North Korea and Crimes against Humanity
North Korea has long proven unable and unwilling to protect its citizens. Currently, North Korea faces a deteriorating situation marked by chronic humanitarian disasters and human rights violations within the state’s political detention camp system. The inhumane treatment of citizens inside these camps, as well as violations during the sentencing and deportation process, has become a symbol of North Korea’s crimes against humanity. The international community should address North Korea’s human rights abuses within the context of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P). The R2P doctrine affirms that each state has the responsibility to protect its population from four mass atrocity crimes including ‘crimes against humanity’. As such, this article focuses on North Korea’s fundamental responsibility to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity, and the international community’s commitment to assist North Korea in fulfilling this obligation. In considering a policy option to improve North Korea’s human rights conditions within the context of R2P, the international community needs to assist the North Korean government to bring an end to further instances of crimes against humanity.
North Korea’s participation in the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights
ABSTRACT North Korea’s participation in the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)—a peer review in which states make recommendations to one another for improving human rights implementation—is a notable exception to its rejection of other human rights mechanisms. What explains North Korea’s willing participation in the UPR? This essay analyses North Korea’s participation in the first (2008–11) and second (2012–15) UPR cycles through its written submissions, responses to recommendations, and recommendations to other states. It finds that North Korea has consistently accepted weak recommendations, rejected more specific policy changes, and implemented accepted recommendations on a limited basis, allowing it to claim compliance with human rights at minimal cost. The UPR’s reliance on states’ self-reports and its inability to adjudicate competing factual claims allow North Korea to reject claims of egregious abuses, openly advocate for a radically state-centric vision of human rights, and challenge the legitimacy of human rights mechanisms like the Commission of Inquiry and Special Rapporteur while building support from other states with similar views. Notably, the Commission of Inquiry appears to have motivated North Korea to increase its cooperation with the UPR, demonstrating that the UPR complements but cannot replace other UN human rights mechanisms.
Responsive Ethics and the War Against Terrorism: A Levinasian Perspective
Realist and liberal understandings of ethics as the dominant approaches to ethics in international relations are unable to respond efficiently to the call of the other in the age of war against terrorism as they revolve around the needs and the interests of the self. Such self-centred understandings of ethics cannot respond to the other ethically and respect the other in its otherness. Therefore, in this work I attempt to develop responsive ethics by drawing on Levinasian ethics which can create the possibilities of concrete non-violent responses to the other in the age of war against terrorism.