This article revolves around some comments made by Marzuki Darusman, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea. In essence, Mr. Darusman said that North Korea needs to release the 80,000-100,000 political prisoners currently residing in prison camps immediately. He went on to say that the only way for this to be achieved would be for the “cult leadership system” to be completely dismantled which involves displacing and removing the Kim family entirely. The UN recently passed a resolution that would attempt to hold Kim Jung Un accountable for the crimes against humanity that have been committed under his rule. North Korea, meanwhile, has displayed a very aggressive response and has threatened to conduct more nuclear tests. Though the UN General Assembly passed the resolution to bring Kim before the International Criminal Court, the resolution is not likely to pass the Security Council as either China or Russia will likely veto it. North Korea has also strongly denied the existence of any political prisoner camps and has instead said that other nations have them while they themselves do not.
This article relates to what we have been learning in class because it is all about sovereignty and authority within a state’s boundaries. Though no one doubts that the North Korean government, led by Kim Jung Un, has committed horrendous human rights abuses, ultimately North Korea is a sovereign state and has authority over the people within North Korean borders. I thought that this was interesting because the UN attempts to assert some measure of authority across the world, however the current system of states says that each state must be sovereign in their own defined territory. Thus, the interesting question of whether the UN has any authority in North Korea, or any other nation for that matter, is still up in the air. If the UN does have the authority to intervene in countries that commit human rights violations, then we do not have a true system of sovereign states because each state would not have absolute authority within its own borders. In a sense it would be a quasi-state system in which each state has near full authority over the proceedings inside its borders, but the UN claims ultimate jurisdiction over the protection of human rights. In the future it will be interesting to see if we move towards a world state in which each country resembles states of the United States and the United States resembles the UN.
I guess looking at your question of whether the UN has any authority in North Korea or any other nation I would consider what that nation, or North Korea is doing. Though what North Korea is doing is harmful to it's own citizens they are not attempting to expand these human rights abuses beyond their boarders. I believe that if they did attempt to say conquer South Korea and force their political leaders into these camps then yes the UN would have the authority to step in. However, if something is being done within a states boundaries it is tough for the UN to establish authority as to why it is interfering.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Valerie says. There is a really fine line as to whether or not the UN has jurisdiction over intrastate matters. Because we are set up in a sovereign system, the power lies in the state itself. That is partially why the UN Security Council has these veto powers, as a representation of each state's individual power. However, if this expanded across state boundaries then this would be a different story. For the time being though, I think the UN needs to tread carefully as to how to handle internal human rights issues. There is not much that the UN can do since its an internal state affair.
ReplyDeleteOne question on the post is what you meant by the last sentence with regards to the U.S.-UN similarities?
I completely understand what you both are saying and that is what I was thinking too. Under the current international system, the UN does not technically have the authority to intervene in a state's internal affairs, though it has plenty of times in the past. Situations like the Libyan no fly zone, in which the UN authorized military force to be used inside of a sovereign country, are why I find this topic to be so intriguing. In that same situation, the no fly zone was authorized specifically because of the threat of genocide, an obvious human rights disaster. In regards to your question specifically Tim, I'll try to explain it a little better. I was wondering if in the future, the world would have one major governing body that all currently sovereign nations submitted to. Then, the UN would act as the world's government and the nations would interact in a federal system, similar to what happens in the United States and our federalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone that the situation UN's relationship to human rights violations in a sovereign state is a tricky situation. In the past the UN has intervened in human rights violations like and like you said it was also evident in the Libyan no fly zone. One major human rights violation that the UN intervened in, even though it took a while, was the Rwanda Genocide. Technically the UN intervened in a sovereign state, but I believe their intervention was justified due to the massive human rights violation.I understand there is not a genocide like Rwanda taking place in North Korea but I do believe the political prisoner camps, starvation, and other massive human rights violations need more attention and that something needs to be done. I believe for UN intervention to be justified in the international community, they would have to make a complying case with proof since the North Koreans deny it so strongly. Do you think the UN has been overstepping its boundaries and violating the sovereignty of states? Or should exceptions be made in cases of human rights violations? I also think your clarification really helped clear up the last sentence in your post because I was also confused by that. I'm curious, do you think a world government set up like a federal system is the future of politics? How likely do you find that situation?
ReplyDeleteI think the UN has violated the sovereignty of states, but I think it is extremely justified, especially in the case of the Rwanda Genocide. When a nation commits atrocious human rights violations, I believe they have given up their right to be sovereign. I do not think the UN should ever go into a sovereign state unless this is the case simply because the UN does not have the authority to tell nations how to rule. In the case of North Korea, however, the UN will likely never be able to do anything due to the veto of China. In the future, I think there will be a tendency to move towards a world government, however I don't think it will ever come to fruition. Nationalism and patriotism are still powerful forces and, even in the case with something like ISIS, there will always be resistance to giving up national identity. Therefore, though we may see more international organizations and some states giving up sovereignty to join them, I do not think a world government is feasible nor do I think the US would ever join one should it be set up.
DeleteI would argue that the IGOs like the UN cannot do much in terms of intervening (legally) in a state's affairs. This inability only gets exacerbated by rogue states that cut themselves off from the rest of the world. I want to echo what Valerie said - the UN would be standing on much firmer ground if North Korea's actions were directly affecting those outside its borders as well as those inside.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the IGOs like the UN cannot do much in terms of intervening (legally) in a state's affairs. This inability only gets exacerbated by rogue states that cut themselves off from the rest of the world. I want to echo what Valerie said - the UN would be standing on much firmer ground if North Korea's actions were directly affecting those outside its borders as well as those inside.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to strictly look at the rules in this situation the UN does not have the right to intervene in this situation being that North Korea is a sovereign state. However what the North Korea government is doing is wrong, they are putting their own people at risk and also potentially putting other countries at risk, and if something were to happen internationally the UN would have better ground. In the end I feel that what the UN is doing is right they just do not have a solid enough position to take action.
ReplyDelete