The Justice of Intervening in North Korea The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, commonly known as North Korea to the United States, has effectively existed as a hermit kingdom since the end of the Korean War in 1953. A cease-fire was signed and the DMZ of the 38th parallel became the tentative boundary dividing the North from the South. South Korea has enjoyed economic prosperity and liberal democracy in the past several decades, but the North Korean government exercises strict totalitarian rule over the nation’s economy and citizens. While the full extent of the North Korean regimes’ human rights abuses against its own citizens is not fully known, a Human Rights Watch insists that “abuses within North Korea are without parallel in the
…show more content…
This is clearly true. Today, when we look back at the atrocities the Nazi’s committed against the Jewish people, we don’t just condemn the Nazi leaders; we also condemn the German citizens who stood back and allowed genocide to commence. We condemn the world leaders who remained neutral, or waited until the last minute to intervene and stop the worst genocide in human history. By comparing the circumstances surrounding a potential international intervention to depose the North Korean regime to the principles of just war articulated in Seyom Brown’s The Just War Tradition, we can evaluate whether such an intervention would be just. If the ad bellum “just cause” justifications for war were the only metric for deciding the justice of an intervention in North Korea, then the war would certainly be just. But the resulting massive loss of life and probable inability of coalition forces to build a stable North Korean society in the aftermath of war means that an intervention in North Korea would lead to an unjust outcome. In The Aftermath of War, Michael Walzer argued, “an unjust war can lead to a just outcome, and an unjust war can lead to a just outcome” (Walzer). The unjust outcome of an intervention in North Korea means that the war itself …show more content…
Among the principles of “just cause” that make up Brown’s discussion of justice, an intervention into North Korea would meet three of his criteria: humanitarian intervention, right intention, and proper authority. Walzer describes the state of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to be, in its weak form, “members of the international community may intervene in the domestic affairs of other states, with force if necessary, to prevent or rectify gross violations of human rights” and its current articulation in its strongest form, “the doctrine of humanitarian intervention obligates members of the international community to come to the aid of those whose human rights have been repressed or ignored by the government in power” (Brown). As detailed in the reports drafted by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International , and the UN Commission, the North Korean regime continues to engage in gross crimes against humanity within their borders. By any interpretation of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, the current actions of the North Korean government would justify a war to oust the government and prevent the further subjugation of the North Korean people. But the justification ends there, and using the humanitarian doctrine as an excuse for territorial expansion or increasing American hegemony in East Asia would
This is clearly true. Today, when we look back at the atrocities the Nazi’s committed against the Jewish people, we don’t just condemn the Nazi leaders; we also condemn the German citizens who stood back and allowed genocide to commence. We condemn the world leaders who remained neutral, or waited until the last minute to intervene and stop the worst genocide in human history. By comparing the circumstances surrounding a potential international intervention to depose the North Korean regime to the principles of just war articulated in Seyom Brown’s The Just War Tradition, we can evaluate whether such an intervention would be just. If the ad bellum “just cause” justifications for war were the only metric for deciding the justice of an intervention in North Korea, then the war would certainly be just. But the resulting massive loss of life and probable inability of coalition forces to build a stable North Korean society in the aftermath of war means that an intervention in North Korea would lead to an unjust outcome. In The Aftermath of War, Michael Walzer argued, “an unjust war can lead to a just outcome, and an unjust war can lead to a just outcome” (Walzer). The unjust outcome of an intervention in North Korea means that the war itself …show more content…
Among the principles of “just cause” that make up Brown’s discussion of justice, an intervention into North Korea would meet three of his criteria: humanitarian intervention, right intention, and proper authority. Walzer describes the state of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to be, in its weak form, “members of the international community may intervene in the domestic affairs of other states, with force if necessary, to prevent or rectify gross violations of human rights” and its current articulation in its strongest form, “the doctrine of humanitarian intervention obligates members of the international community to come to the aid of those whose human rights have been repressed or ignored by the government in power” (Brown). As detailed in the reports drafted by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International , and the UN Commission, the North Korean regime continues to engage in gross crimes against humanity within their borders. By any interpretation of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, the current actions of the North Korean government would justify a war to oust the government and prevent the further subjugation of the North Korean people. But the justification ends there, and using the humanitarian doctrine as an excuse for territorial expansion or increasing American hegemony in East Asia would