The aspirations of the Korean people to achieve a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula are high. Although the Korean War ended in an armistice agreement, peace on the Peninsula is a fragile one, and the passage of over a half century has failed to banish the dark cloud of war from the Peninsula. There have been a number of crises in North-South Korean relations during the past decades and there are still many obstacles and challenges to establishing an enduring peace on the Peninsula. Moreover, since the emergence of North Korea's nuclear weapons development program in past years, peace on the Peninsula has become measurably more precarious.
This study looks into the causes and challenges that undermine peace on the Peninsula and tries to find out the way for a lasting peace on the Peninsula. Many existing studies have taken theoretical, juridical, military and various other approaches on this subject. Still, it has been acutely felt that studies on concrete and realistic strategies to achieve peace have been relatively few. In this regard, this study has borrowed the approach for policy-analysis, clarifying the following.
First, it is trying to elucidate the concept and objectives of a peace regime on Korean peninsula.
Second, it is trying to establish the theoretical model to look into the causes of unstable peace on the Peninsula.
Third, the study tries to analyze and explain existing policies of concerned nations, as well as North and South Korean. And the level of analysis in large is international system in this study.
The concept of a 'peace regime on the Korean Peninsula' has been defined as "the system that guarantees the peaceful order for co-existence and co-prosperity of Northeast Asia and creates the environment for the reunification of Korea through the process of securing national self-reliance and stability based on confidence and cooperation between North and South Korea."
The objectives of constructing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula have been presented in three stages, the end state of final objective which would be completed when the two Koreas have been reunified or integrated as one Korean nation on the Peninsula in 2030.
The intermediate stage of the objective would be the state of an international guarantee for peace on the Korean Peninsula with the construction of a 'multiple security cooperation community' of Northeast Asia before 2020.
The present stage of the objective would be constructing the foundation of peace and prosperity with military confidence-building and economic cooperation as a result of decreased military tension between the two Koreas before 2010.
The theoretical model of a peaceful system on the Korean Peninsula concerning Northeast Asia, which is operated by the functioning of the international regime, is argued in this study consists of the double-structures with the Korean Peninsula structure consisting of South and North Korea and the international structure of Northeast Asia consisting of regional nations(US, China, Russia, Japan, North and South Korea).
North Korea has been aware of the threat of war from American imperialism, and South Korea has been aware of the threat of war from the North Korean communist regime. It would be understood that the US-North Korea 'Nuclear Crisis' and 'Peace Issues' on the Korean Peninsula resulted from the background of this awareness. To construct a peace regime for the Korean Peninsula, the threat of war should be removed. After all, it would be essential that South and North Korea should try to cooperate for peace-keeping and confidence-building efforts. There have been positive developments such as the North-South Joint Communique of July 1972, Basic Agreement between South-North Korea of February 1992 , and the North-South Joint Declaration of June 2000.
Under the new international order in Northeast Asia in the 21st century and in the post-cold war era, creating a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula cannot remain as a problem only for North and South Korea. A nuclear crisis involving North Korea has transformed the characteristic of the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula from a civil(internal) war between North and South Korea to an international war of the PSI level. Therefore, the scope of the issue of constructing a peace regime for the Korean Peninsula has to extend to an international security issue for Northeast Asia surrounding the Korean Peninsula. This study has examined a 'Security Cooperation Community for Northeast Asia' as an alternative to constructing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. The multiple negotiating experiences for resolving the North Korea nuclear crisis would be developed into a 'Security Cooperation Community for Northeast Asia'.
The result of this study could provide some insights and implications to the policy alternatives of the South Korean Government as follows.
First of all, the 'Peace-Prosperity' policy and 'North-South Cooperation' for the current objective should first focus on economic cooperation reducing the economic gap between the North and South, and then extend to other areas. The efforts for enhancing productivity would orient towards reform and the opening of the North Korean economy, and it would help the military confidence-building as a result. South Korea but should keep a tough and clear standpoint for security issues like the North Korea nuclear crisis.
Second, for transforming from an 'Armistice Regime' to a 'Peace Regime,' military confidence-building should be stressed at first, and then the issue of a 'Peace Agreement' and a 'Multi-Guarantee Regime' would be examined. Historical lessons teach us that peace is not guaranteed by agreements or political declarations.
Lastly, Constructing a 'Security Cooperation Community for Northeast Asia' should be pursued positively and initiatively by South Korea government, and it would be important to take lessons from the multi-negotiating experiences to resolve the North Korea nuclear crisis. The effort should be concentrated toward realistic issues at first, and try to be consistent and focus on long-term efforts. South Korea should also try to help North Korea to recover normal relations with regional nations and come back to international society. Therefore, the policy should be projected in a mutually dependant way with patience and consistency in order to achieve a substantial 'Peace Regime'.

第1章 序論 1
第1節 硏究의 目的 1
第2節 旣存 硏究 檢討 4
第3節 硏究 方法 및 論文의 構成 7
第2章 平和體制 構築의 理論的 背景 10
第1節 ‘韓半島 平和體制’의 槪念과 目標 10
1. ‘한반도 평화체제’의 개념 10
2. 한반도 평화체제 구축의 목표 16
第2節 理論的 模型과 假說 19
1. 이론적 모형(model) 19
2. 가설(hypotheses) 22
第3章 停戰體制와 勢力均衡의 變化 28
第1節 停戰體制와 勢力均衡의 形成(1953~1969) 28
1. 정전체제의 형성과정 28
2. 군사적 대결과 경제적 경쟁 체제 35
第2節 體制競爭과 勢力均衡의 變化(1970~1989) 42
1. 체제경쟁과 평화의 모색 42
2. 경제력, 군사력, 동맹관계의 변화 46
第3節 脫冷戰과 和解協力(1990年 以後) 58
1. 탈냉전과 동북아 국제질서 58
2. 남북한의 공존과 협력 66
第4節 小結: 勢力均衡과 國際秩序 變化의 政策的 含意 85
第4章 北韓 核問題의 多者解決構圖 89
第1節 核擴散 禁止體制와 北韓의 核開發 89
1. 국제 핵확산 금지체제 89
2. 북한의 핵무기 개발 위협 102
第2節 北韓 核問題의 平和的 解決努力 118
1. 제네바 북·미 기본합의(양자해결구도)의 교훈 118
2. 3자회담의 전개과정 123
3. 6자회담의 전개과정 126
4. 북한 핵문제에 대한 관련국들의 입장 134
第3節 小結: 北核解決을 위한 政策的 含意 148
第5章 平和體制 構築을 위한 政策 方向 152
第1節 韓半島 冷戰構造 解體 152
1. 북한 핵문제의 평화적 해결 152
2. 군사적 긴장완화와 신뢰구축 157
3. 정전협정의 평화협정 전환 164
第2節 周邊國과의 多者安保協力 推進 175
1. 다자안보협력의 이론과 사례 176
2. 동북아 다자안보협력체제 구축의 환경과 여건 185
3. ‘동북아 안보협력체’ 형성 방안 191
4. 쟁점 및 추진 방향 198
第6章 結論 210
參考 文獻 215
ABSTRACT 244