DPRK (North Korea): Open Briefing on the Human Rights Situation*
Tomorrow morning (12 June), the Security Council is expected to convene for an open briefing on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) under the agenda item “The situation in the DPRK”. The meeting was requested by Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), the UK, and the US. The expected briefers are UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK Elizabeth Salmón, and a representative of civil society.
Background
The Council first discussed the human rights situation in the DPRK on 22 December 2014 following a request from the P3 (France, the UK, and the US) and then-elected Council members Australia, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the ROK, and Rwanda, which cited the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the DPRK (COI). The COI’s 7 February 2014 report concluded that systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations had been committed by the DPRK and found that many of these violations constituted crimes against humanity. Among other matters, the report recommended that the Council refer the situation in the DPRK to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and impose targeted sanctions against those most responsible for committing crimes against humanity.
The December 2014 meeting request, which also asked for “The situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” to be formally placed on the Council’s agenda “without prejudice to the item on non-proliferation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, was unsuccessfully opposed by China and Russia. (For more information, see our 19 December 2014 What’s in Blue story.) Since then, the Council’s consideration of this issue has remained contentious due to differing views among Council members as to whether human rights violations in the DPRK constitute a threat to international peace and security. China has regularly argued that the Council is not the appropriate UN forum for discussing human rights issues, that such issues should not be politicised, and that discussion of human rights in the DPRK jeopardises efforts to ease tensions and denuclearise the Korean Peninsula. Russia has adopted a similar position, together with some elected members.
Other Council members, however, have taken the view that the human rights situation in the DPRK is directly linked to international peace and security and merits attention from the Council. These members tend to argue that human rights violations perpetrated by the DPRK enable it to pursue its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programmes and often point to specific examples, such as the use of revenue generated by overseas workers from the DPRK to fund these programmes, as evidence to support their arguments.
From 2014 to 2017, the Council held an annual open briefing on the human rights situation in the DPRK featuring briefings from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and senior UN Secretariat officials. Procedural votes took place before these meetings were held because China objected to the provisional agenda. These objections were supported by Russia and some elected members. Pursuant to rule 9 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, the first item of the provisional agenda for each Council meeting is the adoption of the agenda. In accordance with established practice, the agenda is normally agreed ahead of the meeting and adopted without a vote. If the agenda cannot be agreed before the meeting and a Council member raises an objection to the provisional agenda, the Council president will call for a procedural vote on the adoption of the agenda. Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, procedural decisions of the Council require nine affirmative votes and cannot be vetoed by a permanent member.
From 2018 to 2022, the Council did not convene for an open briefing on the human rights situation in the DPRK, apparently due to a lack of sufficient support among Council members. Members who favour Council discussion of the issue instead sought to hold informal meetings on the topic. On 9 December 2022, for example, a meeting on the human rights situation in the DPRK was held under “any other business”, a standing item in closed consultations, following a request from then-Council member Albania and the US.
On 17 August 2023, the Council convened for the first open briefing on the human rights situation in the DPRK since 2017. Albania, Japan, and the US requested the meeting to discuss the links between human rights abuses and violations in the DPRK and international peace and security. Unlike previous years in which an open briefing was held, China did not object to the provisional agenda at the outset of the open briefing. Following the meeting, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield (US) delivered a joint statement on the human rights situation in the DPRK on behalf of 52 member states and the European Union (EU). The statement was signed by nine current Council members: France, Ecuador, Japan, Malta, the ROK, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the UK.
Tomorrow’s Meeting
In his briefing, Türk might refer to specific examples of human rights violations perpetrated by DPRK authorities, highlight the work being done by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to document these violations, and note that the Human Rights Council (HRC) has recently requested a comprehensive report on the human rights situation in the DPRK. Among other matters, this report will take stock of the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the COI’s 2014 report.
During a 20 March oral update to the HRC, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif said that there continues to be impunity for human rights violations perpetrated in the DPRK. She argued that accountability should be pursued outside of the DPRK and suggested that this could be achieved through referral to the ICC or national level prosecutions “in accordance with international standards under accepted principles of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction”. Türk may convey similar messages tomorrow.
Salmón’s latest report, dated 26 March, highlighted that international staff of the UN and humanitarian agencies have not been able to return to the DPRK despite the country partially reopening its international borders in August 2023. (According to media reports, the last UN staff left the DPRK in March 2021 after authorities introduced strict border control measures in January 2020 in response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.) It further noted that there is a lack of up-to-date information on the human rights situation and stated that the international community’s intense focus on security and regular security-related information from the government in the media has diverted attention from the worsening human rights conditions. The report also reiterated that Salmón is concerned that escapees from the DPRK have been forcibly repatriated from China despite repeated appeals by multiple international human rights bodies for a halt to such repatriations. The special rapporteur might highlight some of these issues at tomorrow’s meeting.
In their statements, some Council members, including the P3 and other like-minded states, are likely to express grave concern over the human rights situation in the DPRK and describe the links between human rights violations perpetrated by the government and international peace and security. Some of these members may also urge the DPRK to engage with the UN’s human rights mechanisms and call for accountability for perpetrators of violations.
China and Russia, on the other hand, are likely to reiterate their position that the human rights situation in the DPRK should not be considered by the Council. Both members might also argue that the use of sanctions has done little to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula and may express support for a draft resolution circulated by China in October 2021 that would provide sanctions relief to the DPRK if adopted.
Ambassador Joonkook Hwang (Republic of Korea) is expected to deliver a joint statement on the human rights situation in the DPRK on behalf of other member states in connection with tomorrow’s meeting.
__________________________________________________________
**Post-script (12 June, 11 am EST): China and Russia objected to the provisional agenda for the meeting and requested a procedural vote on its adoption. The provisional agenda was subsequently adopted with 12 votes in favour, two against (China and Russia), and one abstention (Mozambique).
