With visible changes in the Arctic area in the 21st century, the Arctic is becoming the center of renewed attention. The changes in the Arctic include three main issues that are closely connected to each other. First, as the thawing of the Arctic accelerates due to climate change and is expanding in scope and area, an awareness of the importance of conserving the Arctic environment is growing in the international community. Second, as the commercialization of North Pole Routes and resource development in the Arctic become viable, major countries are developing greater interest in development of the Arctic region. In other words, while the thawing of the Arctic means an ecological crisis for humanity that goes beyond the changes in the natural environment, at the same time it intensifies the paradox of the Arctic, as benefits to the international community are increased by raising the possibility of commercial uses of the North Pole Route and resource development. The third is the pressure of changes in the international governance related to changes in the Arctic. This will likely lead to changes in the AC (Arctic Council), which has functioned as the body for regional governance among the stakeholders in the Arctic territories to date in relation to the development, conservation and use of the North Pole Route. The AC approved South Korea, China, Japan, India, Singapore and Canada as new permanent observers at the Kiruna Ministerial Meeting held on May 15, 2013. The meeting transformed the AC from a body for regional governance led by the European and North American countries into a global governance agency with participation by the permanent members of the UN Security Council and G8 countries.
These three types of changes require continuous attention from the perspective of conservation, which constitutes the 'conventional' agenda related to the Arctic, and raises the issue of “sustainable development” in utilizing the Arctic in the midst of the rapidly-changing environment. In this regard, the Arctic issue after 2013 has undergone a paradigm shift from highlighting the protection of its heritage plus academic cooperation, to “sustainable development” through global cooperation. Sustainable development made the Arctic agenda, which has hitherto been mainly discussed by Europe, more globalized. On the other hand, it would stimulate new competition among nations. This globalization of the Arctic agenda naturally presents the risk of overheated competition between nations, making the Arctic simply another arena for international conflict. In this regard, Arctic cooperation should pursue environmentally friendly, scientific, open and peaceful objectives; bringing it back into focus at the level of international politics and governance; and be handled as an important agenda in the international community.
Also, issues such as greater number of participants in Arctic governance, an increased need for environmental conservation and sustainable development, and the worldwide impact on the existing environment and ecological issues, go beyond the European Arctic governance led by European and North American countries. This requires changes in the Arctic governance framework. The issue of sustainable development emphasized by the Kiruna Declaration is a common concern for all, including the AC member countries, observers, and non-members. In particular, there is the need for a cooperation regime for Arctic development and conservation not only in Yakutia, Kamchatka and Sakhalin in Russia but also in the Pacific region and East Eurasia, including the U.S. (Alaska) and the North Pacific region of Canada, as well. Since the non-territorial Arctic stake holders in the Asia-Pacific region also have large interests in the Arctic, the need to establish Arctic governance in the region will continue to persist until it is actualized.
This research suggests a measure to establish the AP/ARC(Asia-Pacific/Arctic Regional Council) for realizing Arctic governance in the Asia Pacific region, which will emerge as a practical issue in the near future. The establishment of AP/ARC may bring additional benefits that will contribute to regional security through national cooperation among the countries in the Asia Pacific region. Aside from Russia and the U.S., there are no Asia-Pacific countries bordering the Arctic. However, the Asia Pacific countries including South Korea, China, Japan, Singapore and Mongolia have a high interest in the development of the North Pole Route, the East Asia-Pacific region in the Russian Arctic Circle and Alaska. In this regard, AP/ARC is highly likely to serve as a governance body that drives regional cooperation in the Asia Pacific.
There are two ways to establish the AP/ARC that can be considered. The first is to launch the council by inviting the countries among the Asia Pacific countries that are geographically close to the Arctic and the countries and regions interested in Arctic development and the North Pole Route, like the BEAC (Barents Euro-Arctic Council). The second measure is to open it to the nations affected by Arctic climate change by expanding the range of participating countries. Either way, it is necessary to include South Korea, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the U.S., Singapore and Mongolia among the initial participating countries. Of course, it is currently unclear whether North Korea will voluntarily join the AP/ARC. However, it is premature to conclude that North Korea will never join the group, because ports in the northeast coast of North Korea including Najin and the entire inland areas are directly affected by the changes in the Arctic area; furthermore, China will inevitably encourage North Korea to join the group as cooperation with North Korean ports on the East Sea is essential for entry into the Arctic.
The changes in the Arctic highlight the need for global cooperation. Such cooperation may be facilitated by obligations, responsibilities and creative challenges among stake holders that will be directly affected by both the positive and negative effects of Arctic development. In addition, such cooperation can only be effectively managed and expanded by the establishment of an appropriate regime. In this regard, it is inevitable to establish Arctic governance in the Asia Pacific region. Given the geopolitical and geo-economic conditions of the countries in the Asia Pacific region; the roles played by Yakutia in Russia, the U.S. regions including Alaska, and the Asia Pacific countries including South Korea, Japan and China, are extremely important.

국문요약 

제1장 서론 
1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 
2. 선행 연구 및 기존 연구와의 차별성 
3. 연구의 방법 및 구성 
 
제2장 이론적 배경 
1. 국가간 협력의 제도화 
가. 국제 레짐의 형성과 변화 
나. 글로벌 거버넌스 
2. 국제 규범으로서 ‘인류의 공동관심사’와 ‘인류의 공동유산’ 
가. 인류의 공동관심사(Common Concern of Mankind) 
나. 인류의 공동유산(The Common Heritage of Mankind) 
3. 분석의 틀
 
제3장 북극 거버넌스와 중국․일본의 전략 
1. 북극 거버넌스의 현황과 변화의 방향 
2. 북극 거버넌스의 실태와 한계 
가. 북극 이사회(AC)의 운영 체계 
나. 북극 거버넌스의 한계 
다. 지역 거버넌스의 필요성 
3. 중ㆍ일의 북극 전략 
가. 중국의 전략 
나. 일본의 전략
 
제4장 한국의 북극 거버넌스 구축 전략 
1. 글로벌 거버넌스 전략 
2. 지역 거버넌스 구축 전략 
3. 아ㆍ태 북극 지역위원회(AP/ARC) 창설방안 
가. 창설 및 운영 방안 
나. 창설을 위한 단계별 전략 및 조건 
4. 추진전략 및 설득 논리 
가. 대러 전략 
나. 대미 전략 
다. 중국ㆍ일본 및 아ㆍ태 국가들의 입장과 설득 전략
 
제5장 한국의 북극 거버넌스 참여 전략으로서 실크로드 익스프레스 
1. 북유럽의 북극 거버넌스 참여 전략으로서 실크로드 익스프레스 
가. 북유럽에서의 북극해 개발 및 운송 전망 
나. 북유럽에서의 북극해 지역개발과 운송 인프라 
다. 북유럽에서의 북극해 지역개발을 위한 북극철도(Arctic Railway) 인프라 개발 
2. 러시아의 북극권 개발 전략으로서 실크로드 익스프레스 
가. 야말 반도의 북극권 항만 인프라 - 사베타(Sabettaas)항 허브항만 개발 
나. 야말 반도의 북극권 철도 인프라 - 야말반도의 북극철도 건설계획 
3. 동북아 지역에서의 북극권 개발 전략으로서 실크로드 익스프레스 
가. 동북아 지역에서의 북극해 운송 인프라 개발-남 야쿠티야 철도 건설 
나. 동북아 지역에서의 북극해 운송 인프라 개발-남 야쿠티야 도로 건설 
다. 동북아 지역에서의 북극해 운송 인프라 개발-베링 프로젝트 
라. 러시아 철도공사의 2030년 신규 철도사업 
4. 한국의 북극 거버넌스 참여 전략으로서 실크로드 익스프레스
 
제6장 결론
 
참고문헌
 
Executive Summary