Korean Peninsula Peace Research Articles

국립묘지로 떠나는 평화·통일 현장체험학습

The 'Korean Peninsula Peace tourism' is a practice of reflecting on the patterns and reasons for the violence experienced by people living on the Korean Peninsula and raising hope that peace can be realized on the Korean Peninsula. At schools, it is conducted in the form of field experience learning in places related to peace and unification. In order to promote school peace and unification field experience learning, it is necessary to break away from the inertia of visiting only areas near the DMZ and discover various field experience learning locations close to schools. In this article, first, we theoretically explained why the ‘National Cemetery of the Republic of Korea’ can be a good place for peace and unification field experience learning based on the fluidity of placeness and the multidimensionality of violence on the Korean Peninsula. Next, we presented facilities worth noting at the National Cemetery for Overseas Koreans and Daejeon National Cemetery and topics that teachers and students there could talk about in relation to peace and unification. Through this work, the goal of this article is to contribute to the revitalization of ‘local peace tourism’ that contemplate peace and unification near schools, focusing on the memories of individuals, families, and regions.

MOTIF MOON JAE IN DALAM MEREKONSILIASI HUBUNGAN KOREA SELATAN DAN KOREA UTARA MELALUI KOREAN PENINSULA PEACE INITIATIVE

This study aims to discover the motives of Moon Jae In (2017-2022) in issuing the KoreanPeninsula Peace Initiative (KPPI) towards North Korea. Contrary from the previous regime, KPPIemphasized the peace aspect in reconciling relations between the two countries. This research isconducted by descriptive qualitative method, then using the document study method in obtainingsecondary data as a data reference. The results indicate that significant progress of process ofreconciliation between the two countries through the KPPI, which is influenced by the success ofprevious regime of President Roh Moo-Hyun (2003-2008), as well as the ideology of democraticpolitical parties that prioritize pacifism. In addition, South Korea's limited military capacity againstNorth Korea, as well as the influence of Chinese and American powers helped build mutual trustthat became the basis for reconciliation between North Korea and South Korea.

The diplomatic power of small states: Mongolia’s mediation on the Korean peninsula

ABSTRACT With its Ulaanbaatar Dialogues (UBD) initiatives, Mongolia has emerged as one of the most increasingly influential diplomatic powerhouses in northeast Asia, despite its small size. Moved by the mixed interests of garnering global influence and a small-state security strategy, the country has positioned itself as an honest neutral peace broker in the Korean conflict since 2013. Mongolia has demonstrated itself to be a successful third party in defusing tensions and, more crucially, jump-starting declining regional multilateral mechanisms for the Korean peace process. This study explores the undiscovered potential of small-state power. Mongolia shows how small states effectively increase their transnational appeal and expand their foreign policy reach through diplomatic mediation. This article examines the sources, strategies, and mechanisms of Mongolia’s mediation efforts, looking at the core features of Mongolian foreign policy and its diplomatic relations, and then focuses on the UBD initiatives – the country’s efforts as a third party to mediate the Korean Peninsula peace process. Thereby, this study contributes to the knowledge on the practice of international relations by reflecting on the burgeoning role of the Global South.

Mediation and Mongolia’s foreign policy

Over the past decade, the small state of Mongolia has emerged as an important player in Northeast Asia through its mediation efforts. Driven by a desire for regional and global influence and prestige, Mongolia has sought to locate itself as a neutral intermediary in regional conflicts—in particular the Korean peninsula’s peace process, by hosting the “Ulaanbaatar Dialogue” starting in 2013. In this regional security dialogue initiative, Mongolia has proven itself to be a capable peace broker in easing tensions between the two parties, and, more crucially, it has made a constructive impact on the regional security architecture by building a functioning multilateral dialogue mechanism to support the Korean peninsula peace process after the halt of the six-party talks. Its success has been aided by its perceived impartiality in the conflict; its multilateral, activist, peace-oriented foreign policy portfolio; and its cordial external relations with regional countries, including both North and South Korea, and globally. This article seeks to contribute to the understanding of the varied abilities, strategies, and sources of advantage employed by small states to project power and raise their influence in regional affairs by exploring the case of Mongolia.

Exploration on the Elements of the Korean Peninsula Peace Regime: From the Perspective of “Order”

The main assumption of this article is that the essence of the sixty-five year-long ‘Korean question’ is to replace the Korean Armistice Agreement with a new security order, often referred to as a Korean Peninsula Peace Regime. As such, this article explores elements considerable for a stable order on the Korean Peninsula. First, this article reviews relevant literature on the concept of ‘order’ in the discipline of international relations mainly from Henry Kissinger. Second, this article analyzes the elements of the Armistice Agreement as a ‘living precedent.’ Furthermore, this article offers a preliminarily study of a post-war order cases such as 2+4 Treaty and Austrian State Treaty. In conclusion this article experimentally proposes an outline of elements of a new security order on the Korean Peninsula.

Analysis of the Implementation of South Korea's Nordpolitik in 1970s-1990s Focusing on the Interaction between Environment and Foreign Policy Decision-Making

This paper aims to analyze and assess South Korea s Nordpolitik, which has been considered a starting point of the grand strategy in the history of Korean diplomacy, appraised as a milestone of autonomous diplomacy, and is continuously being reproduced through discourse of peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula. The origin of Roh Tae-woo administration s Nordpolitik, made official through 7.7 Declaration in 1988, is Park Chung-hee s 6.23 Statement in 1973. In Roh s memoir, Roh also clearly declared that Park s 6.23 Statement was the historical root for his Nordpolitik. Although many studies share the conviction that Roh s Nordpolitik has its roots in 1970 s open-door policy, they have failed to analyze the establishment and implementation of the Nordpolitik from the 1970s to 1990s comprehensively. This paper principally examines South Korea s Nordpolitik from its genesis in Park Chung-hee s 8.15 Declaration in 1970 to its successful implementation via the establishment of diplomatic relationships with communist countries in the 1990s. This study then analyzes the implementation of South Korean Nordpolitik through examining the relationship between environment and foreign policy decision making and concludes by suggesting policy implications of historical implementation of the Nordpolitik to the Korean Peninsula Peace Settlement Initiative and New Northern Policy of South Korea s current administration.

한반도 평화의 시대, 통일교육의 패러다임 전환 -평화와 정의의 실현을 위한 통일교육

한반도 평화의 시대, 통일교육의 패러다임 전환 -평화와 정의의 실현을 위한 통일교육

A deliberately delayed or forgotten issue: North Korean human rights as an international legal problem

In spite of the recent bilateral peace talks and developments between South and North Korea and between the US and North Korea, it needs to be reminded that the human rights condition in North Korea is already an established legal subject, protected by both international and domestic law, and therefore, unless the human rights condition in North Korea is significantly improved, this issue cannot be legally terminated. In this vein, this paper intends to examine the ways that the issue on North Korean human rights is handled both in international law (especially by the UN, including criminal punishment) and domestic law (especially by the US, including human rights sanctions), and then identify some policy implications for addressing the human rights issue in the context of the Korean peninsula peace talks.

Road Map to a Korean Peninsula Peace Regime: A Chinese Perspective

Sustainable peace and stability need an institutional guarantee. Based on the unique logic of its Korean peninsula policy, China has sketched a Chinese-style Korean Peninsula Peace Regime that comprises logic positioning, strategic objectives and priorities, a mechanism, a timetable, and a road map. The basic logic of the peace regime, the aim of which is long-term peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, is that it should include security but also integrate security with economy and culture.

Impact of the Peace Regime Building on Security in the Korean Peninsula

이 논문은 한반도 평화체제 개념의 기원과 전개과정을 살펴보고 현실적인 실현방안으로서 2단계 프로세스를 제안하고 있다. 더 나아가 평화체제의 구축이 유엔사령부와 주한미군의 위상에 미치는 영향도 검토하였다.<BR> 한국전쟁이 끝난 지 50여 년이 됐지만 한반도는 법적으로 아직까지 전쟁상태에 있다. 하지만 1953년에 체결된 정전협정은 상당히 훼손된 상태에 있어 평화체제의 구축은 한반도 평화와 안정을 위해 불가결한 과제이다. 한반도 평화체제 구축은 전쟁상태의 종식과 한ㆍ미-북한 간의 신뢰ㆍ안보 구축조치(CSBMs)와 밀접히 연관되어 있다. 하지만 한반도 평화체제 프로세스가 가동되기 위해서는 무엇보다 험난한 한반도 비핵화의 과정이 수반되지 않으면 안 된다.<BR> 남북관계와 주변국정세 등 복잡하게 얽힌 한반도의 현실을 감안할 때 한반도 평화체제의 구축은 단번에 이루기 어려우며 프로세스로서 정상회담 개최를 통한 정치적 신뢰구축(1단계)과 한국전쟁의 실질당사자인 남ㆍ북ㆍ미ㆍ중 4자간의 평화협정 체결(2단계)의 두 단계로 나누어 실현되는 것이 바람직하다.<BR> 한반도 평화체제의 구축은 유엔사령부, 주한미군 등 한미동맹에도 커다란 영향을 미친다. 유엔사령부는 북한의 남침을 격퇴하도록 유엔의 위임을 받아 구성된 부대이기 때문에 평화체제가 구축된 이후 지위가 불확실한 반면, 주한미군은 한미상호방위조약이라는 별개의 법적 근거에 따라 주둔하는 것이기 때문에 한국전쟁의 법적 종식에 의해 영향을 받지 않는다.

The Korean Peninsula Peace Regime: How to Build It

A Korean peninsula peace regime has not yet been established, over a half century since the Korean armistice agreement. Two approaches to a Korean peninsula peace‐regime‐building process are required: inter‐Korean and international approaches. The two Koreas should play leading roles at the inter‐Korean and international levels in inter‐Korean confidence‐building measures by reducing tension through reconciliation and economic cooperation. A Korean peace forum involving the USA, China and the two Koreas under the 19 September joint agreement could conclude a Korean peninsula peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement and a peace regime could be institutionalized by implementing the inter‐Korean basic agreement (1992) through inter‐Korean cooperation. This article proposes a comprehensive, long‐term roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace‐regime‐building process. The author makes three major arguments. First, the two Koreas and the four powers need to agree on a comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace‐regime‐building process as suggested here. The inter‐Korean and international approaches to the peace‐regime‐building process should be considered in parallel. Second, the North Korean nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through the Six‐Party Talks. Third, the two Koreas need to work together to find an alternative to their respective proposals. The author proposes a Korean peninsula peace treaty signed by the ROK, the DPRK, the USA and China as an alternative. Unless the two Koreas demonstrate their desire to cooperate through sincere deeds by implementing inter‐Korean agreements and are willing to make concessions by working together for establishing a peace regime in Korea, there is little chance of achieving this goal.

In Search of the Korean Peninsula Peace Regime Building

The author proposes a long-term, comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peninsula peace regime initiative for replacing the 1953 Korean armistice agreement with a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The two approaches to a Korean peninsula peace regime building are examined in detail at the inter-Korean and the international levels. The two Koreas at the inter-Korean level, and the six parties involving the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia at the international level may concurrently make efforts to build a peace regime by replacing the 1953 Korean armistice agreement with a peace treaty through confidence-building measures, national reconciliation and international cooperation. A peace regime can be institutionalized by implementing the inter-Korean basic agreement (1991) through inter-Korean cooperation and by concluding a Korean peninsula peace treaty through the four-party peace talks involving the U.S., China, and the two Koreas. However, the current North Korea's nuclear issue has been a key obstacle to the peace regime building process. Three major arguments in this paper are presented: First, the two Koreas and the four major powers need to agree on a comprehensive roadmap for the Korean peace regime. Second, in the short-term, the North Korea's nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully and diplomatically through the six-party process. Third, the two Koreas need to abandon their respective positions: the Seoul's proposal for an inter-Korean peace treaty and the Pyeongyang's proposal for a DPRK-U.S. peace treaty to replace the 1953 Korean armistice agreement. The author proposes that a Korean peninsula peace treaty among the four parties involving the ROK, the DPRK, the U.S. and China should be an alternative, and the proposal needs to be seriously considered.