본문 바로가기
  • Home

Defense Policy Agenda Setting Process in Korea : Types, Characteristics, and Policy Implications - Focusing on the postponement and reenactment of the Transfer of Wartime Operational Control, the deployment of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula, and the Korea-Japan General Security of Military Information Agreement -

Choi. Young-Chan 1 Kim, Kyung-Jin 2

1합동군사대학교
2국방부

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to identify how the major defense policy agendas of previous governments are set, spread, and entered, and analyze the types and characteristics based on this. The results of the study are summarized as follows. First of all, Korea's major defense policy agenda was analyzed as a more diverse and democratic model in which problems were raised by citizens or private groups outside the government and turned into policy agendas actively resolved by the government. When deciding on a policy to postpone the Transfer Wartime Operational Control, it was analyzed as a mobilization model to secure public support after the government's agenda, and an inside access model that omitted the process of Transfer Wartime Operational Control, THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula, and signing a Korea-Japan General Security of Military Information Agreement. The characteristics of Korea's defense policy agenda setting process can be presented as follows. First, South Korea's defense policy decision was made within the framework of North Korea's provocations and threats and the U.S. defense policy. Second, the government's opinions were reflected in the initiative, and most of the agenda setting process was led by the government. Third, the government tended to decide on the policy contents they prepared or spread the contents to groups essential for implementation and set policy agendas. Fourth, there was a lack of public understanding and persuasion efforts for defense policy decisions from the process of setting policy agendas. Finally, logical consistency and continuity were not maintained in the process of setting policy agendas. Based on this, the policy implications that can be presented can be presented as follows. First, efforts should be made to enhance the negotiating ability with the U.S. from setting the defense policy agenda. Second, in the process of setting a policy agenda, it is necessary to review the bottom-up agenda rather than top-down. Third, the process of setting the defense policy agenda needs to be carried out with various policy actors, and clear guide-lines for how to set the content and scope should be set in consideration of the national interests. Fourth, consistency and continuity must be maintained from the stage of setting the defense policy agenda. Fifth, active use of think tanks is required. Finally, unlike in the past, various efforts should be accompanied to gain public support from the stage of establishing the defense policy agenda so that public consensus and support can be formed.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.