Abstract
Strategic effects of military alliances notwithstanding, to assume that their policy will proceed without difficulties is problematic. The ROK‐US alliance began transferring the wartime operational control (OPCON) to the ROK in early 2003. However, the transfer did not proceed as planned, experiencing two delays in June 2010 and October 2014 with a significant format change to the Condition‐based OPCON Transition Plan (COT‐P), meaning the addition of prerequisites for the transfer and the death of the original parallel command structure. What have been the causes of these phenomena and resulting stagnation? This article argues that the allies' strategic consensus over the transfer and the policy coordination in the initiating ally are the main causes of the lethargy. Additionally, this study finds that the impact of the strategic consensus is greater than that of the ROK's policy coordination, as the former is demonstrated in all three indicators of the progress: timeliness, post‐transfer command structure, and the certification assessment through exercises.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
