The Putin Administration's Far East Development Plans and the Future of Korea-Russia Cooperation

Sung Hoon Jeh,Boogyun Kang 대외경제정책연구원 2013 World Economy Brief Vol.2013 No.01

Russian Arctic Development Strategy and New Possibility for Korea-Russia Cooperation

Sung Hoon Jeh,Jiyoung Min 대외경제정책연구원 2014 World Economy Brief Vol.2014 No.01

Russia’s New Concept of Foreign Policy and Korea-Russia Cooperation

Sung Hoon Jeh 대외경제정책연구원(KIEP) 2014 KIEP Opinions Vol.2014 No.1

Russia`s Position on Japan`s territorial claims on the South Kuril Islands in 2000`s

( Sung Hoon Jeh ) 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 러시아연구소 2009 슬라브연구 Vol.25 No.2

이 연구의 목적은 2000년대 일본의 영토요구에 대한 러시아의 입장 변화를 1990년대와의 비교를 통해 분석하는데 있다. 남쿠릴열도에 대한 일본의 영토요구가 러시아의 영토적 통합성과 국가이익의 원칙에 위배됨에도 불구하고, 1990년대 러시아 지도부는 양자관계에서 영토분쟁을 공식적으로 인정하고, 4도 전체를 분쟁대상으로 지정하는데 동의했으며, 특정한 기간까지 그 중 2도를 양도하기로 확정했다. 그러나 푸틴 정부는 1965년 소일공동선언에 규정된 `평화조약 체결 후 2도 양도` 의무의 이행이 영토문제 해결의 유일한 방법이라는 입장을 취하며, 영토문제를 영토분쟁이 아닌 영토요구로 재규정했다. 현재, 일본은 1956년 공동선언에 기반하여 분쟁을 해결하려는 의사를 가지고 있지 않으며, 러시아 역시 추가적인 양보를 통해 조속히 이 문제를 해결하려는 시도를 하지 않고 있기 때문에, 러시아와 일본간의 영토논쟁은 당분간 계속될 전망이다. The purpose of this study is to examine changes in Russia`s position on Japan`s territorial claims in the 2000`s, compared with its position in the 1990-s years. Despite the fact that Japan`s claim on the South Kuril Islands violate the principles of Russia`s territorial integrity and national interests, in 1990`s Russian leaders formally recognized the existence of the territorial conflicts in bilateral relations, agreed to specify all four islands the disputed object, and has approved the transfer of two of them until a certain time. However, Putin`s administration has defined again the territorial issue as a territorial claim, and not territorial conflicts, producing position that the only way to resolve the territorial issue is the fulfillment of obligations? the transfer islands of Habomai and Shikotan after the conclusion of a peace treaty-under the Joint Declaration of 1956 year. Currently, Japan is not intend to compromise disputes on the basis of the Joint Declaration of 1956 year and Russia does not attempt to solve this problem urgently at the expense of additional concessions. Therefore, territorial deputes between Russia and Japan will be continued.

Recent Development in the Russian Far East-Baikal Region and Its Implication

JEH Sung Hoon,MIN Jiyoung,KANG Boogyun,Sergey Lukonin 대외경제정책연구원 2015 World Economy Brief Vol.2015 No.01

푸틴주의와 한반도 - 2000년 이후 러시아의 한반도 정책 변화

제성훈(Jeh, Sung Hoon) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2020 슬라브학보 Vol.35 No.1

Since 2000, Russia has sought to secure partnerships in Northeast Asia to return to its status as a great power and form a multipolar system. On the Korean Peninsula it has maintained the “equidistant diplomacy with North and South” and began to engage limitedly in securing strategic stability. In order to strengthen the partnership for the formation of a multipolar system by expanding cooperation with China in the political and economic fields, and to explore the possibility of full-scale cooperation through solving territorial problems with Japan, it was necessary to restore strategic influence and secure strategic stability on the Korean Peninsula. During this period, Russia regarded the Korean Peninsula as a strategic instability zone threatening the security of its eastern borders, and tried to secure strategic stability by resolving the North Korean nuclear problem while maintaining the “equidistant diplomacy with North and South”. In other words, at the time Russia paid attention to the meaning of the Korean Peninsula in the security dimension, specifically the security level of Asia or the whole of Northeast Asia. Since 2012, when Putin returned to the presidency, Russia has sought to secure support from Northeast Asia for the development of Far East and Siberia in to consolidate its status as a great power. On the Korean Peninsula, unlike the past, it attempted to actively engage in strategic stability and economic benefits. The development of the Far East and Siberia began in earnest with the launch of the 3rd Putin government. Therefore it has become essential to expand economic cooperation with North and South Korea to complement economic cooperation with China, which needs certain checks at the economic level, and Japan, with which the possibility of full-scale cooperation disappears. Russia has been actively working to establish a new foundation for expanding economic cooperation with the two Koreas, while trying to maintain North Korea"s existing regime and prevent military conflicts. In conclusion, since 2012, in Putinist diplomacy, the Korean Peninsula has had an important meaning not only in the security dimension but also in the economic dimension.

연구발표논문초록 ( 생물화공 (1) ) : Mouse - Mouse Hybridoma 배양을 위한 무혈청배지의 개발

제훈성(Hoon Sung Jeh),박상재(Sang Jae Park),최차용(Cha Yong Choi) 한국화학공학회 1988 추계학술발표회 Vol.- No.-

러시아 대 중국정책의 지정학적 지향

제성훈(Jeh Sung Hoon) 한국정치학회 2009 한국정치학회보 Vol.43 No.4

그간 대다수의 러중관계 연구에서는 중국과의 전략적 협력이 미국의 패권을 견제하는 러시아의 잠정적인 지정학적 옵션으로 간주되고, 양국 간의 갈등요인의 심화로 인해 그 미래가 불확실하다고 평가되어왔다. 다시 말해, 러시아가 중국과의 협력을 강화하려는 이유가 주로 탈냉전기 국제정치 구조와 이에 대한 대응, 즉 대외적 필요성에 있다는 점을 강조했다. 이 논문에서는 정치, 경제, 군사 전 영역에 걸친 양국관계의 성과와 한계, 그리고 지정학적 갈등을 분석하면서, 러시아 대중정책의 지정학적 지향을 체계적으로 공식화하고자 했다. 여기서 ‘지정학적 지향’은 일정한 공간에서 한 국가가 다른 국가들과의 관계에서 갖는 전략적 의도와 행위의 총체로 규정된다. 연구결과에 따르면, 중국과의 관계에서 러시아 대외정책의 지정학적 지향은 ‘전면적인 협력을 통한 포섭 및 통제’에 있다. 이는 러시아의 대중정책이 대외적으로 미국의 패권을 견제하는 것은 물론, 국가이익의 극대화와 잠재적인 지정학적 위협의 조정 및 관리를 시도하고 있다는 것을 의미한다. Analyzing the achievements and limits of development of relations between Russia and China in political, economic and military fields, this study attempted to formulate the geopolitical orientations of Russian foreign policy toward China in 2000s. In this article, ‘geopolitical orientations' are defined as a set of strategic intentions and actions of a state in relations with other states in a certain space. The research results suggest that the geopolitical orientations of Russian foreign policy in relations with China consist of 'co-optation' and 'control' by means of comprehensive cooperation with China. It implies that Russian foreign policy toward China attempt to not only restrain US hegemony, but also maximize national interests, adjust and manage potential geopolitical threats.

Hybridoma 배양을 위한 무혈청 배지의 개발

제훈성(Hoon Sung Jeh),최차용(Cha Yong Choi) 한국생물공학회 1993 KSBB Journal Vol.8 No.1

19세기 말 만주 · 한반도에서 러시아 대외정책의 지정학적 목표와 시사점

제성훈(Jeh, Sung Hoon) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2018 슬라브학보 Vol.33 No.1

The aim of this study is to understand the traditional geopolitical goals of Russian foreign policy, on the basis of this, analyze the geopolitical goals of Russian foreign policy in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula in the late 19th century, and, from this, ultimately to find the implications for Korea-Russia cooperation. The geopolitical goals of foreign policy can be defined as those related to the control of the space that a country intends to achieve through foreign policy under the influence of space, and process of achieving those goals is always accompanied by cooperation and competition with the other political actors. Russian policy toward Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula aimed to secure the ice-free ports, expand the railroad networks, and build the buffer zones that were the traditional geopolitical goals of Russian foreign policy. In the period from the end of the first Sino-Japanese War to the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War Russia leased the ports Arthur and Dalian in the Liaodong Peninsula, constructed Chinese Eastern Railway and connected it to the Trans-Siberian Railway. Russia also made Manchuria as a buffer zone under its influence and the Korean Peninsula as a neutral buffer zone. Russian foreign policy is similarly revived on the Korean Peninsula nowadays. Russia secured exclusive license to dock No. 3 of Port Rajin in 2008 and connected Port Rajin to the Trans-Siberian Railway by remodeling the railroad section between Port Rajin and Khasan in September 2013. And Russia hopes that North Korea at least or the Korean Peninsula as far as possible will become a neutral buffer zone.