한반도평화협정의 쟁점: 주체, 절차, 내용, 평화관리 방안

Abstract

Concluding a peace treaty can not be considered the equivalent of constructing a peace regime, although the former does have important methodological value in the construction of the peace regime. Debates of the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula have discussed place intermittently since the 1960s, but it was in the later half of 2005 that lively discussions concerning issues such as its relevance to the cease-fire agreement, the concerning parties and framework of the peace system, and the problems revolving around the US troops in Korea, other issues started to take place. Although the contents of the cease-fire agreement have great relevance to constructing the peace regime, there is little need to state such facts as problems may rise due to the amendment procedures stated in the cease-fire agreement. In relation to the concerned parties, those who may be involved in potential engagements in the future should be taken into consideration rather than being bound by those who engaged in combat during the Korean War. Considering all future prospects, South Korea, North Korea and the U.S. must be closely examined. As to build a concrete framework, South-North Korea Peace Forum for the two Koreas, and the Korean Peace Forum with the U.S. and China joining should be simultaneously established. The issues of peace management on the Korean Peninsula should be dealt with in the South-North Korea Peace Forum, while issues concerning the maintaining and securing of the peace system should be discussed through the Korean Peace Forum. Considering that the peace system should be recognized by the international community, China and the U.S.'s participation is highly guaranteed. While the US troops in Korea should not be subjected to negotiation of any kind, including the statement that the status of the foreign troops may not be used to change specific conditions may be considered for the symbolic value that it projects. Issues such as war responsibility and post-war settlements should not be considered on the agenda. The conclusion of the peace treaty is merely a means to an end. Securing a permanent peace regime may only be possible through military confidence-building between the concerned parties, not the peace agreement itself. Therefore, the peace treaty should not be considered as the conclusion, instead there should be efforts to stabilize the poli-military conditions through the peace regime.