DMZ가 생성된 이래 북한의 도발 및 남북무력충돌이 발생해 남북간 군사적 긴장이 가장 높았던 시기가 바로 1960∼70년대였다. 정전협정 체결 후 1960∼70년대 북한 무력도발은 ①남조선혁명의 일환으로 획책, ②체제결속의 강화 차원에서 지속, ③남북분단 고통의 심화·확대의 초래 등의 특징을 갖고 있다. 북한의 대남전략 및 무력도발이 주는 시사점은 ①북한의 위장평화공세에 대한 철저한 대비, ②북한의 어떤 무력적화도 발에 대해서도 유연하게 대응할 수 있는 안보능력 강화, ③통일지상주의 및 근거 없는 낙관론의 지양, ④북한의 변화를 위한 점진적·단계론적 접근의 추진 등으로 요약해 볼 수 있다. 우리의 국방은 항상 최악의 상황 까지도 대비할 수 있어야 한다. 우리는 언제라도 북한의 무력도발을 억제하고 유사시 안정적으로 대처할 수 있는 자조적·공조적 국방안보능력 강화에 최선의 노력을 다해야 할 것이다.

In the last decade, more natural disasters have occurred than before in the world. The ASEAN regions are particularly prone to such disasters. Natural disasters can happen anytime and will be a more serious problem in an armed conflict area. In disaster management, humanitarian assistance of the international community is basically subject to the principle of state sovereignty. In a conflict area, however, the principle of sovereignty must be harmonized with the doctrine of responsibility to protect. How could the ASEAN countries accept the doctrine of the responsibility to protect during natural disaster management in an armed conflict? This paper aims to analyze the doctrine of responsibility to protect in the course of managing natural disaster of an armed conflict area in terms of lessons from the ASEAN countries such as Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines.

Transnational terrorism in the twenty-first century is a unique threat that has sparked equally unique responses from nations at the receiving end of it, particularly the US. Some of these responses, however, have ignored both provisions of international law and the political realities prevailing in regions of Pakistan where the Drone strikes have been conducted. This poses various policy problems as the US has continuously used legal lacunae in international humanitarian law to carry on its “war on terror.” This paper addresses the problem by proposing a new form of armed conflict known as “transnational armed conflict,” which accounts for the unique nature of a conflict between a State and a non-State actor operating from the territory of another State. It allows for the setting of appropriate impact and assessment thresholds that could effectively bring such countermeasures in compliance with the accepted principles of international humanitarian law.