is a distinct United States’ Asian-Pacific management strategy in practice. In this sense, it is more prevailing in the United States than in China that consider the rebalance policy as one of the risk management and alliance management policy rather than China containment policy. The latter view claims that the United States policy enters into a new phase from containment to risk management after late 2012. This research claims that North Korea made a considerable policy change after 2009. North Korea abandoned its bandwagon policy and started to decouple peace treaty and diplomatic normalization with United States. Thus, the nature of peace treaty of which North Korea insisted, turned to a nuclear disarmament negotiation based on the military deterrence using its military power versus South Korea-United States military power, not a denuclearization negotiation that aims to normalize its diplomatic relations with the United States. In this sense, the series of North Korean Foreign ministry spokeman statements that emphasized the nuclear disarmament negotiation after January 2009, should not be considered as a diplomatic rhetoric. North Korea’s self-regarding as a nuclear state became more apparent after 2013. It pressured and pursued aggressive policies against South Korea showing anti-status quo is more advantageous to it than maintaining it. North Korea’s aggressive policy against South Korea in the first half of 2013 is the result of its policy change. It is worth mentioning that China might see the North Korean nuclear problem as a tool to check the deteriorating relations with United States as long as United States emphasizes risk and alliance management aspect above the containment regarding the rebalance policy. As long as the aim of rebalance policy is to manage the North Korean nuclear risk, China should partake in the United States’ North Korean Strategy. In this sense, it should be noted that China stared to put visable pressure on North Korean after 2012, the same year that United States changes its policy focus from China containment to risk management. After June, North Korea enters into coordination phase after tuning the conflict between its revisionistic behaviour and United States’ rebalance policy of returning to Sino-US concert system. However, this research reveals that North Korea’s revisionist policy would enter into another stage if Sino-American cooperation might break.

샌프란시스코 평화조약의 동아시아적 역설

강상규(Kang, Sang Gyu) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2022 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.21 No.1

대일 평화조약(Treaty of Peace with Japan)으로 불리는 샌프란시스코 평화조약은 제국 일본이 1945년 전쟁에 패하면서 7년 후에 치러진 조약이다. 미국의 주도하에 ‘제국으로서 일본’이 해체되었음을 국제적으로 선언한 것이었다. 이후 샌프란시스코 평화조약은 ‘전후 동아시아 국제질서’를 규정하는 기본틀이 되었다. 하지만 이 조약의 역사적·구조적 의미는 동아시아에서 협소하게 다뤄질 뿐이며 충분히 주목받지 못하고 있다. 왜 그렇게 된 것일까? 그리고 동아시아에게 샌프란시스코 조약은 어떤 의미를 갖는 것인가? 본 연구는 샌프란시스코 평화조약이 ‘동아시아를 철저히 타자화하고 배제’하면서 성립한 사실에 주목하고, ‘동아시아’의 맥락에서 이 조약의 역사적·구조적 특성을 전면적으로 재검토해보려고 했다. 본 연구는 특히 ‘제국 일본의 동아시아 50년 전쟁’, ‘동아시아 전후체제’와 같은 새로운 개념을 적용함으로써 샌프란시스코 평화조약이 ‘전후 동아시아 균열의 태생적인 근거’가 되는 경위를 고찰할 수 있었다. 또한 ‘일본의 전후체제’와 ‘한반도의 적대적 분단체제’,‘중국의 양안관계와 사실상 두 개의 중국’이 처음 만들어지는 과정에서 긴밀하게 연결될 수 있었던 데에는, 국제질서 차원에서 샌프란시스코 평화조약이 결정적인 역할을 수행하였음을 명료하게 확인할 수 있었다. ‘동아시아를 타자화하고 배제’하면서 성립한 샌프란시스코 평화조약이 전후 동아시아 국제질서의 틀이 된 것은 동아시아의 국제관계가 근원적으로 심각하게 뒤틀려있다는 사실, 그리고 그것을 바꿔갈 기회를 여전히 찾지 못하고 있음을 역설적으로 드러내준다. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, called the Treaty of Peace with Japan, was signed seven years after the Empire Japan lost the war in 1945. It was an international declaration that Japan as an empire was disbanded under the leadership of the United States. Since then, the San Francisco Peace Treaty has become the basic framework for defining the “International Order of East Asia before and after the war.” However, the historical and structural significance of this treaty is only narrowly treated in East Asia and is not receiving enough attention. Why did that happen? And what does the San Francisco Treaty mean to East Asia? This study attempted to fully review the historical and structural characteristics of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the context of “East Asia” by paying attention to the fact that it was established by “thoroughly otherizing and excluding East Asia.” In particular, this study was able to examine how the San Francisco Peace Treaty became the “born basis for East Asian cracks” by applying new concepts such as “the 50 Years’ War on East Asia of Empire Japan” and “the postwar system in East Asia.” In addition, it was clearly confirmed that the San Francisco Peace Treaty played a decisive role in the creation of Japan’s postwar system, the hostile division system of the Korean Peninsula, and China’s bilateral relations and virtually two China. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was established by “otherizing and excluding East Asia,” has become the framework for East Asian international order after the war, paradoxically revealing the fact that East Asian international relations are fundamentally seriously distorted and that they still have no opportunity to change it.