국방개혁의 법제화 성공요인: Goldwater-Nichols 법안과 국방개혁 기본계획 2011-2030

Abstract

This study aims to seek political implications for the legislation of Korean National Defense Reform 2012-2030 by identifying success factors for the legislation of national defense reforms and analyzing and applying the factors to the U.S. G-N Act and Korean National Defense Reform 2011-2030 Bill. Success factors for the legislation of national defense reforms are influence of military incidents, main agents of reforms, the existence of a dominant political paradigm and dominant actors, and the success factors for U.S. G-N Act can be summarized as follows; Firstly, the Beirut Terror Incident and Grenada Invasion in Oct. 1983 served as a momentum to bring about a full-scale discussion on national defense reforms in the U.S. Secondly, while the U.S. national defense reforms were led by the U. S. administration before, the G-N Act was led by the U.S. Congress, which thus combined authorities and roles of the core parts of the U.S. G-N Act, could be reinforced without much opposition from all of the branches of the armed forces and the congress. Thirdly, since a dominant political paradigm called, ‘Increase of Military Effectiveness,’ existed in the G-N Act, it was possible to make a compromise by persuading opponents against national defense reforms more easily. Lastly, advocates for national defense reforms, such as Goldwater, Nichols, Sam Nunn and Rochor, functioned as dominant actors all over the process of legislation, further leading the passage of G-N Bill. The process of the Korean National Defense Reform 2011-2030 Bill can be summarized as follows; Firstly, North Korea’s acts of provocation, such as the Sinking of Cheonam Warship and Yeonpyeong Island Bombarding, became a driving force good enough to attract lots of public supports for the necessity and appropriateness of national defense reforms. Secondly, as a reformative proposal led by the government, the National Defense Reform Plan 2011-2030 was rapidly carried out because of the urgency of such incidents, further facing a strong opposition during the process of deliberation led by the National Assembly that functions to hold the government in check. Thirdly, in the beginning of deliberation, the dominant political paradigm of the National Defense Reform 2011-2030 was to increase the military efficiency, but as other various political paradigms appeared, such as a threat against the civilian control, controversies over its violation of the constitution, unbalance of the military structure and budget issues, this proposal lost its driving force at last. Lastly, there were a number of law makers with expertise in the 18th National Assembly Defense Committee, but their existence prevented dominant actors from appearing in the process of deliberation to the contrary. Accordingly, when the problems clarified during the process of legislation of the National Defense Reform 2011-2030 are solved, it is expected there will be a high possibility for the legislation of the National Defense Reform 2011-2030.