International journal of Military Affairs

Republic of Korea is an IT powerhouse where smartphone use is universal and Koreans can enjoy fast internet anywhere in Korea. Such entrenchment of the smart phone in daily life has aided the country’s democratic development such as advancing freedom of speech and human rights but the high dependence on information technology has also introduced new threats. One of these threats is none other than North Korea’s cyber terrorism. So far, the most notable North Korean cyber terror attacks are 7.7 Distributed Denial of Service(DDoS) Attack(2009), Nonghyup Bank Network Hack(2011), and JoongAng Daily Website Cyber Attack(2012). North Korea has con-ducted countless cyber terror attacks against Republic of Korea and the attacks were estimated to have caused over 1 trillion won of damage. Currently, North Korea is offering curriculum on cyber terrorism in academic institutions such as Kim Il Political Military University, Kim Chaek University of Technology, Pyongyang Computer Technology University and it has been estimated that it employs around 6,800 specialists to bring chaos to the international community through utilization of cyber space. Furthermore, North Korea is considered the world's fourth most powerful nation in cyber warfare only behind the United States, China, and Russia, thus emerging yet as a new threat to the world. Experts identify North Korea’s unchecked expansion of cyber terror force as a serious threat that can bring crisis to Northeast Asia. Therefore, the international community must pay attention to not only North Korea’s nuclear test and missile development but also its rapidly growing cyber terror force.

The IS expanded its forces in 2014, securing territory, money, and military power in the name of creating an independent state ruled by the Islamic leader Caliph. The IS, which has secured its military power based on the looting economy, is threatening with brutal retaliation and fear of the opposing states or forces. In response, NATO's US and European member states are working together to combat IS. Terrorism in the Western Europe over the past two years can be evaluated as an intention to expand the power of the IS and retaliation against Anti IS. From another point of view, recent terrorism in Western Europe is caused by discrimination against Muslims living in Europe. Muslims are alienated as Gentiles in European society, and are easily inclined to IS in this environment. There has been a series of terrorist attacks in Western Europe for two years, starting in 2015. Terrorist attacks occurred in the daily living space that citizens often visit such as cinemas, football stadiums, cafes, trains, and churches. T he fear of terrorism and the fear of civilians are increasing, and the debate over the acceptance of Syrian refugees continues. The recent terrorist attacks in Western Europe , such as Nurnberg, Munich, and Normandie were planned terrorist attack s by a 'lonely wolf', which made it difficult for counterterrorism authorities to respond. It is pointed out that recent terrorist attacks require a change in embracing policies for Muslim immigrants residing in Europe. In conclusion, it is also important to attack the base for the purpose of cleansing the IS, but it is necessary to change the policy of active engagement with Muslims.

In early 2016, the Republic of Korea enacted the "Anti-Terrorism Act for the Protection of the Korean People and Public Safety" and provided the testimony to counter terrorism crimes by international terrorist groups including IS. On the other hand, the le gislative response to cyber terrorism, which is more important than the traditional terror crime in terms of the severity and repeatability of the damage, has been insufficient. In this situation, the government of the Republic of Korea deliberated and vot ed on the "National Cyber Security Bill" in December 2016. Despite the existence of the Anti Terror Law, there may be criticism that the enactment of a special law for cyber terrorism is unduly violating the fundamental rights of the people. Therefore, it is necessary to first examine whether a separate legislative response is required because cyber terrorism has some difference from traditional terrorism. In this paper, cyber terrorism originated from traditional terrorism, Since the substance is a totally different crime, we need to respond to it separately from terrorist crime, confirming that the legitimacy of the enactment of the special law is guaranteed. In addition, if the necessity is recognized, the special law has the possibility of restricting th e freedom of expression in the basic rights of the people, especially in the online space. Therefore, the philosophical basis of the restriction is examined. In this study, It was found in the fundamental purpose of the state and described it as a specific expression of the obligation to protect the basic rights of the state. In addition, the hypothesis that cyber terrorism can be regarded as a new type of risk source proposed by Ulrich Beck also emphasized the necessity of preemptive response before the oc currence of cyber terrorism in response to the risk source. Of course, can not infringe the essential content of the basic rights in the process.

In the Korean waters, illegal fishing activities by Chinese fishing vessels are increasing rapidly and becoming violent. For example, due to the severe resistance to the recent crackdown, Korean Coast Guard was settled down and the high-speed boat was sunk. Marine security issues such as marine environment and maintenance of ocean order are becoming a national problem. In this regard, Korean Coast Guard revised its manual on use of weapons and shifted its position toward stronger response. However, it is necessary to prevent the controversy of international disputes by explicitly stipulating its role and authority in the relevant laws and regulations. Korean Coast Guard have cracked illegal fishing vessels in China and processed them according to domestic legal process. Since these disputes are international in character, they cannot be expected to be actively responded to because they can become diplomatic problems. This study examined the actual situation of illegal fishing in China and domestic and overseas laws, and suggests the enhancement of responsiveness and social interest of the seaside through the improvement of the legal system. South Korea and China have promised to cooperate in order to maintain fishing order and protect fishery resources in the West Sea in 2014. In the "2015 Working Group Meeting on Penetration of Fisheries in Korea and China", it was decided to strengthen the cooperative control of the two countries on unauthorized Chinese fishing vessels with the common awareness that strong crackdown and punishment are necessary for the eradication of illegal fishing. Disputes over maritime sovereignty in Korea and China, as well as globally, are at stake. In each country, fisheries resources and energy security are emerging as important issues for national security as well as for economic development. Therefore, a national maritime sovereignty protection strategy is needed to effectively secure the maritime security of the Republic of Korea. First, it is necessary to strengthen responsiveness through the maintenance of related laws and efforts to reduce disputes under international law. Second, it is required to enhance the conservation of fishery resources and raise social interest to maintain good fishing relations. In addition, it is necessary to build an efficient marine management system between government ministries and strengthen multi-dimensional maritime security cooperation with neighboring countries.

As Korea is the only divided nation in the world, it can be said that Korea has been maintaining a little negative attitude toward terrorism while considering the military preparedness against North Korea and prevention of war provocation. However, with the 9/11 , the government and all citizens made it possible for the nation to recognize that there was not a safe country for terrorism. Moreover, since the French terrorist attacks, countries have been more alert to terrorist groups like the Islamic Stat es(I S) In Korea, the controversy over the enactment of the Anti Terror Law has been raised, but some people have raised public opinion that anti terrorism measures should be prepared as soon as we are not a safe zone of terrorism. In the 19th National Assembly , a bill called "Anti Terrorism Act for the Protection of the People and Public Safety" was initiated in the 19th National Assembly, and the enactment of the Anti Terrorism Act was concluded with the enactment of Law No. 14071 on March 3, On March 3, 2016, the Anti Terrorism Act for National Protection and Public Safety was enacted and promulgated, followed by the State Planning Office and the National Intelligence Service, which enacted the Law on Terrorism for National Protection and Public Safety The enforcement decree was enacted on June 4, 2016. The enactment of the "Anti Terrorism Act", which has been controversial in the meantime, has great significance in terms of securing the legitimacy of counterterrorism administration and establishing and enforcing related laws that directly and uniformly regulate terrorism. However, there are a few things to consider in terms of complementary aspects. Since the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism for Public Protection and Public Security, which was promulgated on March 3, 2016, was accompanied by political and social controversy during the legislative process, it is expected that there will be a lot of controversy in the future operation of law and enforcement ordinance have. It is also point ed out some legislative problems as it fails to legislate all of the important issues contained in existing legislative initiatives. The Act on the Prevention of Terrorism for the Protection of the Public and the Public Security , known as Anti-Terrorism Act, is a law to prevent terrorism as it is, and it is true that such a law is necessary because the Republic of Korea is on the list of designated target by IS. However, it is hard to say that the controversy has subsided. Moreover, it has growing concern on three parts of the law: (i) the authority of the National Intelligence Service expanded excessively in the name of counterterrorism; (ii) military operations against civilians which are restricted in case of exercise of National Emergency Right on Constitution; and (iii)overly comprehensive and unclear definition of authority and organization o f Center for Counterterrorism. From this point of view, this article is intended to analyze the changes caused by the enactment of Anti Terror Law and the direction of future counterterrorism policy development.