북극지역의 안보적 도전 - 군비경쟁의 정치적 함의

배규성(Bae, Kyu Sung),성기중(Seong, Khee Joong) 동아시아국제정치학회 2011 국제정치연구 Vol.14 No.2

The Arctic has long possessed an irreducible significance in military-strategic terms. The Global Warming resulted in Arctic ice melting, and competition among the Arctic states such as, United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark, for the resources accelerated. It is a natural consequences of geopolitics. A series of developments in military technology dramatically increased the role of the Arctic as a theater for the operations of strategic weapons systems, transforming the region into an area of intense interest to those countries concerned with the global strategic balance. Recent attention on the Arctic, however, has typically covered climatic changes, natural resources, sovereignty claims, and new shipping lanes. Thereafter, little discussed are Arctic security challenges and regional military posture shifts. The larger Arctic states such as United States, Canada, and Russia are clarifying national interests, increasing A rctic operations, and trumpeting plans to expand military (largely maritime) capacity. Yet employing forces in the Arctic is far easier said than done, because the harsh environment makes military operations expensive and dangerous. Therefore climatic changes, natural resources, sovereignty claims, new sea lanes as well as military balance of power will be the central issues of the Arctic. For now, Arctic capabilities of northern nations do not match the strength of their ambitions. Nevertheless, the high stakes suggest this could soon change.

유럽과 러시아

배규성(Bae Kyu Sung) 한국국제정치학회 2003 國際政治論叢 Vol.43 No.2

북극해의 항해의 자유: 문제와 쟁점

배규성 ( Bae Kyu Sung ) 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2023 한국시베리아연구 Vol.27 No.2

‘항해의 자유(freedom of navigation)’는 그로티우스에 의해 시작되었고, 두 차례의 세계대전과 세 차례에 걸친 UN의 해양법 회의를 거쳤다. 오늘날 북극해에서의 ‘항해의 자유’ 문제는 유엔 해양법 협약(UNCLOS)의 존중 및 그 해석과 관련된 국제법적 분쟁의 주제가 되었다. 쟁점은 북서항로와 북방항로의 법적 지위뿐만 아니라 영해 기선을 그리는 방법, 해협을 통과하는 레짐, 제234조(결빙지역)의 해석과 배타적 경제수역 내 항해의 자유(freedom of navigation) 제한에 관한 것이다. 북극권 국가들 중 주로 캐나다, 그리고 좀 덜한 정도로 러시아가 ‘항해의 자유’와 일치하지 않는 것으로 인정될 수 있는 법률을 채택했다. 북극해에서 ‘항해의 자유’ 원칙을 확고히 옹호하는 국가는 미국이다. 다른 북극권 국가인 덴마크, 핀란드, 아이슬란드, 노르웨이 및 스웨덴의 관행과 입장은 유엔 해양법 협약(UNCLOS), 선박으로부터의 오염 방지 국제협약(MARPOL) 및 해상 인명 안전 국제협약(SOLAS)의 조항을 따른다. 북극해 항해 문제에 대한 모든 북극권 국가와 전체 국제 사회의 입장을 통합하는 중요한 단계는 강제적인 폴라 코드(Polar Code)를 채택하는 것이었다. 북극해에서의 항해의 발전 전망과 관련하여 중요한 점은 선박의 항해로 인한 북극 환경의 손상 가능성이 항해의 발전을 중단시킬 수 없다는 것이다. 북극해를 통과하는 해로는 유럽과 아시아 사이의 거리를 크게 단축시키고, 수에즈 운하 또는 파나마 운하를 통한 운송에 비해 항해 시간이 짧아지고, 연료가 절약되고, 온실가스 배출량이 적은 경제적 이점이 명백하다. 또한 아시아 국가, 특히 중국뿐만 아니라 한국, 일본, 인도의 입장에서 북극해 항로의 이용은 경제적, 전략적 지정학적 이유로 중요해졌다는 점이다. 결과적으로 북극해에서 항해의 자유 원칙을 유지하는 것은 북극권 국가들의 문제일 뿐만 아니라 국제 사회 전체의 주요 글로벌 문제가 되었다. 이런 상황에서 북극해에서의 항해의 자유를 유지하고 보장하는 것에 대한 특히 미국과 같은 해양 강국들의 주장과 압력이 증가할 것이며, 항해의 자유를 제한하고자 하는 특히 캐나다와 러시아의 정책과 행동은 점점 더 강력해질 수 있어, 북극해 항로에서의 항해의 자유 쟁점은 논쟁과 갈등의 대상이 될 것이라고 예측할 수 있다. ‘Freedom of navigation’ was initiated by Hugo Grotius, and went through two World Wars and three UN Conferences on the Law of the Sea. Today, the issue of ‘freedom of navigation’ in the Arctic Ocean has become the subject of international legal disputes concerning the respect and interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The issues are related to the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, as well as how to draw the territorial sea baseline, the regime to pass through the strait, the interpretation of Article 234 (ice-covered area), and restrictions on freedom of navigation within the exclusive economic zone. Among the Arctic countries, mainly Canada, and to a lesser extent Russia, have adopted laws that could be recognized as inconsistent with “freedom of navigation”. The United States is a firm advocate for the principle of “freedom of navigation” in the Arctic Ocean. The practices and positions of the other Arctic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, follow the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). An important step unifying the positions of all Arctic countries and the entire international community on the issue of Arctic navigation was the adoption of a compulsory Polar Code. An important point with respect to the prospects for the development of navigation in the Arctic Ocean is that the potential damage to the Arctic environment caused by the navigation of ships cannot stop the development of navigation. A sea route through the Arctic Ocean significantly shortens the distance between Europe and Asia, and the economic advantages of shorter voyage times, fuel savings and lower greenhouse gas emissions are obvious compared to transportation via the Suez or Panama Canal. In addition, from the perspective of Asian countries, especially China, as well as Korea, Japan, and India, the use of the Arctic Sea route has become important for economic and strategic and geopolitical reasons. As a result, maintaining the principle of freedom of navigation in the Arctic Ocean has become a major global problem not only for Arctic countries but also for the international community as a whole. In this context, there will be increasing assertions and pressures from maritime powers, especially the United States, to maintain and ensure freedom of navigation in the Arctic Ocean, and policies and actions, particularly from Canada and Russia, to restrict freedom of navigation will become increasingly strong. Therefore, it can be predicted that the issue of freedom of navigation in the Arctic Ocean will be the subject of intense debate and conflict.

대구 2·28민주운동

배규성(BAE, Kyu Sung) 동아시아국제정치학회 2011 국제정치연구 Vol.14 No.1

February 28, 1960 in Daegu, a milestone democratic movement in the modern history of South Korea happened. The instruction of the Sunday school to hinder erection campaign of opposition party, made eight high school students to protest the coup protests, which eventually collapsed Rhee Seungman" dictatorship. So far, little discussions on the 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu were made, while 3?15 Masan Movement and 4?19 revolution have been mentioned a lot. As the breaking point of dictatorship, the first student" Movement after the establishment of ROK, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu should be evaluated fairly for the historical significance. In 2000, the society for the 2?28 Movement for Democracy was established as a Corporation. Then, along with Memorial erected(1990), Memorial Park opened(2004), Memorial Hall is being promoted. After the Reform Bill on Democracy Foundation(2009) was passed, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu gained official legal status and honor the spirit of the democratic movement to succeed to the future generations. For the past 50 years, 2?28 Democratic Movement of Daegu was silent and lacked the public attention for the characteristic of pure student"s movement, the regional characteristics of TK, and the lack of political intention. Now it"s time to rethink and succeed the spirit of the democratic movement.

러시아 대외정책의 새로운 사상적 기초로서 신유라시아주의

배규성(Bae, Kyu Sung) 동아시아국제정치학회 2003 국제정치연구 Vol.6 No.1

북극권 쟁점과 북극해 거버넌스

배규성(Bae Kyu Sung) 21세기정치학회 2010 21세기 정치학회보 Vol.20 No.3

With the race to develope natural resouces and new passage as a result of accelerated melting of sea ice and glaciers in the past two years, the Arctic marine environment has reached a crisis point. It is now time to consider creating the Arctic Regime by the adoption of a regional seas agreement and by the establishment of a fully-fledged international organisation to address marine environmental issues of global concern. Relations between the Arctic Rim states are by no means as negative as many people believe. More generally, it should be noted that there is already a considerable amount of cooperation in the Arctic. The vision of military conflict or a battle for territory and resources is wholly imaginary. In addition, there is a firm legal structure providing a solution for many Arctic issues with a potential for much more. The principles and rules for establishing maritime boundaries and the outer limits of the continental shelf are set out in the LOSC as the Constitution for the Oceans, and all of the states involved are pursuing those routes. The Arctic Rim states, sharing a common ocean(the Arctic) and common challenges already cooperate to a considerable extent to protect the environment and marine ecosystem. And there also exist the relevant principles and precedents. The last thing to do left for the Arctic states is to find the political will to go one step further to organise and consolidate their efforts in a new regional seas agreement and a future plan for sustainable development in the Arctic.

유럽안보의 선택과 도전: CFSP의 메커니즘과 미국의 시각

배규성 ( Kyu Sung Bae ),이승근 ( Seung Keun Lee ) 대한정치학회 2004 大韓政治學會報 Vol.12 No.1

벨기에의 다자주의적 대외정책 결정의 구조분석: CFSP를 중심으로

배규성 ( Kyu Sung Bae ),이승근 ( Seung Keun Lee ) 대한정치학회 2005 大韓政治學會報 Vol.12 No.3

이승만 라인(평화선)의 재고찰

배규성(Bae, Kyu Sung) 동아시아일본학회 2013 일본문화연구 Vol.47 No.-

The main purpose of the Peace Line was to protect Korea’s marine resources around the East Sea from Japan’s reckless over-exploitation of the fishery resources. It was inevitable of the Korean Government to declare the Peace Line so as to protect Korea’s marine resources in a situation, in which the MacArthur line established after World War II to set the limit of Japanese fisheries area would be abolished by the Treaty of San Francisco scheduled to come into effect on April 28, 1952. At that time, in terms of fishing techniques, shipping and shipping tonnage, the gap between Korea and Japan was too harsh. The secondary purpose was to prevent communist invasion in the final stages of the Korean War. At the same time, the most important, considered by the author, of all the meanings of Peace Line is that Korea could block Japan’s sovereignty claim over Dokdo in advance, and secure sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction on the EEZ and continental shelf by this line which included Dokdo in Korean territory. The significance and value of Peace Line in the development of the Law of the Sea was confirmed by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(1982). It was a leading and subsequent practice, which shows the surprising insights of a leader to declare maritime sovereign rights up to 200 miles from the coast. Finally, in a sense, this theme would be a critical examination of Jujii Genji’s critical review of Syngman Rhee line in ?The Final Reports of the second Takesima Study Meeting of Shimane Prefecture?(2012.3).

북극 거버넌스와 비국가 행위자 - 북극 이사회에서의 원주민 조직의 영향력 증가를 중심으로

배규성 ( Kyu-sung Bae ),김준엽 ( Jun-yeup Kim ) 국제지역학회 2021 국제지역연구 Vol.25 No.1

북극 거버넌스의 핵심은 북극권 국가들의 정부 간 고위급 포럼인 북극 이사회라 할 수 있다. 북극 이사회 내 국가 행위자인 회원국 고위급 대표들과 비국가 행위자인‘영구회원기구’모두는 자신들의 권위적인 지위, 특히 국가와 주민을 대표하는 정치적인 행위자로서 자신들의 권위적인 지위를 확보하려고 노력하고 있다. 북극 이사회의 영구회원기구인 원주민 조직들은 모든 북극 이사회의 고위급 회의와 장관회의에 대해 완전한 참여 권한과 협의 권한을 가진다. 이러한 활동을 통해 원주민 조직들은 자신의 이익을 대표하고 의사결정 과정에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 더 큰 기회와 발언권을 가진다. 그러나 북극 이사회 내에서의 가장 성공적인 권위의 행사는 주권과 국가적 논리에 뿌리를 둔 회원국 중심으로 운영되고 발전해 왔다. 원주민 조직들은 수용능력과 자금조달의 한계 때문에 국가의 자원과 지원에 의존해왔다. 그러나 회원국들은 그들 국민과 국익을 대변하는 것만으로는 그들의 권위를 만들어 낼 수 없다. 북극권 전체를 대변하는 권위는 북극 거버넌스의 큰 틀 내에서 상호 복합적으로 작용하는 다양한 행위자들 간의 다면적 다수준적 협력 메커니즘에 달려있다. 특히, 회원국들은 북극을 대표하는 문제에서 원주민 조직들과 교류하고 협력할 필요가 있다. Arctic governance can be represented by Arctic Council (AC) which is the high-level intergovernmental forum of Arctic countries. Both the Senior Arctic Officials(SAOs), representatives of the Member States as state actors and the ‘Permanent Participants’ (PP) as non-state actors have been trying to secure their own authoritative status, especially as political actors representing the state and its peoples. The indigenous peoples’ organizations as permanent participants (PP) have full power of participation and full consultation in all Arctic Council activities such as SAO meetings and ministerial meetings. By this power of participation and consultation, the indigenous peoples’ organizations have greater opportunities and voice to represent their interests and influence the Arctic Council's decision-making process. However, the most successful practice of authority in the Arctic Council has been developed by member states with sovereignty and national interests. Owing to their lack of capacity and funding, the indigenous peoples’ organizations have to rely on member states which have resources and veto power. Nevertheless, in the Arctic Council, member states cannot acquire authority by representing nation and people. The authority in the Arctic Council, representing the entire Arctic Circle, rests on multi-faceted, multi-level mechanism of cooperation between various actors interacting with each other within the broad framework of Arctic governance. In particular, member states as a key actor of the AC have to consult and cooperate with the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations.