A way forward for North Korean accountability

By David Bosco

The members of the United Nations’ Commission of Inquiry on North Korea have been making the rounds in Washington this week. Led by former Australian judge Michael Kirby, the commission has had a notable impact. Its report, which called for the Security Council to refer the North Korean situation to the International Criminal Court, generated significant diplomatic and media attention. In lopsided votes, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly endorsed its recommendation. For the first time ever, the UN Security Council placed the issue of North Korean human rights on its agenda. Perhaps most important, the commission’s work generated howls of outrage from North Korea itself.

The question of where all this energy and attention goes now is an important one. The commission’s mandate has expired. The door to the International Criminal Court appears to be blocked; referring the North Korean situation would require a Security Council resolution, a step that China and Russia would almost certainly block. Absent dramatic political change, the commission appears to have exhausted the routes to accountability for the crimes it describes.

There is one avenue left, however, that has received little attention. The UN General Assembly–and other parts of the UN system— have the power to request advisory opinions from The Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly has done so several times, including on the legality of Kosovo’s independence declaration and Israel’s separation wall. Because the veto does not operate in the Assembly, no one state could block a request. The ICJ opinions that result from this process are technically non-binding, but they can be highly influential. Most important in this context, an ICJ advisory case would be a means of maintaining pressure on North Korea. Various states, international organizations, and civil society groups could file briefs with the court, which might help to develop and deepen the factual record on North Korean abuses.

An ICJ approach to North Korean abuses might have another advantage. In the last several decades, the focus of human rights and justice advocates has been almost exclusively on individual, rather than state, accountability. While powerful, this approach has its limits. An ICJ case that focused on the culpability of the North Korean regime as a whole, rather than on any one of its senior officials, could be a useful return to a more balanced approach to accountability.

About David Bosco

Assistant Professor at American University's School of International Service. Contributing editor at Foreign Policy magazine. Author of Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics and Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A way forward for North Korean accountability

  1. michael kearney says:

    What question(s) of law would one ask the ICJ about?

    • David Bosco says:

      Perhaps something along the lines of “what are the legal implications of North Korea’s imprisonment and detention system in light of ICCPR and customary international law?”

  2. michael kearney says:

    Legal implications for third states and int orgs? I’d be a little more ambitious, and ask about veto in face of atrocity, or go the whole hog, and by reference to Uniting for Peace, ask whether the UNGA could refer a situation to the ICC…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s