Panmunjom Declaration Research Articles

“Memory struggle” and contact zones in-between the two Koreas: the politics of representation in documentary films

ABSTRACT This article investigates the “Memory struggle” in-between the two Koreas presented in the documentary films after the April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration. The Children Gone to Poland and Shadow Flowers carry out politics of representation that create a new moment of cultural memories about borders normatively standardized by hostility and indifference. The two documentary films place the camera on the border of the Cold War, which connects the past and the present, which was either not recorded or was misrecorded by one side of the border and therefore erased off the surface of our memories. They are non-nationals in that they can be stateless or multinational, depending on the location of the border. As such, they disrupt the border as boundaries that have continued since the Cold War. On the other hand, the struggle of North Korean defectors to return home reveals the indifference and hostility of South Korean society over this fact, confirming the Red Complex, which eventually exists as a shadow of hospitality for North Korean defectors. In this way, the two texts invite us to confront history before the establishment of the border through war orphans or face the reality that the Cold War frontier has expanded infinitely through an individual of ambiguous identities, such as a North Korean defector.

ANALISIS KETIDAKEFEKTIFAN DEKLARASI PANMUNJOM SEBAGAI UPAYA REUNIFIKASI SEMENANJUNG KOREA

North and South Korea have made various peace efforts to overcome the issue of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, so far the peace efforts that have been made by the two Koreas have not been successful. This is caused by the relations between the two countries which are still marked by mutual distrust, lack of cooperation, hatred, and ideological conflict. Then, the two Koreas made peace efforts again called the Panmunjom Declaration in 2018. The main points of this declaration are a commitment to end the confrontation of the legacy of war that has been going on for a long time, to increase cooperative relations between the Koreas, and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula region. At first, the Panmunjom Declaration became a new achievement in the peace of the Korean Peninsula. Over time, the Panmunjom Declaration became ineffective in carrying out its role as a medium for creating peace and denuclearizing the region. This research will answer the question "Why is the Panmunjom Declaration ineffective in improving relations between North Korea and South Korea?". This study aims to analyze the perceptions and misperceptions that occur between the two countries using the theory of perceptions and misperceptions by Robert Jervis. This study used a qualitative research method which explained that what caused the Panmunjom Declaration to be ineffective was due to misperceptions between North Korea and South Korea.

냉전시대의 한반도 평화모색 -7.4 남북공동성명의 국제관계사-

When there was a big change in the international situation, North and South Korea had a dialogue and made an important agreement. In the early 1970s, the period of the U.S.-China reconciliation and the detente, South and North Korea began a dialogue and agreed on the three principles of unification through the July 4 South-North Joint Communique. About 20 years later, the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union, and the German reunification led to the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement. And in 2018, the two Koreas created milestones such as the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration and the September 19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration and the Military Agreement. In this article, I analyse the meaning of the July 4 South-North Joint Communique, focusing on the Park Chung-hee administration’s perception of changes in the Northeast Asian situation including the U.S.-China reconciliation and normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and People’s Republic of China with South Korea and U. S. diplomatic documents. The movement of the neighboring powers was one of the key factors in starting inter-Korean dialogue, but the leaders of the two Koreas were strengthening their power bases rather than making proper use of the international environment and moving toward national unity. In addition, it seems that the great powers around the Korean peninsula regarded the two Koreas as a means of realizing their own national interests, and they had no intentions to provide opportunities for the two Koreas to solve their problems on their own.

북한 헌법에 대한 이해와 새로운 통일교육

북한 헌법에 대한 이해와 새로운 통일교육

Политика президента Мун Чжэ Ина в вопросах урегулирования межкорейских отношений: поиск баланса желаемого и возможного

Moon Jae-in came to power in May 2017 in the wake of the Korean political crisis and impeachment of the previous president Park Geyn-hye. Since the very first days of his leadership President Moon has set a course for a sequential transformation of the inter-Korean relations and prevention of the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The cornerstone of his program was the idea that the denuclearization of North Korea and the establishment of the long-lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula is possible provided that the North-South relations are normalized and Pyongyang is involved into the constructive peaceful dialogue. The authors demonstrate how Moon Jae-in was able to start the renaissance in the inter-Koran relations. He used the experience of the previous liberal governments of the Republic of Korea and successfully developed and enhanced the famous Sunshine Policy with his own ideas. The first stage of Moon Jane-in's presidency was marked with some serious foreign policy achievements. Thanks to the tactic of “summit diplomacy” President Moon was able to achieve significant reduction in tensions on the Korean Peninsula, which resulted in the fact that relations between the North and the South became more friendly and trustworthy. The historical documents signed during these summits - the Panmunjom Declaration (April 2018) and the Comprehensive Military Agreement (September 2018) - and their fast practical implementation can also be considered as President Moon's success. Further advancement of Moon Jae-in's course for building positive relationships with the DPRK faced serious obstruction from the United States. The authors show how simultaneously with settlement of inter-Korean relations President Moon had to deal with another difficult task - neutralization of the external factors (US sanctions and disagreements between Washington and Pyongyang) that were harmful for the development of the North Korea-South Korea relations. The tactics of being a mediator between the United States and North Korea chosen by Moon Jae-in was quite efficient in the beginning. The blatant enemies - Pyongyang and Washington - clamped down on their confrontation and sat at the negotiating table. However, the intransigence of Washington on the issue of a gradual and phase-based denuclearization of North Korea and withdrawal of sanctions altogether with the non-constructive criticism of the South Korean opposition made Moon Jae-in a hostage of the situation, limiting his potentially independent and substantive steps in foreign policy. Meanwhile, the authors of the research have come to the conclusion that on some issues President Moon was able to achieve much more than his predecessors. Despite the fact that he was unable to achieve a full-scaled settlement of the inter-Korean relations he did everything possible under the existing circumstances. Nowadays one can say that the challenges of the North Korean nuclear missile program and security on the Korean Peninsula are no longer entirely military topics, they are even more likely to be diplomatic issues. This fact is un-doubtfully his great accomplishment. Thus, it is possible to foresee good perspectives for the further declining level of the regional tensions and for the development of the inter-Korean relations.

판문점 선언과 남북국회회담의 추진 : 동 선언에 대한 국회의 역할을 중심으로

본 논문은 판문점 선언 등 남북합의서의 법적 성격과 효력을 살펴보고 이에 대한 국회의 비준 동의가 없을 때의 법적 효력과 비준 동의가 있을 때의 법적 효력을 구분하여 분석하 는 한편, 통일 전의 동서독 기본조약과 비교해 본다. 대한민국 헌법은 조약에 대해 ‘헌법에 의하여 체결·공포된 조약과 일반적으로 승인된 국 제법규는 국내법과 같은 효력을 가진다(제6조제1항).”라고 규정하고 있으나, 헌법 제3조에 서 “대한민국의 영토는 한반도와 그 부속도서로 한다.”라고 하여 서로 모순되는 듯한 헌법 규정으로 인하여 남북한 간의 합의서의 법적 효력에 대한 논란이 있다. 남북합의서 규범력의 안정적 확보를 위해서는 국회의 비준동의가 요구될 수 있으며, 또 한, 집권 정당의 교체와 관계없이 남북합의서의 효력이 유지되도록 하기 위하여 남북국회 회담이 개최되고 남북한 국회 및 정당 간의 교류가 유지되어야 한다는 견해가 있다. 이에 역대 남북국회회담의 추진경과 및 향후 추진방향에 대해서도 논의해 보기로 한다. 선행연구들과는 달리 남북합의서의 법적 성격 및 국회 비준동의 문제와 남북국회회담의 추진경과 및 그 추진방향에 대한 논의에 중점을 둔다.

Evaluation and Tasks of the Peace-Economy Process

The New Economic Initiative on the Korean Peninsula, which aims to promote balanced development of the national economy and joint prosperity between the two Koreas through the experience of inter-Korean economic cooperation over the past three decades and the results of high-level inter-Korean and summit agreements, can be regarded as the result of intense consideration of the present and future of inter-Korean economic cooperation. The South Korean government s new economic initiative on the Korean Peninsula, the North Korean government s concerns about economic development and stability of the people s livelihoods, and its willingness to revitalize the economic development zone were met to produce the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration and the September 19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration in 2018. The agreement between the leaders of the two Koreas in 2018 is significant in that it reflects the ideas related to inter-Korean economic cooperation that the conservative and progressive camps of the South have so far pursued or conceived. In particular, the fact that North Korea accepted the South s proposal for cooperation in the form of a special East-West Sea zone reflecting its economic development zone policy raises expectations that new economic cooperation on the Korean Peninsula will be possible, which is different from the previous inter-Korean economic cooperation. In light of 33 years of experience in inter-Korean economic cooperation, in order to realize a peace-economy through the new economic initiative on the Korean Peninsula, the principle of reciprocity, support, and cooperation based on the consensus of the international community, national consensus, and the activeness of private proponents should be guaranteed. In order to realize the New Economic Initiative on the Korean Peninsula, it should be based on an understanding of the interests and intentions of its counterpart, North Korea, and it can secure momentum by making neighboring countries on the Korean Peninsula feel that they can become direct beneficiaries of a peace-economy. In order to realize a peace-economy, the government should push ahead with its policies with public support and consensus on balanced development and joint prosperity of the national economy in mind. Creative and active business activities by entrepreneurs are also essential in order to produce economic results of creating new growth engines that the Korean Peninsula s new economic initiative aims to achieve.

남북 해양수산 협력에 대한 상호주의적 고찰 : 명분과 실리를 중심으로

The purpose of this study was to analyze how inter-Korean maritime affairs & fisheries cooperation should be promoted in order to increase feasibility. The hypothesis is that the feasibility of cooperation with the analysis framework of justification(political interest) and practical benefit(economic benefit) can be increased with the theory of reciprocity pursuing benefits together from both sides, rather than from either side. The result is judged to be theoretical because the analysis framework of justification and practical benefit is valid in analyzing historical progress and can be compared with prior research. However, the need for a more extended theory was raised when that theory was applied to the issue of establishing a peace zone in the West Sea under the Panmunjom Declaration. In other words, there is a significant difference in the size of reciprocity, not just the existence of justification and practical benefit. Therefore, a model is presented in this study to analyze the possibility of cooperation in cases where the size of the justification and practical benefit was relatively different.

Мирный процесс на Корейском полуострове: проблемы и пути развития

The article considers a wide range of issues related to the tasks of providing permanent and durable peace on the Korean Peninsula. The problem of concluding a Peace Treaty instead of the Armistice Agreement is a cornerstone in building a new non-confrontational framework capable to provide the security of all parties involved as well as in establishing the conditions for equal cooperation between them. The authors argue that the realization of those tasks was possible due to positive developments in the American–North Korean and inter-Korean relations. In accordance with the Panmunjom Declaration signed by the leaders of the DPRK and the ROK, the two sides agreed to cooperate in bringing an end to the state of armistice and establishing a firm peace regime through multilateral meetings involving both sides as well as the United States and China. Another important step was the Comprehensive Military Agreement signed between two Koreas, which envisaged promoting arms control and introducing confidence-building measures. However, despite a certain warming of the climate on the Korean Peninsula, the transition from political declarations to practical steps for benefit of a comprehensive peaceful resolution has proven to be very difficult because of existing deep contradictions between the parties involved. The authors’ view is that as of now, the parties concerned have failed to launch any ad hoc multilateral arrangement aimed at outlining the contours of the future peace-building order on the Korean Peninsula. The reason is that the failure to settle the long-standing nuclear issue has obstructed progress on all the tracks, including the peace process there. In this vein, special attention is devoted to Russia’s approach and perspective. The authors illuminate that participation in the process of peaceful settlement of the key issues on the Korean agenda meets the vital interests of Russia in the context of tasks related to the establishment of the security and cooperation arrangement in the region of North East Asia.

The Dynamics of the Constellation in East Asia: Japan's Response towards Changes of the Regional Status-quo Post-Panmunjom Declaration

<p>Security is an important aspect for a state. In particular, regional security plays important role in influencing state policies and actions. This paper departs from the High Level meeting between South Korea and North Korea in April 2018 which then produces an output in the form of peace agreement, the Panmunjom Declaration. The declaration has different impact to Japan, because it becomes the turning point of the status-quo in the East Asia region. Relations between states are generally driven and motivated by interests rather than the shared identity. This paper aims to analyze the actions and responses of Japan as a pacifist state towards the changes in the constellation of East Asia relations after the Panmunjom Declaration. In the end of this paper, it is concluded that what happened in the East Asia region is accordance to the concept of classical realism theory. The Panmunjom Declaration surely is an international event marked as turning point of East Asia regional status-quo, but could not be claimed as the main factor to drive Japan revising article 9. However, Japan's alertness towards North Korea remains same. Even though it is not the main factor, but the Panmunjom Declaration made Japan interprets its position differently in East Asia, and has influenced Shinzo Abe's narrative to further strive for the revision agenda to be realized immediately.</p>

Legal Position of the North Korea’s Road Relevant Acts and Legal Issues for the Road Cooperation between South and North Korea

문재인 대통령과 김정은 북한 국무위원장의 역사적인 4.27 판문점선언을 계기로 남과 북은 남북도로 협력 분과 회담을 진행하는 등 실천적 대책들을 취해 나가고 있다. 남북한의 도로 격차와 이질성의 현실을 극복하기 위한 과정은 통일한국을 향한 하나의 과정이다. 북한의 도로 현대화 등 도로 정비를 통한 남북한 도로 격차 등 현실의 문제를 조화롭게 해소해 나가면서 궁극적으로는 남북한 도로관계법제의 통합으로 나아가야할 것이며, 그것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 점진적으로 이루어져 할 과제이다. 북한 도로의 정비는 통일을 향한 과정과 통일 이후 남북한 통합을 추진하는 과정에서 필수불가 결한 핵심 기반시설의 구축의 의미를 갖고 있고, 통일 지향적 남북 교류와 협력을 위한 통로를 개척하는 수단으로서 그 중요성이 매우 크다. 이러한 중요성에도 불구하고 남북한 도로관계법제는 구체적·개별적 문제들이 현실적 검토 과제로 등장한다. 향후 남북한 도로협력을 위한 관련법제의 검토와 함께 단계별 도로관계법제 통합 로드맵의 모색이 필요한 이유이다. 그러나 남북한 도로관계법제 통합을 위한 전단계로서 북한의 도로관 계법제의 분석과 남북한 도로부문 교류와 협력을 위한 관련 법제도의 검토와 구축을South and North Korea have been working to conduct several rounds of inspections after their leaders agreed during the April 27, 2018 summit to modernize the roads in the North and connect them with those in the South. Under the Panmunjom Declaration, the two Koreas have been fulfilled a joint survey of cross-border roads in a move to modernize and reconnect the North Korean section of the road running from the border town of Kaesong to Pyongyang. And South and North Korea have exchanged information related to their joint project of modernizing and connecting roads. The two Koreas will draw up detailed construction plans in consideration of progress in denuclearization talks and the possible easing of sanctions on Pyongyang. First of all, we need to make continuous efforts for the sustainable cooperation in the road business fields between the two Koreas through the relevant legislation. Currently, the support for North Korea’s road adjustment is linked to the progress of North Korea’s denuclearization and the international sanctions on the North Korea, but an establishment of a relevant legal system for the inter-Korean road cooperation is needed while preparing for a basic plan formation procedures. This concept is based on the premise of peaceful coexistence between the South and North Korea, prior to the integration Road Act of an unified Korea, which could be supported by Article 4 of Constitution of the Republic Korea.

패러다임의 전환을 통해 살펴본 ‘4.27 판문점 선언’의 법적 성격

2018년 4월 27일 남북 정상은 ‘4.27 판문점선언’을 통하여 남한과 북한은 한반도의 항구적이고 공고한 평화체제 구축을 위하여 적극 협력해 나갈 것을 합의하였다. 이러한 형식의 남한과 북한의 합의는 처음이 아니며 두 정상간의 합의문이 발표될 때마다 국회비준과 같은 제반 문제들이 정치적 쟁점이 되어왔다. 지난 몇 차례의 합의문이 실질적으로 효력을 발휘한 경험이 없어, 이번 판문점선언 또한 그와 같은 처지에 놓인 채 역사속으로 사라져 버리지 않을까 하는 우려에서 본 논문을 작성하였다.BR 이에 본 글에서는 남한과 북한간의 합의에 있어 벌어지는 논쟁의 핵심은 무엇이며, 그 해결방안은 무엇인지에 대한 ‘접근 패러다임’을 말하고자 한다. 즉, 국회비준 동의의 문제, 국제법적 시각에서의 남북한 합의서의 조약성과 국제법적 규율사항과 국내법적 규율사항의 문제, 관련 국내법 그리고 국제법적 규정의 고찰을 통하여 정치적 성격의 문제로부터 법적 성격을 지닌 문제를 분리하고자 한다.BR 남한과 북한은 분명 두 국가간의 관계로서 인식되어 국제법적인 시각에서 논의를 진행하여야 할 것이나, 이에는 북한의 국가성 인정여부에 대한 문제의 해결을 전제로 한다. 북한의 법적지위를 규정하는 것은 국제법 주체로서 그리고 국내법 주체로서 나누어 생각해야 할 것이며, 남한과 북한간의 합의에 있어 가장 중요한 문제점이다. 결론적으로 북한의 국가성에 관한 문제를 조화적인 입장에서 정리함으로써, ‘4.27 판문점 선언’의 실효성을 확보하고, 남한과 북한간의 평화적인 체제를 구축함에 있어 한걸음 나아가는 계기가 되기를 바란다.

Structural characteristics of institutional collaboration in North Korea analyzed through domestic publications

Stimulated by the Panmunjom Declaration on April 27, 2018, the authors have started identifying valid data sources and reliable standard methods to step inside North Korea. Taking a North Korea national approach to innovative capabilities, this research explores the status and structural characteristics of institutional collaboration during the year 2015. To accomplish this, the study takes a network analysis using co-authored publications in order to uncover the configuration of interaction based on the development of collaborative networks among various actors beyond the political sector. Data were obtained from a North Korean publication with a particular focus on innovation. Results show that while the political system strongly coordinates the North Korean innovation system, better linkage of research and production is needed in science-based problems, including better collaboration between universities.

판문점 선언과 북미 정상회담에 관한 분석과 한국교회의 실천방안

판문점 선언과 북미 정상회담에 관한 분석과 한국교회의 실천방안

Legislation and Institutional Task According to the Panmunjom Declaration

2018년 4월 27일 남북한 정상은 판문점에서 정상회담을 열고, 판문점 선언을 발표하였다. 이후 남북정상은 9월에 평양공동선언 및 군사분야합의서도 체결하였다. 남북 교류 및 협력의 지속가능성을 확보하고 질적 변화를 꾀하기 위해서는 판문점선언의 후속조치, 특히 법적·제도적 과제가 중요하다. 우선 ‘남북한 합의의 법적 규범력 부여’가 중요하다. 남북관계를 법적 영역으로 올려놓아야 지속가능성을 가질 수 있다. 이를 위해서는 판문점선언의 국회 비준동의가 필요하다. 나아가 새로운 남북관계의 기준이 되는 남북기본협정을 체결하고 국회의 비준동의를 얻어야 한다. 또한 ‘평화의 제도화’를 이루어야 한다. 남북간, 다자간 합의를 통하여 한반도 평화체제가 확립되어야 한다. 평화체제는 법적 효력을 가진 평화협정으로 출발하여야 한다. 평화의 핵심은 공존이며 이를 제도화하는 것도 중요하다. 북한의 지위와 법적 성격에 대한 새로운 논의가 필요하다. 나아가 평화 및 통일정책 추진을 ‘법의 지배’ 안으로 끌고 와야 한다. 초법적 통치행위는 근절되어야 한다. 남한 법제의 개선도 시급하다. 낡은 남북교류협력 법제로는 미래의 남북관계를 바르게 추동하거나 지원할 수 없다. 특히 통행절차 개선, 남북경협공사 설치, 각종 지원제도 구축이 필요하다. 아울러 남북관계의 위험을 담보하는 보험 및 증제도, 손실보상 제도를 시급히 마련하여야 한다.On April 27, 2018, an inter-Korean summit was held at Panmunjeom, resulting in the <Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula>. Next in order are the measures subsequent to the Panmunjeom Declaration, especially in terms of legislation and system, which would be indispensable to securing the sustainability of and seeking qualitative changes in inter-Korean relationship. First of all, it would be important to give ‘legal normative power to the inter-Korean agreements’. The sustainability of their relationship will be possible only when it is placed in the legal domain. To this end, the Panmunjeom Declaration needs to be ratified by the National Assembly. Further, they have to execute a framework agreement for their new relationship. Secondly, the peace regime will have to be grounded on a legally binding peace treaty. The key to peace is co-existence, which needs to be institutionalized and requires further discussions on the status and legal nature of the DPRK. Finally, peace and unification policy will have to be promoted within the ‘rule of law’. Any extralegal governing activities shall be eradicated. A pressing task is the improvement in the South Korean legislation. The outdated legislation on inter-Korean exchange and cooperation will fail to properly drive or support the future relationship, especially in the areas of improvement of transit procedure, and establishment of a public cooperation for inter-Korean economic cooperation and of various supporting systems. Also requiring urgent attention are the systems for covering the risks arising from the inter-Korean relationship, including insurance, guarantee, and compensation of loss.

Parliamentary Ratification of the Panmunjom Declaration and the Development of Inter-Korean Relations

Parliamentary Ratification of the Panmunjom Declaration and the Development of Inter-Korean Relations

The Results and Assignments of the Third Inter-Korean Summit: Focusing on '4.27 Panmunjom Declaration'

The Results and Assignments of the Third Inter-Korean Summit: Focusing on '4.27 Panmunjom Declaration'

A Study on Legal Characteristics and Effectiveness of Panmunjom Declaration by the South and North Korea Summit

A Study on Legal Characteristics and Effectiveness of Panmunjom Declaration by the South and North Korea Summit

Features of Solving Regional Conflicts in the Context of Current Challenges: Experience of Ukraine, Syria and Countries of the Korean Peninsula

Today the global community more often faces new, unconventional forms of war and conflicts, which have become an integral part of international relations of the present time. In many parts of the world, the intergovernmental rivalry increases on regional and local levels, which predetermines the threat of emerging of a significant amount of violent conflicts, majority of which escalate in the armed opposition. This issue is especially acute for Ukraine, countries of the Korean Peninsula, Syria and others. Historical events certify that in the areas, where geopolitical interests of the large states clash, the peace and safety cannot be guaranteed. Such countries as Ukraine, Syria, North and South Korea suffer because interests of superpowers have clashed. The history of the development of the world system has shown that the reallocation of spheres of influence is inevitable, which is why small and weak states and especially those which are in conflict areas, such as Korea, Ukraine, Syria, should find a way to guarantee sovereignty and territorial integrity. For example, after the Korean War, South Korea has concluded an inter-allied treaty wıth the USA and today only limited contingent of the USA is located in territory of South Korea and negotiations on deployment of anti-missile complexes of the SAAD system are in progress. Moreover, South Korea is known to give today much attention to strengthening defensive capacity of the country. After the end of the war, North Korea has taken a different path and without regard to inter-allied agreements with the USSR and China took a course for expanding missile and nuclear weapons. Today, superpowers do not carry responsibility for weak countries’ security. This is proved by the challenges Ukraine experiences. It is known that Ukraine has voluntarily given up nuclear armament, as stated in the Budapest Memorandum, with the USA, Great Britain and Russia acting as guarantors. Yet, Russia has started aggression against Ukraine, annexed Crimea and continue to carry out military operations in Donbas. However, certain positive trends should also be noted. On April 27, 2018, a historic meeting between leaders of the DPRK and South Korea took place, which resulted into signing of the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula. Heads of the two states have agreed to sign by the end of the year a peace treaty that will put an end to the war between the countries. The author expresses hope that the progress in relations between the two countries will continue and they eventually become a united state. Keywords: regional conflicts, hybrid war, conflict areas, denuclearization, Korean Peninsula, Ukraine, Syria.