International journal of Terrorism & National Security

Purpose: Although more than thirty years have passed since the end of the Cold War, the security environment in Northeast Asia continues to be characterized by persistent confrontation and rivalry between the authoritarian bloc (North Korea, China, and Russia) and the liberal bloc (South Korea, the United States, and Japan). Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to understand the U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy and to analyze the military role of the United States Forces Korea (USFK), which has a significant influence on the formulation of Korea's foreign and security policies, as well as its role as a stabilizer for the regional balance of power. Method: The analytical scope of this study focuses on Asia-Pacific strategies from the George H. W. Bush ad-ministration to the Joe Biden administration. Considering the nature of the research, this study employs a qualitative research method, utilizing literature review and case analysis as its primary research approaches. Results: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has concentrated its national capabilities on containing China, which poses a potential threat to pax-Americana. As China's hegemony in East Asia may threaten the national survival of South Korea, the ROK-U.S. alliance and the United States Forces Korea(USFK) serve as core leverage in South Korea's foreign policy. Accordingly, it is necessary to strategically maintain the ROK-U.S. relationship to prevent the United States from retreating its Pacific defense line to Japan, while simultaneously exercising diplomatic capacity to ensure that South Korea does not become a regional alliance aimed at containing China in a manner that undermines its current and historic amicable relations with Beijing. Conclusion: The ROK-U.S. alliance should not be confined solely to a military alliance but should be continuously developed into a comprehensive strategic alliance through the sharing of democratic values and the expansion of economic cooperation. In order for the ROK-U.S. alliance to harmonize with multilateral security cooperation frameworks, its scope of activities should be expanded across East Asia, and efforts to promote regional stability and peacekeeping activities should be strengthened. The ROK-U.S. alliance should also expand multilateral security cooperation, including participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and actively engage in efforts to establish regional arms control mechanisms through regional security dialogue.

Purpose: As long as the state maintains a presidential system of government, the approach must be from the perspective of national security, not solely for the personal safety of the president. To achieve this, a layered security system involving overlapping agencies—such as the presidential security agency, police, and military—is crucial. However, some countries argue that the police should replace the presidential security agency directly under the president. In this study, we propose five structural analyses to explain why this claim is incorrect, focusing on the case of Korea. Method: This study is an English-language extension of a paper published in Korean, and expands on the critical discourse on the transfer of presidential security services to the police, which was presented in an exploratory manner in the original Korean paper, with a case study as the basis. Results: This study first examines the history of the Korean presidential security service from its inception to the present, examining the evolution of the "Presidential Security Service" and the "National Police" as the dedicated presidential security agencies. Second, it examines the overlapping security arrangements within Korean presidential security, including security areas, distances from security targets, and responsible agencies. Third, it examines the electronic warfare threats posed by cutting-edge technologies like drones, driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, to the presidential security service. Fourth, it analyzes the characteristics of security systems in different countries, based on their political systems: "presidential" and "cabinet" systems. In the Korean case, it categorizes security duties into "personal security," "personal protection," and "personal protection." It also presents the typology of terrorist organizations that pose threats to the president. Conclusion: This study analyzed five structural factors that make presidential security unsuitable for the police. First, the overlapping security system, divided into the Presidential Security Service, the National Police Agency, and the Capital Defense Command, must be maintained. Second, the police's primary responsibility is domestic security, making it difficult to effectively respond to threats linked to foreign countries, which are essential for presidential security. Third, presidential security is operated as a form of military operation rather than a matter of public security, making it difficult for the police to take the lead in presidential security. Fourth, if the police were to exclusively handle presidential security, it would be based on the Police Officers' Duties Execution Act, which mandates that officers prioritize their own safety while performing security duties. This, however, is not legally appropriate. Fifth, security and secrecy are crucial for presidential security, and the police's budget is public and recruitment channels are extensive, making it somewhat incompatible with the security-focused task of presidential security.

Purpose: This study examines the institutional limitations of the Security Services Industry Act (SSIA) of Korea, which classifies private security services into six statutory categories but does not explicitly define “executive protection” (gyeongho) despite its extensive use in industry and everyday discourse. Instead, protection work is subsumed under “personal protection services,” which may not sufficiently capture the operational reality of protection tasks. The study aims to identify how this definitional gap generates interpretive confusion, increases field-level errors, and weakens accountability and training standards. Method: The research adopts a qualitative design combining doctrinal review of the SSIA and its subordinate regulation, comparative legal and policy review of Japan, EU-related standards (EN 15602 and ISO 18788), and the U.S. (California) regulatory materials, and semi-structured in-depth interviews with seven practitioners who each have more than ten years of field experience in protection-related work. Interview topics addressed the gap between statutory and field terminology, task-boundary decisions, liability attribution, training adequacy, and desired legislative amendments. Results: The findings indicate that practitioners consistently understand executive protection as an integrated risk-management service rather than a single protective act. Core components repeatedly identified include pre-event risk assessment, movement and route (itinerary) control, access control, crowd interface management, and on-site risk management—functions that frequently overlap with facility security and crowd/traffic control. How-ever, the current SSIA definition of personal protection services is purpose-oriented (protection of life and body) but operationally abstract, leaving the boundaries of lawful task performance and responsibility allocation uncertain. This ambiguity contributes to inconsistent interpretations across contracting entities, supervisory authorities, and training providers, and may intensify disputes when incidents occur. Conclusion: Rather than restructuring the six-category system, this study proposes a legislative refinement that preserves the existing classification framework while revising the definition clause of “personal protection services” to explicitly include operational essentials of executive protection (movement/route control, access control, and on-site risk management). Such clarification is expected to reduce interpretive burden in the field, improve consistency in supervision and training, and strengthen the legitimacy and professionalization of protection work in Korea.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of South Korea's current criminal law system and special laws in response to the rapidly changing domestic and international terrorist threat landscape, and to propose legislative and institutional improvements to address its shortcomings. Through an analysis of the cur-rent legal system, this study determines whether South Korea's current criminal law and related special laws adequately reflect the unique nature of terrorist crimes. We also compare and analyze the legislative precedents for counter-terrorism by examining and comparing cases from major countries overseas, drawing implications. Furthermore, we propose specific criminal legal response measures, including strengthening the legal basis for intelligence activities, expanding punishment for the preliminary and conspiracy stages, and strengthening international cooperation systems. Method: To achieve its objectives, this study utilizes the following research methods. First, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted, including domestic and international terrorism-related laws, academic papers, government publications, and reports from the United Nations (UN) and international organizations. Second, counter-terrorism laws in major countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, will be analyzed to compare each country's unique response strategies and legal control mechanisms. Third, we analyze actual domestic and inter-national terrorist incidents and related court cases to empirically identify the limitations of current legal applications. Fourth, we conduct a normative analysis of potential violations of fundamental rights in response to terror-ism, based on the fundamental principles of the Constitution and criminal law (the principle of warrants and due process). Results: The current criminal law system in South Korea has some limitations in regulating the transnational nature, organized nature, and prior covert nature of terrorist crimes. In particular, punishment provisions for the preparatory and conspiracy stages are inadequate. While the Anti-Terrorism Act provides authority for intelligence activities, the legal procedures and scope for compulsory measures are ambiguous, hindering the effectiveness of enforcement and raising concerns about human rights violations. Therefore, it is necessary to benchmark overseas cases to suit the domestic situation. For improvement, strengthen the preventive function by specifying and enacting provisions for punishment of preparatory acts of terrorism, clarify the judicial control (court approval) procedures for intelligence agencies' information collection activities to ensure legitimacy and transparency, and establish domestic laws to facilitate information sharing and cooperation with international organizations such as Interpol and the United Nations. Conclusion: This study confirmed that an effective criminal legal response to terrorist crimes lies in achieving a balance be-tween "ensuring public safety" and "guaranteeing fundamental rights." Based on the findings, the following conclusions are offered. First, urgent legislative efforts are needed to specifically supplement criminal punishment provisions for terrorist preparation and conspiracy to ensure a preventive response. Second, judicial and democratic control mechanisms (such as the warrant system, National Assembly control, and the human rights protection officer system) commensurate with the expanded authority to gather information must be strengthened to ensure procedural legitimacy. Third, in addition to strengthening the domestic response system, we must continue to strengthen information sharing and law enforcement cooperation with the United Nations (UN) and key allies. Ultimately, criminal legal responses to terrorist crimes must be based on law and principles. This paper proposes a balanced criminal legal response that builds a society safe from terrorist threats while simultaneously maintaining democratic fundamental order.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the causes of recent child kidnapping and kidnapping incidents in Korean society, and to suggest prevention and countermeasures. Method: This study is a practical study that combines a criminal psychological perspective and legal and policy analysis, and can be used as a reference for establishing child protection policies at the national level in the future. Results: As a result of the study, the main causes of kidnapping were social structural factors (double punishment, increase of single parents), criminal motives for sexual purposes, lack of legal punishment, and limitations of preventive education. Accordingly, this paper intends to propose policy alternatives such as strengthening the response system of police and prosecutors, making CCTV mandatory in child protection zones, expanding elementary school safety bells, practical education for parents, and establishing a digital grooming crime response system. Conclusion: After the crime occurs, it is necessary to shift away from the center of punishment and to a policy focused on prevention. Practical education for children, improvement of parents' awareness, and establishment of community networks are suggested as the most effective strategies. In conclusion, the prevention of child abduction cannot be completed only by the response of the police and prosecution, and it is essential to establish a co-operative system between families, schools, local governments, governments, and international organizations. It should be borne in mind that 'abandoned crime is a crime in which society tests the weakest existence', and a sense of social responsibility for child safety should spread throughout the community. Through the conclusion that 'the motive of the kidnapper cannot be suppressed only by strengthening punishment, and real prevention is possible only when the victim's recovery and community trust are restored.' It is necessary to deepen future studies in the direction of verifying the efficiency of big data-based crime prediction models and artificial intelligence surveillance systems, and promoting a balance between legal punishment and prevention policies.