East Asia

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 45–60 | Cite as

Defining the limits of the North Korean Human Rights Act: A security and legal perspective

  • Jaeho Hwang
  • Kim Jasper


The introduction of the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004 (HR 4011 or the Act) was hailed by many in the U.S. Congress as a significant and much-needed legislative effort that would substantially improve the human rights conditions of North Korea, considered to be one of the most unpredictable and undemocratic regimes in the world today. The passage of HR 4011 effectively marked a new and notable phase within U.S. foreign policy, in which the issue of human rights was directly linked to the issue of North Korean nuclear non-proliferation in a Helsinki-style framework. Relating to the Act, this paper argues from cross-cultural, security, and legal perspectives that HR 4011 may encounter specific limitations, which may hinder the Act from reaching its stated objectives of furthering “respect for and protection of fundamental human rights in North Korea” and “to promote a more durable humanitarian solution to the plight of North Korean refugees.” Although improving human rights is a fundamentally important issue, linking human rights with DPRK nuclear non-proliferation through HR 4011’s explicit Helsinki-style approach may exacerbate rather than eradicate North Korean human rights violations as well as the DPRK’s ongoing nuclear standoff with the international community.

Key words

North Korea human rights HR 4011 United States Northeast Asia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For analyses on the ongoing process and other issues relating to the North Korean nuclear issue, see Peter M. Beck and Meredith J. Sumpter, “Washington and the North Korean Nuclear Crisis: From Muddling Multilateralism to Sanctions?,”International Journal of Korean Unification Studies 14:1 (2005), 31–54; Jaewoo Choo, “Is Institutionalization of the Six-Party Talks Possible?,”East Asia 22:4 (Winter 2005), 39–58; Samuel S. Kim, “China’s New Role in the Nuclear Confrontation,”Asian Perspective 28:4 (2004), 147–184.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    For the discussion on the human rights issue, see William Maley, “Refugees and forced migration as a security problem”, in William T. Tow, Ramesh Thakur, and In-Taek Hyun, eds.,Asia§ Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security (Tokyo, NY, Paris: United Nations University Press, 2000); Kelly Kate Pease and David P. Forsythe, “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics”,Human Rights Quarterly 15:2 (1993), 290–314; Denny Roy, “Human Rights and National Security in East Asia”,Issues and Studies, 32:2 (1999), 132–51.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston,International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 366–367.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Ann-Belinda Preis, “Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique”,Human Rights Quarterly 18:2 (1996), 288–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston,International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 366–367.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    R. Panikkar,Is the Notion of Human Rights a Western Concept, Diogenes, (1982),75–102. For more about cultural relativism, see also John J. Tilley, “Cultural Relativism”,Human Rights Quarterly, 22:2, (2000), 501–547.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Louis Henkin, Richard C. Pugh, Oscar Schachter, and Hans Smit,International Law: Cases and Materials (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1993) 598.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    Robert Jervis, “The Remaking of a Unipolar World,”The Washington Quarterly, 29:3 (2006), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 19.
    For an overview of American, South Korean, and European NGO efforts following the flood and famine conditions of the mid-1990s within the DPRK, see L. Gordon Flake and Scott Snyder,Paved with Good Intentions, (Praeger Publishers, 2003).Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    For a paper discussing the demographic ramifications of the North Korean refugee polemic,see Daniel Goodkind and Loraine West, “The North Korean Famine and Its Demographic Impact,”Population and Development Review 27:2 (June 2001), 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 27.
    See John Fetfer, “The Forgotten Lessons of Helsinki: Human Rights and U.S.-North Korean Relations,“World Policy Journal 21:3 (Fall 2004), 31–39, available at [http://www. worldpolicy. org/jo urnal/articles/wpj04-3/Feffer.pdj].Google Scholar
  12. 28.
    Daniel C. Thomas,The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2001),3.Google Scholar
  13. 29.
    Ibid.,The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2001) 29–35.Google Scholar
  14. 34.
    See “Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on the Health and Nutrition in Cuba,”American Association for World Health Report, Summary of Findings, Executive Summary, (March 1997), 1–2.Google Scholar
  15. 39.
    For further analysis on the issue of North Koreans in China, see generally, Tsuneo Akaha and Anna VassilievaCrossing National Borders: Human Migration Issues in NortheastAsia, (United Nations University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  16. 40.
    Robert Scalapino,North Korea at a Crossroads (Stanford, CA, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace), Stanford University, 1997), 16–18; Younghwan Kihl, “North Korea’s Political Problem: The Regime Survival Strategy’,The Economics of Korean Reunification, 2:2 (1997), 82–97.Google Scholar
  17. 42.
    For the human right issue as a tool of security policy by the U.S., see Nicole Halett, “Politicizing U.S. Refugee Policy toward North Korea”,YaleJournal of International Affairs 1:2 (Winter-Spring 2006), 72–84.Google Scholar
  18. 43.
    “US accepts six N. Korean refugees,”BBC News online, [ 4981294.stm] (accessed on 7 May 2006).Google Scholar
  19. 44.
    Kim Soo-am, “Human Rights in North Korea: An International Issue or a Sovereign Matter?,”EastAsian Review, 14:3 (Autumn 2002),29–33.Google Scholar
  20. 45.
    See Mark Mazzetti, “‘Collapse’ theory tilted U.S. policy on N. Korea,”International Herald Tribune, 28–29 October 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 46.
    Nicholas Eberstadt,The End of North Korea (Washington D.C., AEI Press, 1999), 19; For a paper relating to a more international relations perspective relating to a U.S.-led pre-emptive military and/or paramilitary strike against the DPRK, see Brendan M. Howe and Jasper Kim, “Legality, Legitimacy and Justifications for Military Action Against North Korea,”Journal of International Law & Policy, 11:2 (Spring 2005).Google Scholar
  22. 48.
    Roorsemary Foot, “Bush, China and Human Rights,”Survival 45:2 (Summer 2003), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 49.
    David Shambaugh, “China and the Korean Peninsula,”The Washington Quarterly 26:2 (2003), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 50.
    Jaeho Hwang, “Northeast Asia’s Pandora’s Box: North Korean Escapees,”The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, XVI:1 (Spring 2004), 57–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaeho Hwang
  • Kim Jasper

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations