After 9-11 WTC terror incident, a critical need has arisen for a strategy endorsed by the World Customs Organization (WCO) to secure the movement of global trade in a way that does not impede but, on the contrary, facilitates the movement of that trade. The AEO was introduced to correspond to such changes in the customs environment. That is, Authorized Economic Operators who meet criteria specified by Customs should be entitled to participate in simplified and rapid release procedures upon provision of minimal information, but non-authorized company is managed intensively. Thus it is up to Customs to ensure in an effective manner the safety of cross-border trade. Recently, as AEO programs became a new customs barrier, Mutual Recognition between each country's AEO program is expanding.

In the case of Korea, MRA with USA and Canada will be made into a contract in the near future. But although MRA with China and Japan will be promoted pending resolution of certain issues, it will be made a reality considering their importance as trade partners. So, in this paper, we analyze the AEO program's characteristics and status of MRA promotion concerning Korea, China, and Japan, and to find a strategy for promoting an MRA between 3 countries.

Above all, we can find some characteristics, as specified in the following sentences, as a result of comparative analysis about AEO programs of the 3 countries. First, AEO programs of Korea, China, and Japan are altogether classified as "Customs compliance and security programmes" not just "security programs", leaving little possibility for incomplete mutual recognition like the USA-Japan MRA. Second, in terms of operator type, Korea's scope is the broadest, while China's is the narrowest. Third, requirements for AEO of Korea, China, and Japan is similar, because it is based on "WCO safe framework". Fourth, benefits from the AEO is similar in terms of trade facilitation and reduction of logistics costs, but benefits of being without an AEO is much greater for Korea than China and Japan. So, if MRA is made into a contract between the 3 countries, more benefits will accrue to Korean companies than Chinese and Japanese ones. Fifth, AEO was only lately introduced to Korea, which therefore has the least number of authorized companies. But the gap between China and Japan in this regard will be reduced speedily, because recognition and needs of companies about AEO continues to expand. Sixth, procedure for AEO authorization of 3 countries involves a 4 step procedure proposed by USA's CBP. Seventh, behavior of MRA promotion is similar, in that main trading partners like USA and EU receive consideration first as an MRA partner, followed by consideration of 3 countries as next targets of the MRAs.

We suggest an MRA strategy as follows. The first step is an evaluation process that includes a comparison of both nations’ programs to determine the similarities, differences, gaps, and challenges. At this phase, the three countries (CJK) should create a joint research council and promote regular interaction. The second step will involve operational planning and testing phase to determine the specific approach to how mutual recognition will be achieved, including the development of a pilot program. For minimizing the time required for this phase, research should be conducted on actual conditions by regular interaction, and check for complementary measures for problems to suggested in previous research. The third step is a process where pilot measures developed in phase two is implemented, and the fourth step concludes with declaration of mutual recognition. For effective arbitration between the countries, the last step must be performed through a joint research council.

Aside from the positions of three countries, given the fact that a country such as Korea are highly dependent on other foreign countries, we have to recognize the political importance of mutual recognition. Also, since the time for importation is relatively slow, we have to adopt following policy measures. First, we must establish a roadmap based on strategic priority for mutual recognition. Second, professionalization of human capital for AEO, securing related budgets, establishing and improving the supporting system are indispensable for effective pursuit of the mutual agreement. Third, we need to build a cooperative relationship with other countries based on stimulation of knowledge transfer activities through competitiveness in information and then lead the regional standardization in customs information and broad utilization of the AEO system. Fourth, as the AEO mutual agreement is considered an important agenda for APEC, it is necessary that we activate the AEO domestically and lead mutual agreement through improving the system and simultaneous mutual agreement.

국문요약

제1장 서론
1. 연구의 배경 및 목적
가. AEO 제도의 출범 배경 및 추진경과
나. 한ㆍ중ㆍ일 3국 간 AEO 상호인정협정 체결의 필요성
2. 연구의 차별성 및 방법론

제2장 국제무역에서의 AEO 제도 도입 현황 및 상호인정 추진 현황
1. 국제무역에서의 AEO 제도 도입 현황
가. WCO의 SAFE Framework
나. 미국의 C-TPAT 프로그램
다. EU의 AEO 제도
2. AEO 상호인정의 필요성 및 체결 현황

제3장 한ㆍ중ㆍ일 3국의 AEO 제도 현황 및 상호비교
1. 한국
가. AEO 제도 도입 경과 및 운영 현황
나. AEO 제도의 주요 내용
다. 상호인정 추진 현황
2. 중국
가. AEO 제도 도입경과 및 운영 현황
나. 주요 내용
3. 일본
가. 도입배경 및 운영 현황
나. AEO 제도의 특성 및 체계
다. 상호인정 추진 현황
4. 소결

제4장 한ㆍ중ㆍ일 3국 간 AEO 상호인정 추진방향 및 한국의 과제
1. 한ㆍ중ㆍ일 3국 간 AEO 상호인정 관련 핵심 이슈
가. AEO 상호인정협정 대상으로서의 우선순위
나. AEO 제도의 차이점과 조정 가능성
다. 양자 혹은 3자 간 협정의 적합성
2. 한ㆍ중ㆍ일 MRA 추진방향
가. 1단계
나. 2단계
다. 3~4단계
3. 한국의 전략적 과제
가. 전략적 우선순위 결정 및 추진로드맵 수립
나. 상호인정을 위한 지원시스템 개선
다. 국가 정보화 경쟁력의 전략적 활용
라. 역내(APEC) 상호인정협정의 선도를 위한 노력

참고문헌

Executive Summary