International Paralysis: In addition to the aforementioned widespread unawareness about the human rights violations in North Korea, international paralysis also prevents the world community from taking immediate action and preventative measures against the North Korean human rights crisis. Such international paralysis results from the following:
North Korea’s Specific Context: Many struggling nations that face food deficits accept foreign aid with open arms, and distribute such aid to their hungry people. North Korea, however, rejects most foreign assistance and distributes the limited aid that it accepts to its military and elite class. Additionally, North Korea, unlike other nations in which crimes against humanity occur, is highly isolated state. North Korea is neither accessible by bordering nations or by United Nations peacekeepers, nor does North Korea provide its population with means of communication outside of its borders.
North Korean residents – the majority of which are malnourished and have no access to electricity –, are prevented and intimidated from communicating with the outside world. Furthermore, while human rights atrocities occur in times of both political stability and instability, human rights violations that occur during times of political conflict are arguably more open to external intervention and thus, more manageable to confront.
For example, in the midst of civil conflict or the absence of a “state” or political leadership, it is arguably more likely that the United Nations and the international community will intervene because the absence of leadership both allows and necessitates international support. Conversely, when an established government – no matter how inadequate or inhumane –, perpetrates human rights violations, the international community is more hesitant to counter and challenge the acts of a state’s established leadership because of international premises of state sovereignty – the right of states to govern themselves.
Although North Korea has been categorized by the Fund for Peace as a “failed state,” the longstanding dynasty of both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il represent an established governmental system. However, in light of heightened globalization, the concept of a “failed state,” and the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect,” past principles of state sovereignty have begun to evolve, placing responsibility and ownership on the world community to intervene in times of crisis.
Politics Surrounding the International Issue of North Korea: Politics frequently hinder the international community’s ability to take proactive steps toward remedying the human rights situation in North Korea. Deep tensions from the Korean War, North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons, uncertainty as to the success of non-violent advocacy, and concern regarding the repercussions of taking unilateral action against North Korea deter effective international action.
Politics within the United Nations’ Human Rights Council: The Human Rights Council of the United Nations (UN) – formerly known as the Commission on Human Rights – is the United Nations’ human rights body. The Human Rights Council consists of member states responsible for identifying and addressing human rights atrocities across the globe. Through its Special Rapporteurs, the Human Rights Council is invaluable in investigating and monitoring human rights violations.
However, the Human Rights Council faces significant challenges in compelling action because member states have been historically hesitant to confront the human rights records of other member states, particularly when they fear reciprocal investigation into their own borders. In 2006, under the leadership of then- United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the United Nations General Assembly voted to reform the UN’s human rights body to address the politically charged dynamics and discord embedded within the United Nations’ former Commission on Human Rights.
Reforms included the implementation of a Universal Periodic Review of member states that is not initiated by other member states, changes in the new Council’s member state selection process, more frequent Council meetings, and a Working Group to respond to complaints filed to the Council by victims of human rights violations. Despite the acknowledgment of the politicized nature of the Council, and subsequent reforms, the Council still continues to operate with great sensitivity to political relationships between and across countries.
For example, China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are members of the Human Rights Council, despite their grave human rights records, and only time will reveal whether or not the Council will challenge the human rights records of its member states. However, as the reforms have been implemented relatively recently, the Council may continue to address politicization and work towards more effective human rights advocacy moving forward.
The Nature of International Law: Although the United Nations (UN) is a community of nation-states that respect the value of a world order, the UN’s authority over violations of international law is often contingent upon the acquiescence of, and recognition by, states that become party to the UN’s treaties or conventions. The authority of international law is thus based upon the resolve of nation-states in ensuring compliance across the world community, as well as the openness of violating states in fulfilling their international obligations.
In fact, legal scholars debate whether international laws have any “teeth” – or inherent power –, questioning whether the UN would be able to hold nation-states accountable for their actions without their acquiescence and recognition. Some members of the international community believe that without a “UN Military” the organization will never have an independent ability to enforce international law. However, the UN has increased its autonomous authority over human rights crises and other violations of international law by imposing economic sanctions and establishing judicial institutions, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. However, prosecutions through the
International Criminal Court must be suggested or referred by the United Nations Security Council or by victim states, and the International Court of Justice operates with the acquiescence of states that have recognized the jurisdiction of the court. North Korea has not signed the Rome Statute, the international treaty of the International Criminal Court, nor is it likely that North Korea will recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. However, the International Criminal Court may still investigate crimes against humanity perpetrated in North Korea, if such investigations are referred by the United Nations Security Council, and approved by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Therefore, without significant international resolve, the international system by its nature will not be able to confront North Korea’s human rights crisis. For this reason, the United Nations must work to garner support from its member states to confront and mitigate the North Korean human rights crisis.
http://www.northkoreanow.org/faq/#3
