According to the “Unification Bonanza” initiative by President Park in early 2014, expectations towards unification are rising alongside the realization that unification requires preparation. Discussions that focus on the benefits of unification may be desirable for eliciting passion for unification and seeking better strategies. However, the problem is with creating arguments for overall comprehension of costs and benefits. Recent trends tend to stress economic costs and benefits of unification too radically. Unification not only represents the emergence of a large-scale community which is a unified Korea, but will also mean fundamental shifts in the geopolitical configuration of Northeast Asia (hereafter NEA).  For this reason, the costs and benefits in terms of international politics must be reviewed in detail. This study seeks to move beyond discussions that center on economic costs and benefits, and instead considers political, social, and diplomatic costs and benefits. By doing so, we emphasize not only the benefits for a unified Korea, but also benefits to the NEA and the world.
While discussions on the benefits, in terms of international relations, maintain the view that Korea will reap huge gains in national power and standing, another line of argument also suggests that a strong unified Korea may benefit the NEA and the international community as well. Hence, now is the time to suggest that neighboring countries and international society can all share in the benefits of Korean unification.
In this respect, the present government’s diverse strategies are achieving meaningful results. The principle of inter-Korean relations is known as the ‘Trust-Building Process on the Korean Peninsula’, which consists of 9 major topics including DMZ World Peace Park and Eurasia Initiative Strategy. Regarding unification, the Korean government has declared the ‘Dresden Manifesto’. In addition to this, NEA Peace and Cooperation Initiative is suggested as a regional policy for NEA and there are also efforts to provide a structure for multilateral cooperation in the NEA region.
Based on diplomacy and security benefit analysis of unification for each country and region, the Korean diplomatic policy for unification must consider the following. Firstly, in the context of unification diplomacy, NEA peace cooperation as part of President Park’s regional strategy must be more subtle and intricate. We must clearly demonstrate to neighboring countries that a unified Korean Peninsula will decrease regional security risks, and may well contribute to creating a new security governance regime that replaces the current unstable structure. In line with the US rebalancing strategy, Chinese expectations, and the Japanese normalization strategy, the national security strategy of the South Korean government must be compelled to expand its limited scope regarding South-North Korean relations. Even when devising inter-Korean relations and policies vis-à-vis North Korea, we ought to include a broad basis for a new NEA architecture, for which it is most urgent to formulate better policies vis-à-vis NEA and suggest more effective ways for unification of the Korean Peninsula.
Second, alongside unification diplomacy at the NEA level, we must not neglect bilateral unification diplomacy. In fact, the benefit calculations that neighboring states conducted regarding the emergence of a unified Korea differ from one other and are sometimes even contradictory. Seeing that the US and China intensify their competition for leadership in East Asia, and that Japan and Russia are increasing involvement in great power politics, South Korea ought to conduct earnest benefit calculations and elicit shrewd measures in response, based on realistic considerations. Furthermore, it also must clarify which strategy unified Korea could make in connection with great power politics in the context of the current power balance, and in forming a multilateral cooperation system
Thirdly, we require a more advanced unification plan, whereby the new plan must correspond to changes in the external environment for unification. For achieving this, the diplomatic policy for the unification of the Korean Peninsula should think past the creation of one nation- state via the re-unification of the two Koreas, but instead should hold up the vision of establishing an exemplary political community in East Asia. From the perspective of building a networked community that exceeds territorial nation-states of modern history, this may contribute to generating a new and future-oriented view of states.

서언
 
국문요약 

Ⅰ. 서론: 통일대박론의 국제정치적 함의와 외교안보 편익
 
Ⅱ. 2010~20 글로벌 및 동북아 국제관계와 한반도 통일
1. 2010년대 글로벌 국제관계의 변동 
2. 21세기 동북아 국제관계의 재편 양상 
3. 북한 문제와 동북아 질서의 변화 
4. 소결: 동북아 질서 재건축으로서의 한반도 통일
 
Ⅲ. 주변국의 동북아 전략과 한반도 통일 관련 입장 재검토 
1. 미국: 오바마의 재균형 전략과 한반도 통일 
2. 중국: 시진핑의 중국몽과 한반도 통일 
3. 일본: 아베의 정상국가론과 한반도 통일 
4. 러시아: 푸틴의 유라시아 구상과 한반도 통일 

Ⅳ. 한반도 통일과 주변국의 외교 안보 편익(1): 개별국가 차원
1. 한반도 통일과 미국의 외교안보 이익 
2. 한반도 통일과 중국의 외교안보 이익 
3. 한반도 통일과 일본의 외교안보 이익 
4. 한반도 통일과 러시아 외교안보 이익
 
Ⅴ. 한반도 통일과 주변국의 외교 안보 편익(2): 지역질서 차원 
1. 미․중의 동북아 건축(architecture) 경쟁 연성화 
2. 중․일 대립 구도의 완화와 한․중․일 관계의 재정립  
3. 북한의 비핵화 실현 
4. 동북아 다자안보체제의 형성
 
Ⅵ. 결론: 새로운 통일외교의 추진 
1. 통일외교와 지역정책의 상승연계 
2. 신뢰외교의 연장으로서 대주변국 통일외교 전개 
3. 동북아 공동체 통일 구상의 모색 

참고문헌 

부록  통일대박론과 관련한 미국, 중국, 일본의 입장 
1. 통일대박론 등장 전후 미국의 입장 
2. 통일대박론 등장 전후 중국의 입장 
3. 통일대박론 등장 전후 일본의 입장
 
Executive Summary