바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

  • P-ISSN1225-6706
  • E-ISSN2733-4295
  • KCI

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.29 No.1

Citation Share

A Post-Territorialist View to the Boundary and Border in the Korean Peninsula

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2019, v.29 no.1, pp.206-234
https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2019.29.1.206



& (2019). A Post-Territorialist View to the Boundary and Border in the Korean Peninsula. , 29(1), 206-234, https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2019.29.1.206

Abstract

While US-North Korea talks are stalled after the Hanoi Summit in February 2019, we are recently witnessing the easing of tension and opposition in the Korean peninsula. In particular, the promotion of peace and cooperation through inter- Korean and U.S.-North Korea meetings leads to a heightened expectation for changes in the border of the Korean peninsula as a frontline of conflict. While the border between the two Korean still serves as a barrier to interrupt free movement and cooperation, the recent literature stresses border and boundary as a place where various spatialities contest one another beyond a fixed view on territoriality. This so-called post-territorialist view has built on a new epistemology to note the complexity and multilayeredness of territory as well as the porosity of border. Existing border policies on the Korean peninsula can be considered as an attempt to ‘defer’ the modern territoriality to a limited extent under the goal of national unification. The recent geopolitical shifts in the Korean peninsula and consequent border policies demonstrate a momentous attempt to overcome this modern territoriality. Nevertheless, to go beyond the geopolitical condition structured by national security and territorial logics cannot be realized at the local scale through border policies, but it should be approached in the context of geopolitical debordering at the multiple scales around the Korean peninsula.

keywords
Boundary, Border, Territoriality, Post-Territoriality, The Korean Peninsula, 경계, 접경지역, 영토성, 포스트 영토주의, 한반도

Reference

1.

고양시. 2015. ｢평화통일경제특구 지정을 위한 타당성 조사 연구용역｣.

2.

국가기록원(1953). 정전협정문.

3.

국토지리정보원(2014). 국가지도집.

4.

김진향. 2015. 『개성공단 사람들』. 내일을 여는 책.

5.

남정호. 2019.2.19. “하노이 정상회담 성패 감별법”. ≪중앙일보≫. https://news.joins. com/article/23381171

6.

문정인·이상근. 2013. ｢한국 정당과 통일론｣. ≪본질과 현상≫, 32, 60∼76쪽.

7.

박배균. 2017. ｢동아시아에서 국가의 영토성과 예외적 공간: 동아시아 특구의 보편성과 특수성｣. ≪한국지역지리학회지≫, 23권 2호, 288∼310쪽.

8.

박삼옥·이현주·구양미. 2004. ｢특집논문: 접경지역 연구; 접경지역 기업의 연계 및네트워크의 공간적 특성｣. ≪한국경제지리학회지≫, 7(2), 227∼244.

9.

박인휘. 2013. ｢한반도 신뢰프로세스의 이론적 접근 및 국제화 방안｣. ≪통일정책연구≫, 22(1), 27∼52쪽.

10.

서재진. 2008. 『남북 상생공영을 위한 비핵개방3000 정책의 이론적 체계연구』. 통일연구원.

11.

안광수. 2017. ｢국가번영을 위한 통일과 접경지역의 발전방향｣. ≪접경지역통일연구≫, 1(1), 119∼147쪽.

12.

Weekly 공감. 2007.10.16. “2007 남북정상회담 II 공동번영”. http://gonggam.korea.kr/newsView.do?newsId=148682438

13.

유진삼·김추윤·권원기. 1998. ｢남북통일에 대비한 경기북부 접경지역의 개발방안｣. ≪국토지리학회지≫, 32(3), 17∼44쪽.

14.

이승욱. 2016. ｢개성공단의 지정학: 예외공간, 보편공간 또는 인질공간?｣. ≪공간과사회≫, 56, 132∼163쪽.

15.

이종수. 2009. 『행정학사전』. 대영문화사.

16.

장용석. 2013. ｢서해 북방한계선과 평화협력특별지대 재론｣. ≪통일문제연구≫, 59, 181∼212쪽.

17.

정성장. 2013. ｢박근혜 정부의 ‘한반도 신뢰프로세스’에 대한 시론적 고찰｣. ≪아태연구≫, 20(3), 159∼193쪽.

18.

정은진·김상빈·이현주. 2004. ｢특집논문: 접경지역 연구; 경기도 접경지역의 실태-정치적 환경과 경제기반｣. ≪한국경제지리학회지≫, 7(2), 137∼156쪽.

19.

지상현·정수열·김민호·이승철. 2017. ｢접경지역 변화의 관계론적 정치지리학: 북한-중국 접경지역 단둥을 중심으로｣. ≪한국경제지리학회지≫, 20(3), 287∼306쪽.

20.

최용환. 2009. ｢남북한 상생을 위한 남북한 접경지역 개발 전략｣. ≪통일연구≫, 13(1), 63∼98쪽.

21.

Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

22.

Elden, S. 2013. The Birth of Territory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Glassner, M. and Fahrer, C. 2004. Political Geography. third edition, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

24.

Hartshorne, R. 1936. “Suggestions on the terminology of political boundaries.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 26(1), pp.56∼57.

25.

Jessop, B. 2016. “Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance.”Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), pp.8∼32.

26.

Jones, M. R. 1997. “Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance.” Environment and Planning A, 29(5), pp.831∼864.

27.

Keating, M. 2001. Nations against the state: The new politics of nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland (2nd Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

28.

Kolossov, V. 2005. “Border studies: changing perspectives and theoretical approaches.”Geopolitics, 10(4), pp.606∼632.

29.

Krasner, S. D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

30.

Newman, D. 2003. “Boundaries.” in J. Agnew, K. Mitchell and G. Toal(eds). A companion to political geography. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.123∼137.

31.

Ohmae, K. 1990. “The borderless world.” McKinsey Quarterly, 3, pp.3∼19.

32.

Passi, A. 2003. “Territory.” in J. Agnew, K. Mitchell and G. Toal(eds). A Companion to Political Geography. Oxford: Balckwell, pp.109∼120.

33.

Passi, A. 2005. “Generation and the ‘Development’ of Border Studies.” Geopolitics, 10(4), pp.663∼671.

34.

Pauly, L. W. and E. Grande. 2005. “Reconstituting political authority: Sovereignty, effectiveness, and legitimacy in a transnational order.” in Complex sovereignty:Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century. in L. W. Pauly and T. Grande(eds). University of Toronto Press, pp.3∼21.

35.

Popescu, G. 2011. Bordering and ordering the twenty-first century: Understanding borders. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

36.

Prescott, J. R. V. 1987. Political Frontiers and Boundaries. London: Unwin Hymn.

37.

Sack, R. 1983. “Human territoriality: a theory.” Annals of the association of American geographers, 73(1), pp.55∼74.

38.

Smith, Neil. 2003. American Empire: Roosevelt’s Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy