北極海 環境變化로 인한 韓國의 海洋安保政策 硏究 = A Study on the Maritime Security Policy of the Republic of Korea by Environment Change of the Arctic Sea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Arctic marine environment is changing from moment to moment. The factors which affect the Arctic environment are changes in weather, oceanic conditions and the Arctic's own geographical features. Furthermore, widened human access to navigation within the Arctic Ocean has drastically increased the number of ships and aircraft in the area, and this is expected to lead to a new era of exploration; it is said that the discovery of new shipping routes in the Arctic is of the same worth as the discoveries of Columbus. On the other hand, some say that the changes caused by human activities will not only provide benefits, but also the possibility of unexpected disasters and calamities.
There is no doubt that international cooperation is integral to the performance of policies relating to the Arctic area, which have been successfully developed for the last 10 years. Therefore, this study will look into the following factors:

● Pending issues for drastic changes in the Arctic and solutions to these
● Settlement of territorial disputes between Arctic coastal states
● Advantages and disadvantages of the discovery of new maritime routes
● Role of the Arctic Council and its future tasks

The Republic of Korea acquired a formal position as an observer at the 8th ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council held in Kiruna, Sweden in 2013. The Republic of Korea is considered to be poor in resources but it is, however, one of the most favoured nations in "trade". The potential of the Arctic, which may be examined following the discovery of new shipping routes has intrigued The Republic of Korea to turn its gaze on the trade situation within the Arctic area. Accordingly, the government of Republic of Korea has attracted cooperation within its own ministries in order to push forward its Arctic policies and to incarnate challenging issues while doing so.

Spelled out in the following paragraphs are the details of Arctic potential due to the discovery of the new maritime routes. Firstly, costs for international shipping are expected to downtrend sharply as the new shipping routes decrease shipping distances covered e.g. freight charge for international shipping are expected to be decreased by 25 per cent.

Furthermore, the Arctic, owing to its inclement weather and environmental conditions, has until now never been an easy place to explore. The situation is different at the present time, allowing the tremendous supply of natural resources which rests under the ice of the Arctic to become more accessible; a quarter of the undiscovered petroleum and other natural resources such as nickel, copper, iron ore are to be found within the rock strata of the Arctic. Such potentials of the region will fulfil a role as a new growth engine for The Republic of Korea.

In addition to the bullet points above, this report will also investigate Korea's maritime security policy and strategies for the changes in the Arctic, and consider the resolution of these by diagnosing the situations of other coastal states. Other suggestions of this report regard diverse aspects of Arctic changes illustrated above, including effective ways of providing airspace management, ratification of new Arctic treaties, the operation of naval power of countries in the Arctic Council. These will be followed by the identification of the probable role of the Korean Navy in the Arctic and national policies dealing with Arctic issues. Having said this, solutions to the four main topics of this report are outlined by four different terms:
● International cooperation on Arctic management
● Governmental proposals of Arctic strategic development (in the case of The Republic of Korea)
● Identifying and promoting the role of an observer state in the Arctic Council
● Advance Arctic strategies in collaboration with other coastal states : the USA, Canada, Russia, etc.

To begin with the first term, there are a number of issues that need to be treated internationally. For example, territorial disputes including the continental shelf and the demarcation of territorial waters should be handled peacefully under terms of UNCLOS, which will deter any drastic action from countries involved in such disputes. Terminating conflicts between such countries is eventually aimed at enhancing maritime security in the Arctic. Other elements of oceanic security issues comprise ensuring the safety of navigation in the Arctic area and exploitation of mineral resources, which are the results derived from the new shipping routes. Concerning this discovery of new shipping lanes, it is strongly suggested that international military cooperative systems be launched with the support of the UN. In addition, free navigation has to be assured to every rightful country as it is strictly stated in the UNCLOS. Some countries, unsurprisingly, try to obtain exclusive possession of shipping routes and this cannot be overlooked. Every country related to the Arctic, regardless of distance, should legislate domestic laws on Arctic activities taking the peace of humanity into account. In addition, maritime observation systems capable of transmitting real-time maritime conditions, should be developed for those navigating in the region.

The government of Republic of Korea recommended to take the following action regarding Arctic issues. Firstly, government-led Scientific research and international cooperation activities should be enhanced. The government has recently re-established the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and shown their intention to focus on the Arctic. The hot potato, however, is that their current level of scientific research and frequency of participation in international Arctic activities still remains low. There exist countless threats throughout the Arctic region and it is imperative that Korean naval power be strengthened in case of salvage and other rescue operations. Methods may include building icebreakers and the foundation of a military base in the Arctic. Establishing a consultative body for maritime policies would also help Korea play a role as an observer. Apart from the governmental dimension, supporting nongovernmental organisations should also be considered as this would assist in constructing a national information exchange infrastructure. Furthermore, Korean officials promulgated a plan for processing integrated Arctic policies in 2013. For example, Korea is ambitious for transforming Busan into a 'hub' for shipping in North-east Asia. Details of this project include collaborating with Russia. In terms of the Arctic Council, coastal states expect observer states to participate positively in their activities with financial resources and the sharing of scientific knowledge. The Republic of Korea should set a business model for the Arctic so as to precede competing countries. The Korean peninsula is directly affected by the Siberian air mass and, therefore, the precise prediction of climate changes in the Arctic is necessary. Lastly, the development of human resources is one of the most urgent tasks as Korea's contribution to Arctic activities will mainly relate to exporting its competitive manpower resources.

As discussed above, The Republic of Korea managed to obtain observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013 and experts argue that succeeding in the following policies would help Korea make its position secure. In the first place, observer countries including Korea should scrutinize progress when working groups of the Arctic Council aim to achieve common interests of humanity. If so, observer countries should actively participate in the activities of the groups so that Arctic can be protected both environmentally and economically. To give an example of such activities, observer countries can become involved when members of the Arctic Council make deliberations on new treaties or agreements affecting the Arctic. Secondly, Korea should seek SLOC security as well as raise the quality of the Korean Navy's sea rescue capability, which may be achieved if there is collaboration with other states. The next policy is the improvement of governance between states and understanding of the characteristics of the Arctic region. As the Ocean does not belong specifically to certain people or organizations, thus, it is necessary for us all to work together to protect it. Denuclearization in the area could be the first thing to process. The last policy is to make the full use of the extension of mutual exchange between EU countries and North Asian countries. Although North Korea's policy of seclusion prevents Northern Asia from achieving faster growth, this connection between two different continents is expected to raise Korea's economic potential.

Discussed from this point onward is the last topic: collaboration with other countries related to the Arctic either directly or indirectly. To start with countries whose concern towards the Arctic is more intense than other countries, due to their geographical attributes, Russia is regarded to be the top-rated country for investment from the position of Korea since the two countries are adjacent to each other, and President Putin of Russia is now pushing forward a business in energy development throughout Eastern Siberia and the Far East.
For instance, Russia currently concentrates on development of oceanic resources; crude oil, natural gas, mineral resources, fishery resources and so on, and they have also entered into a business in construction and management of new shipping routes. Probable areas where Russia and Korea can process a joint investment may include a newly-launched system of transporting crude oil from West Siberia using the ESPO oil pipeline, which a long-term project of cooperative resource exploitation in Eastern Siberia and the Far East. The same can apply to a port construction business, a mapping project for sea beds in the Barents Sea, Loften and Vesteralen areas, the establishment of Kirkenes airport and port, cooperation in research into an integrated surveillance system for Arctic navigation, expansion of infrastructure and conclusion of MOU with eminent universities.
Canada is known to be a country whose political interest in the Arctic is very high and is a place with rich mineral resources. They have recently started the Mackinzie Gas Project whose objective is to construct a 1,200km length natural gas pipeline. If successfully processed, 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas will be distributed through the pipeline and the official start of sales is expected to be in 2018 when every legal and financial problem has been solved. Cooperation between Korea and Canada is necessary for the following policies. Firstly, it is expected that Korea will be able to help Russia build VTS and communications management information systems in the Arctic, which are to be prepared for the new shipping routes. Additionally, the necessity for collaboration in port and resource development industries, development of high-tech vessels fit for polar expeditions, environmental protection and supporting indigenous people cannot be overlooked.
Alaska is renowned for rich resources buried in it; 10% of world coal reserves and a vast range of mineral and fishery resources from the Siberian Ocean take up to half of the total American fishery resources. Korea should refer to American's advanced knowledge of the Arctic and the reliability of their naval power, for example, in participation in the Arctic training program conducted from 2011 which would enhance the capability of the Korean Navy.
Norway, located adjacent to the Arctic, implemented the High North policy since 2006 and contributed to Arctic management to a large extent. Korea would benefit from consultation with the Norwegian Barents 202 Education Program, which comprises Arctic knowledge of vast scope. In addition to Norway, Greenland, due to its geographical nature, is believed to hold 48 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas with a number of other natural resources.
Greenland is said to have competitive knowledge in digital mapping and geographic intelligence. Possible collaborative strategy between Korea and Greenland would establish an Arctic information intelligence centre, which would enhance Korea's understanding of Arctic and Greenland's business capability.

In contrast to the countries discussed so far, illustrated below are non-Arctic countries (in terms of geography). To begin with China, seems to have a similar position to that of Korea, but is ready for the upcoming new shipping routes and their results, such as resource exploitation. Both countries may work together regarding these opportunities, while they will also be in competition.
Japan, Korea's neighbouring country, is alleged to be the most prepared country for an imminent golden age of the Arctic. Their North Ocean program; ANSROP-2 and geographical information system; JANSROP-GIS are the most competitive ones compared to other countries' and the Ministries of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan established JAMSTEC; Japan Agency Marine-Earth Science and Technology to supervise and analyse the Arctic Ocean in real time. Korean research organizations should strengthen relationships with such Japanese scientific organizations in order not to be left behind.
Non-Arctic EU countries include the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, France, Poland, Italy, Belgium and others. Their common interest in these matters are concerned with the Arctic environment and energy preservation policies. Being a member country of 유엔해양법협약, they count themselves responsible for conformation to oceanic laws, international airspace and environmental changes.

Therefore, it is not too much to say that there is room for Korea and those countries to cooperate in a number of areas such as guarantee of the right to fish in international oceans, the conservation of biological resources, the safety of navigation in international shipping routes, and the legislation of international law for Arctic activities, and other matters arising from the new discoveries.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目 次
• Abstract
• 第1章 序 論 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• Ⅰ. 연구의 배경 1
• Ⅱ. 연구의 목적 3
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 6
• 第2章 北極의 環境變化와 紛爭懸案 9
• 제1절 해빙과 북극의 기후환경변화 9
• Ⅰ. 온난화와 해빙 10
• 1. 해빙의 의미 10
• 2. 지구온난화에 따른 변화 11
• Ⅱ. 지구 해로시스템 13
• Ⅲ. 북극의 잠재적 가치 15
• 제2절 북극의 분쟁현안 17
• Ⅰ. 영토분쟁 17
• 1. 분쟁의 형태 17
• 2. 대륙붕 연장 20
• 3. 해양경계설정 17
• 4. 도서분쟁 22
• Ⅱ. 북극항로와 자원개발 24
• 1. 북극항로 24
• 2. 자원개발 31
• 제3절 북극해의 안보환경 변화 35
• Ⅰ. 신냉전의 조짐 35
• 1. 북극의 지정학적 가치 35
• 2. 군사적 충돌 가능성 36
• Ⅱ. 신냉전의 위협 39
• 1. 신냉전의 가능성 39
• 2. 통제의 범위 41
• 第3章 北極海 管理를 위한 國內·外 法制 및 北極政策 44
• 제1절 국제공역의 평화적 관리 44
• Ⅰ. 북극조약의 체결 가능성 45
• 1. 남극조약 45
• 2. 극지비교 46
• 3. 북극조약의 체결 가능성 46
• Ⅱ. 국제공역의 관리 49
• 1. 무르만스크 선언과 로바니에미 선언 49
• 2. 국제공역 관리 50
• Ⅲ. 북극의 평화적 관리 53
• 1. 북극의 법적 지위와 거버넌스 53
• 2. 북극의 인식전환 55
• 3. 핵폐기의 관리 56
• 4. 특별민감 해역의 관리 57
• 제2절 북극해 관련 법규 59
• Ⅰ. 국제협약 59
• 1. 유엔해양법협약 59
• 2. 북극해 선박운항규정 61
• 3. 북극해 어업규정 65
• 4. 북극해 해양환경규정 66
• Ⅱ. 국내법 67
• 1. 러시아 국내법 67
• 2. 캐나다 국내법 68
• Ⅲ. 국제법과 국내법의 지위 69
• 제3절 연안국가와 토착민족단체의 북극정책 71
• Ⅰ. 러시아 71
• 1. 북극개발계획 71
• 2. 북극개발 추진과제 및 실천계획 72
• Ⅱ. 미국 76
• 1. 북극정책 76
• 2. 추진계획 77
• 3. 북극관련 국내기관 및 단체 79
• Ⅲ. 캐나다 80
• 1. 북극정책 80
• 2. 추진계획 80
• Ⅳ. 덴마크(그린란드) 82
• 1. 북극의 합동정책과 전략 83
• 2. 대륙붕 83
• 3. 자원개발 84
• 4. 국제협력과 과학기술 85
• Ⅴ. 노르웨이 86
• 1. 북극정책 86
• 2. 자원개발 88
• Ⅵ. 아이슬란드 88
• Ⅶ. 핀란드 90
• Ⅷ. 스웨덴 91
• Ⅸ. 토착민족 단체 91
• 1. 북극 평화선언 92
• 2. 문화적 안정 93
• 제4절 옵서버국가의 북극정책 94
• Ⅰ. EU국가 94
• Ⅱ. 일본 96
• 1. 북극정책연구 96
• 2. 북극전략과 해상운송 98
• 3. 해양산업과 군사협력 99
• 4. 국내기관 및 단체 100
• Ⅲ. 중국 101
• Ⅳ. 인도 103
• Ⅴ. 한국 104
• 1. 북극해 활동의 역사적 개관 104
• 2. 4대 전략목표와 세부 추진과제 106
• 제5절 국가별 정책비교 108
• Ⅰ. 정책 추진동향 109
• Ⅱ. 정책별 비교 111
• 第4章 北極關聯 國家의 安保戰略과 平和維持方案 113
• 제1절 북극관련 국가의 안보전략 113
• Ⅰ. 미국 113
• 1. 해군의 임무 114
• 2. 해군의 북극 로드맵 114
• 3. 해양경찰의 북극전략 118
• Ⅱ. 러시아 119
• 1. 국방개혁과 북극안보전략 120
• 2. 해군의 전력증강 121
• Ⅲ. 캐나다 121
• Ⅳ. 덴마크와 노르웨이 122
• Ⅴ. 옵서버 국가 123
• 제2절 북극관련국가의 군사력과 안보전략 변화 124
• Ⅰ. 북극의 군사력 변화 124
• 1. 러시아 124
• 2. 미국 126
• 3. 캐나다 127
• 4. 노르웨이와 NATO 129
• Ⅱ. 북극의 안보전략 변화 129
• 1. 영유권 분쟁과 자원쟁탈 129
• 2. 러시아의 안보전략 변화 131
• 3. 미국의 고립주의와 북극 안보전략 변화 134
• 제3절 북극의 평화유지 방안 135
• Ⅰ. 북극해의 갈등과 인류의 공동이익 136
• 1. 북극의 갈등과 재난요소 136
• 2. 북극의 미래 137
• 3. 북극해의 당면과제와 인류공동이익 보호 138
• Ⅱ. 북극해 관리의 평화원칙 139
• 1. 지속가능한 개발과 환경개발 통합원칙 139
• 2. Blue Economy와 통합 해양정책 142
• Ⅲ. 지구 공동유산 관리 143
• 1. 글로벌 해양영역의 인식과 거버넌스 개선 143
• 2. 국제기구와 국제협력 145
• 3. 해군력의 운용 151
• Ⅳ. 신냉전의 평화적 해결방안 153
• 1. 국제기구를 통한 해결 153
• 2. 군사협력을 통한 신냉전 억제 154
• 第5章 韓國의 北極 安保政策과 戰略에 관한 提言 157
• 제1절 북극의 신 해양질서와 한국의 추진정책 157
• Ⅰ. 북극항로의 전망 158
• 1. 북동항로 158
• 2. 북서항로 159
• 3. 항로의 운항조건 160
• Ⅱ. 통일정책과 북극정책 161
• 1. 통일정책 161
• 2. 한반도와 북극정책 162
• Ⅲ. 한국의 북극전략 164
• 1. 북극전략 추진방향 164
• 2. 북극해 활용을 위한 정책과제 166
• 3. 연안국가와의 협력전략 168
• 제2절 북극관련 정부의 임무와 중점추진전략 171
• Ⅰ. 정부조직의 활성화 171
• Ⅱ. 정부기관의 임무와 역할 172
• 1. 글로벌 마인드 172
• 2. 네트워킹 체계 구축 173
• 3. 민간조직 활동지원 174
• Ⅲ. 국제적 협력 175
• Ⅳ. 정부기관의 중점 추진전략 176
• 제3절 북극해의 위협과 해군력 운용 178
• Ⅰ. 북극해의 초국가적 위협 178
• Ⅱ. 북극 해상교통로의 위협 179
• 1. 해적과 해상테러 179
• 2. 북한 180
• 3. 해상교통로 181
• 4. 해양사고와 구조 182
• Ⅲ. 해군력의 역할 183
• 1. 쇄빙군함과 연구탐사선 183
• 2. 해군력의 역할 확대 185
• 3. 한국 해군의 북극 로드맵 189
• 4. 해군력의 운용 192
• 제4절 북극안보정책에 관한 제언 193
• Ⅰ. 북극안보의 평화유지 방안 193
• Ⅱ. 북극 협력을 위한 정부의 역할 197
• Ⅲ. 북극 연안국가와 협력과제 200
• 1. 러시아 200
• 2. 캐나다 204
• 3. 미국 206
• 4. 노르웨이 208
• 5. 덴마크 209
• 6. 원주민 단체 211
• Ⅲ. 옵서버 국가와 협력과제 211
• 1. 중국 212
• 2. 일본 213
• 3. EU국가 214
• Ⅳ. 북한 216
• 第6章 結 論 217
• 參考文獻 221

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 해군전략론, Mahan, A. T, 동원사, 서울 : 동원사, , 1974

2. 현대전략론, 이종학, 충남대학교 출판문화원, 대전 : 충남대학교 출판문화원, , 2013

3. 『해사법규』, 김상수, 시대고시기획, 부산 : 효성출판사, , 2014

4. 미 해군 100년사, 김주식, 서울 : 한국해양전략연구소, 2005. (Aalfred. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783, Boston :Little, Brown, 1890)., , 2005

5. 『국제해양법』, 김현수, 연경문화사, 서울 : 연경문화사, , 2007

6. 유엔미래보고서, 박영숙, 서울 : 교보문고, 2014, , 2040

7. 『해양정책미래』, 이정환, 블루&노트, 서울 : 블루&노트, , 2010

8. 『전쟁과 해양전략』, 김종민, 이성과 현실사, 서울 : 이성과 현실, , 1992

9. 신해양시대 신국부론, 김재철, 파주 : (주)나남, , 2008

10. 일본 북극해회의보고서, 笹川陽平, 『日本海洋政策硏究財團(Ocean Policy ResearchFoundation)』, , 2013

11. “국제해양분쟁방법론”, 이용희, 강의자료년 3월), , 2014

12. “지속가능한 개발원칙”, 서원상, 국제법평론회, 『국제법평론』, (통권 제38호), , 2013

13. “북극해 활용전략 연구”, 허소영, 황진회, 엄선희, 한국해양수산개발원, 한국해양수산개발원, , 2010

14. 『한반도 통일과 주변 4국』, 최진욱, 서울 : 늘품플러스, , 2011

15. “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment”, Robert Corell, EWC-KOTI-KMI 국제컨퍼런스 기조발표 자료 : 北極海季報第10?, 海洋政策?究財?, 日本, 2011, , 2011

16. “북극문제의 현황 및 전망”, 조정현, 『주요국제문제분석』, 서울 : 외교안보연구원, , 2010

17. “3부. 백년대계의 자원정책”, 이철균, 서일범, 『서울경제신문』, , 2014

18. “북극의 법체제 현황 및 전망”, 정갑용, 이용준, 『사회과학논총』, 제12권, , 1994

19. “북극해 거버넌스 현안과 과제”, 유준구, 서울 : 외교안보연구소, , 2013

20. “Russian Expansionism on the Arctic Ocean”, Woo Pyung Kyun, KMI 국제 세미나발표논문,『중앙일보』, , 2009

21. “러시아의 해양전략 부활과 향방”, 정재호, 『～2014 동아시아 해양안보정세와 전망』, 한국해양전략연구소, 2014, , 2013

22. “북한의 생존 전략과 우리의 대응”, 유석렬, (Seminar Review /10/20 14:56)http://blog.naver.com/m971304w/10150164530) : 핵보유국만이 살길이다, , 2012

23. 2013년 북극항로 시범운항결과 및 전망, 남청도, 한국해양대학교, 2013. 미 해양경찰본부, “미 해양경찰의 북극전략”, 워싱턴 D.C., , 2013

24. “북극항로의 법적 지위에 관한 연구”, 김형도, 경희대학교 박사학위논문, , 2011

25. “북동항로의 법적 문제에 관한 소고”, 김민수, 박문진, 해양환경안전학회, 『년 해양환경안전학회 춘계학술발표회』, 2010, , 2010

26. 『새로운 전쟁, 21세기 국제 테러리즘』, 이태윤, 서울 : 모시는 모든사람들, , 2004

27. 러시아의 북극 진출과 북극해의 몸부림, 이영형, 엠-애드, 서울 : 도서출판 앰-애드, , 2011

28. “미국 북극지역에 대한 국가전략 발표”, 황기형, 한국해양수산개발원,『해양산업동향』, 제90호 동향정보 보고서, , 2013

29. 미래 한국의 해상교통로 보호에 관한 연구, 백병선, 한국국방연구원, 『국방정책연구』제27권 제1호. (봄), , 2011

30. 북극해 항로의 경제적 타당성에 관한 연구, 한철환, 『해운물류연구』,제27권 4호(통권 제71호), , 2011

31. “북극해 갈등구조와 해양 지정학적 의미”, 이영형, 김승준, 『세계지역 연구논총』,28집 제3호, , 2010

32. “유엔해양법협약의 제 문제에 관한 연구”, 김현수, , 2009

33. “중일간의센카쿠열도분쟁; 전개와시사점”, 김강녕, 『아시아의지역갈등과협력』, , 2012

34. 북극 북서항로의 국제법적 지위에 관한 연구, 이용희, 『경희법학』,제47권 제4호, , 2012

35. 북극해에 대한 국제 동향과 우리의 대응 방향, 엄선희, 『Kotra 국가정보』주간지 Vol. 22,No. 6, : 러시아정부의북극지역개발전략, 에너지경제연구원에너지국제협력연구실, , 2010

36. “해양관광발전을 위한 여건분석과 정책과제”, 신동주, 손재영, 『해양정책연구』제22권 제1호, , 2008

37. “북극항로 개방에 따른 한국해군의 대응방안”, 김강녕, 『해양전략논총』, 제12집, , 2012

38. “북극해의 분쟁과 해양경계획정에 관한 연구”, 김기순, 대한국제법학회, 『국제법학회논총』,제54권 제3호, , 2009

39. “지구온난화와 북극해 기후환경변화복원연구”, 남승일, 극지연구소 극지기후연구부, , 2010

40. “세계 각국의 해양정책과 Blue Economy에 관한 소고”, 박광서, 황기형, 『해양정책연구』, 제24권 2호, , 2010

41. 국가해양환경정책의 진단 및 방향 설정에 관한연구, 윤진숙, 신철오, 박수진, 한국해양수산개발원, 한국해양수산개발원, 『동향연구보고서』, , 2009

42. 한국지질자원연구원 "그린란드 희토류에 주목해야", 박성원, 『전자신문』, , 2015

43. 현대 해양전략 개념과 발전 : 한국 해군에 대한 함의, 제프리 틸, 『한국해양전략 현안과 발전』,2011. 전력시험분석평가단, “한국해군의 해양전략-적극적 해양억제”, 2014. 2., , 2011

44. “해양환경관리법(안)의 개선을 위한 입법론적 제안”, 이경호, 이영호, 『해양정책연구』,제21권 제1호, , 2007

45. “북극해 진출사업 정부전담조직 전문기관 인력 시급”, 이인애, 한국선진화포럼/한국해양수산개발원에서 개최한 특별토론회, , 2011

46. “강대국 ‘자원 신천지’ 북극권 갈등과 한반도 안보”, 강량, 『세계일보』, , 2010

47. “해적행위예방 및 처리에 관한 법제상 개선방안 연구”, 손태기, 한국해양대학교 박사학위논문, , 2014

48. “항만자유무역지역 투자유치의 경제적 파급효과 연구”, 김균태, 강준구, 이성우, 『해양정책연구』,제27권 제1호, , 2013

49. 북극해항로와 북극해 자원개발: 한러 협력과 한국의 전략, 홍성원, 『국제지역연구』,제15권 제4호,년, , 2012

50. “해양생태계 기초정보의 체계적 운용을 위한 정책제언”, 최희정, 『해양정책연구』,제24권 1호, , 2010

51. “세계화의 진전과 해양산업에 대한 새로운 인식의 출발”, 박성쾌, 한국해양수산개발원, 『해양정책연구』, 제10권 제1호, 한국해양연구소 편, , 1995

52. 그린란드 영토분쟁 새 변수등장: 덴마크 바위섬 영유권 주장, 이은아, 『매일경제』, , 2007

53. 북극지역 내 국익방어를 위한 미 전투부대는 유럽사령부가 지휘, 제임스 카라파노, 헤리티지재단 보고서, 2011. 3월, , 2011

54. 북극해 환경리스크 관리를 위한 사전배려원칙의 적용에관한 연구, 허성례, 부산 : 해양대학교, , 2014

55. “북극의 관리체계와 국제기구: 북극이사회(Arctic Council)를 중심으로”, 최선웅, 진동민, 서현교, 『Ocean and Polar Research』,Vol. 32, , 2010

56. “The Global Maritime Domain : Better Awareness, Better Governance, MoreEfficient Operations”, Lutz Feldt, 『한국해양전략연구소 소식지』No.58, , 2014

57. “러시아의 북극지역에 대한 해양안보전략 : 북극해 개발과 한-러 해양협력을 중심으로”, 윤영미, 연세대학교 동서문제연구원, 『동서연구』,제21권 제2호, , 2009

58. “U.S. Arctic Policy : The Need to Retify a Modified 유엔해양법협약 andSecure a Military Presence in the Arctic”, Melissa Renee Pegna, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 44. No. 2., April, , 2013

59. “러시아 군사력건설과 한 러 전략적 협력구축방안 연구-러시아 신군사 독트린을 중심으로”, 정재호, 유병호, 『해양전략,』제151호, 대전 : 해군대학, , 2011