Resonsibility to Protect - North Korea
why has the international community not yet intervened in the DPRK under the principle of R2P?Resonsibility to Protect - North Korea
why has the international community not yet intervened in the DPRK under the principle of R2P?Samenvatting
Since its founding in 1948, North Korea has consistently been connected to committing crimes against humanity. The non-interventionist policies that were prevalent throughout the Cold War protected it from outside intervention. Indeed, any country could do as they pleased within its borders as state-sovereignty ensured that any meddling in the internal affairs of a State was not acceptable. This attitude changed after the Cold War, when humanitarian interventions became an option for countries to exercise should the need be there. However, several catastrophic failures in the 1990s and the overall controversial nature of intervention for humanitarian reasons raised questions regarding the implementation of such interventions. A call was made to set up a framework that tackled the problems of earlier intervention norms and tackled its controversial nature. In 2002, this call was answered by the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty, which argued that every State has a responsibility to protect its population and that the international community has the responsibility to assist, and if needed, to intervene in situations where the State fails to protect its population. This new doctrine, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2005 and further implemented in 2009, theoretically ensures that populations are protected from mass atrocity crimes and gives the international community a mandate to intervene should it be necessary. However, around the world there are many situations where intervention might be necessary but where it has, so far, not happened. On the top of this list is definitely North Korea. It seems to be a prima candidate for intervention, as investigations have shown that it violates its responsibility to protect its population and is not willing to stop its current practices. This report aims to find out why no intervention has taken place so far and why there is no apparent will to do so.
The results of this research have shown that, initially a broader concept, R2P as adopted by the United Nations is much narrower, focusing only on four mass atrocity crimes; genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, although its initial concept provided specific criteria that have to be met before military intervention can take place, the United Nation’s version is much more ambiguous and refers to the Charter when there are talks of intervention. Despite criticism that it is a much narrower version than the one first put forward, it did ensure consensus when it was up for adoption in 2005 during the World Summit. Still, even though many States agree with R2P in principle, many are cautious when it comes to military intervention. This includes states that have stakes in the Korean peninsula, such as South Korea, Russia, China and Japan. Although it never specifically states it is against R2P, North Korea is against any intervention of any kind.
Responsibility to Protect – North Korea ǁ Nick Perre
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
3
Research has also confirmed that North Korea is guilty of committing crimes against humanity. There is limited information on what goes on inside the country, as it one of the most closed off nations in the world. However, a United Nations Commission of Inquiry investigation used testimonies of escaped North Koreans to establish what life is like for its inhabitants. In their report, it is shown that North Korea violates the right to food, commits human rights violations, arbitrarily detains its citizens and subjects them to torture and has possibly committed genocide in the past. This report added validity to previous accusations and proved that North Korea fails to adhere to its responsibility to protect its population. It also means that it commits a mass atrocity crime mentioned in the R2P text of the United Nations, and therefore meets the criteria for intervention. However, as any such action must go through the Security Council, a decision to intervene is dependent on the cooperation of Council, specifically the permanent five members. It is shown that North Korea’s relationship with China prevents any such decisions from being made. China considers North Korea as a vital part of its security, and any destabilization on the Korean peninsula will put that security in danger. Therefore, China has repeatedly stated that is opposed to any kind of intervention in North Korea, preferring to let diplomacy do the work. Furthermore, it is shown that North Korea’s nuclear program has pushed its humanitarian issues down on the agenda of the international community. Instead, States that include the United States of America, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia consider the denuclearization of the peninsula a more important matter.
Another result is that, when compared to Libya and Syria, North Korea has few similarities with Libya, where military intervention took place, and many similarities with Syria, where, as of yet, no intervention has taken place. The factors that play a part in the case of Syria (its internal situation, foreign relations, interests of other States and capacity to rebuild) can also be applied, although somewhat different, to North Korea. This case is therefore very helpful in explaining why no intervention has so far taken place in North Korea.
To conclude, all signs point towards North Korea being a very unique case. One where a combination of factors ensure that intervention is either very difficult or not currently on the agenda of many States. These factors include its relationship with China, the existence of a nuclear weapons program, having a large loyal army and rigid regime structure, and the rebuilding costs involved after a costly military intervention. Therefore, it is unlikely that intervention will take place in the foreseeable future. The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula currently takes priority over the human rights abuses being committed by North Korea. Even if the nuclear threat is taken away, a military intervention will probably cause more damage than it will prevent. For now it seems that the suffering of the North Korean population will continue while discussions take place about the country’s nuclear program.
Organisatie | De Haagse Hogeschool |
Opleiding | ESC Europese Studies / European Studies |
Afdeling | Academie voor European Studies & Communication |
Jaar | 2014 |
Type | Bachelor |
Taal | Engels |