Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Emergence of International Ocean Regime and the Change of Power Concept in International Society -The Case of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Ocean and Polar Research
  • Volume 28, Issue 3,  2006, pp.273-285
  • Publisher : Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology
  • DOI : 10.4217/OPR.2006.28.3.273
 Title & Authors
The Emergence of International Ocean Regime and the Change of Power Concept in International Society -The Case of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-
Kang, Ryang; Park, Seong-Wook; Yang, Hee-Cheol;
  PDF(new window)
As the political arguments on international power concept has gradually been deepened, the role of international regimes, defined as principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which nation-actors` expectations converge in a given issue-area, has also been reinforced. There are many ways of understanding about international regimes. In terms of realistic theories, international regimes are one of methods of maintaining hegemonic power order of hegemonic nation and in terms of liberalistic theories, international regimes are understood as the products of mutual inter-dependence of nations in changing international society. As a matter of fact, if we take structural causes and regime consequences into severe consideration, we can find not a few characteristics of international regimes, such as security regime, world trade and fiance regime, ocean regime, environmental regime, human right regime, etc. This paper will examine the changing concept of power after World War II in three categories of hard power (military power), meta power (regime creating power), and soft power (advanced in cultural, diplomatical, and technological power). This paper will provide the evidence of why the changing power concepts will be strongly related with the emergence of international regimes. The UN convention on the law of the sea will chosen as a standard case of the ocean regime and it`s regime structure and role will also be analysed in both realistic :md liberalistic theories. Futhermore, the nations` interests involved in the UN convention on the law of the sea will be analytically classified and finally a future prospectus of the UN convention on the law of the sea as an ocean regime will be tested.
hegemonic nation;inter-dependence;hard power;meta power;soft power;realistic theory;liberalistic theory;UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;Exclusive Economic Zone;continental shelf;
 Cited by
김달중. 1987. 한국과 해로안보. 법문사, 서울. 745 p.

김덕기. 2003. 배타적 경제수역(EEZ) 내 군사 및 군사정보활동에 관한 고찰. Strategy, 21, 6(2), 189-217.

김종헌. 2004. 해양과 국제정치. 부산외대출판부, 부산. 344 p.

박재영. 1998. 국제기구정부론. 박영사, 서울. 610 p.

박재영. 1996. 국제정치패러다임. 법문사, 서울. 574 p.

박치영. 1998. 유엔정치론. 법문사. 서울. p. 1-592.

윤상수. 2004. 세계무역기구의 분쟁해결 절차. 나라경제, p. 115-117.

이경호, 정승건. 2001. 바다와 국가의 정책. 학현사, 서울. 597 p.

이춘건. 1997. 한국의 해양문제. 한국해양전략연구소, 서울. 368 p.

이종찬. 2004. 자주적 힘과 원교근공의 지혜로 대륙세력과 해양세력을 끌어안아야. World Village, 7(겨울호), 20-24.

해양수산부(연구수행기관 : 한국해양연구원). 2002. 유엔해양법협약 대응체제 구축을 위한 분야별 전략수립 연구, 31.

해양수산개발원. 2004. 미국의 유엔해양법 가입추진에 따른 대응방안 연구. 서울. p. 161-171.

梁熙喆. 2006. 從國際海洋劃界原則和實踐論中國EEZ與大陸架劃界問題 : 以黃海和東中國海劃界問題爲中心. 臺灣大學校博士學位論文. p. 77-78.

Borgese, E.M. 1993. The Process of Creating an International Ocean Regime to Protect the Ocean's Resources. p. 23-37. In: Freedom for the Sea in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony. ed. by Jon M. Van Dyke. Greenpeace Inc. Press, Washington D.C.

Baldwin, D.A. 1979. Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies. World Polit., 31(2), 161-194. crossref(new window)

Charney, J.I. 1984. Ocean Boundaries Between Nations. Int. Law, 78(2), 582-606. crossref(new window)

Charney, J.I. and L.M. Alexander. 1998. International Maritime Boundaries Vol. III. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht/Boston/London.

Cox, R.W. 1987. Production, Power, and World Order. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 486 p.

Haggard, S.D. and B.A. Simmons. 1987. Theories of International Regimes. Int. Organ., 41(3), 491-517. crossref(new window)

Hurrell, A. and B. Kingsbury. 1992. The International Politics of the Environment: An Introduction. p. 1-47. In: The International Politics of the Environment. ed. by A. Hurrell and B. Kingsbury. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.

Jonsson, C. 1986. Interorganizational Theory and International Organizations. Int. Stud. Quart., 30(1), 33-54.

Keohane, R.O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton. p. 145-156.

Keohane R.O. and Nye, Jr., J.S. 1977. Power and Interdependence : World Politics in Transition. Little Brown and Co., Boston. 468 p.

Krasner, S.D. 1983. International Regimes. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. 372 p.

McGrew, A.G. and P.G. Lewis. 1992. Global Politics: Globalization and the Nation-State. Polity Press, Cambridge, 687 p.

Nye, J.S. 1988. Neorealism and Neo-liberalism. World Polit., 11(2), 235-251.

Prescott, J.R.V. 1987. The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World. Methuen, London, Figure 6.2, 6.4, 7.3, 10.3, 11.3, 12.2, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 14.1.

Smith, R.W. 1982. A Geographical Primer to Maritime Boundary Making. Ocean Dev. Int. Law, 12, 1-22. crossref(new window)

Snidal, D. 1985. The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. Int. Organ., 39(2), 579-614. crossref(new window)

Vogler, J. 1992. Regimes and the Global Commons: Space, Atmosphere, and Oceans. p. 128-137. In: Global Politics: Globalization and the Nation-State. by A.G. McGrew and P.G. Lewis. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley, Mass. 754 p.

Whiteman, M.M. 1958. Conference of the Law of the Sea: Convention on the Continental Shelf. Am. J. Int. Law, 52, 629-659. crossref(new window)

Young, O.R. 1989. International Cooperation : Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca and London. 548 p.