Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since the 1990s, there have been diverse debates on North Korean human rights problems in international society. As of now, it is clear that North Korea is not immune from the charges on its human rights violations in vast areas. But the diverse discourses surrounding the North Korean human rights issue reflects the politics of competing claims differed in the conceptions of human rights, the proper scope of specific contents of human rights, how to implement internationally, etc. We attempted to identify the specific positions involved in the ongoing debates in international society, North and South Korea concerning the above points. The positions of international society basically share the concept of universal human rights and its implementation globally, though differing in its specifics. However, international society seems to be divided over how to implement human rights globally, for example humanitarian intervention or humanitarian assistance. And the current debates in international society are led by UN, US, EU, and international NGOs, though divided in the inside of respective actors. Peoples of diverse societies respond sporadically to these debates in terms of their own respective interests, cultures, and religions. We can hardly grasp the global public opinion regarding human rights as well as North Korean human rights issue because we as yet have no international or global public spheres that we can depend on.
We also attempted to analyze the North Korean response by categorizing the positions of North Korean government, the more advantaged, and the less advantaged. The position of North Korean government opposes international intervention on the basis of a cultural conception of human rights and the sovereignty argument. Basically the more advantaged people sides with the government position even if they have different perceptions on their own human rights problems. In contrast, the less advantaged represented by �hostile class� or the residents in remote rural areas are expected to have different positions from those of the government and the more advantaged, which may be much similar to those of international societies.
In South Korea, we observed divers debates on the North Korean human rights issue that seems to include all the possible debates in international society and North Korea. But we can divide the discourse in South Korea into the conservative, progressive nationalistic and progressive liberal one. The first one prefer humanitarian intervention to assistance, but the second one tends to support that of international society and the third one leans towards a more engagement to North Korean regime and its people, though the three positions respectively show variances in its specifics according to the actors.
Despite diverse positions in international society, North Korea, and South Korea, the most important question falls upon how to deal with the situation that is basically the question of humanitarian intervention or humanitarian assistance. Through the paper, we attempted to suggest the theoretical and practical principles including the C-W test when humanitarian intervention considered. Also we tried to justify the option of humanitarian assistance as a more practical option in view of the North Korean people who are the major victims of human rights violations, thus having a final right to say what option should be taken. Even if they have different unexpressed voices on their own human rights issue different from that of government, the North Korean people may want to take side with the gradual improvement of human rights situation rather than the drastic regime change because the latter situation is sure to bring about uncertainties accompanying enormous unintended consequences for a considerable period of time during which they fall to the victims.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The practice of humanitarian military intervention depends almost exclusively on states and regional organizations (such as NATO) to use their individual and combined military resources to halt or avert humanitarian catastrophes. However, one of the foremost difficulties in the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention has been mustering the political will and military resources needed to undertake this demanding task when and where it is needed. The world’s military recourses are finite and, in the case of the USA, increasingly spread thin as a result of the “global war on terror.” Furthermore, unless they have a compelling national security interest at stake, states are extremely reluctant to pay the high price in blood and treasure that is often required to stop large-scale humanitarian catastrophes. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibilities for private military companies (PMCs) to undertake humanitarian interventions in an era when states are increasingly unwilling or unable to do so. While contracting certain military functions out to private firms by states is not a new phenomenon, the use of PMCs as agents of humanitarian intervention nevertheless raises a number of legal and ethical concerns. I ultimately argue that using PMCs as agents of humanitarian intervention would be highly problematic, primarily (but not exclusively) because of the profit-driven nature of PMCs and issues concerning their accountability under international law.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The participation of NGOs and Non-State Actors in the recent developments of international humanitarian law (IHL) has been described as a triumph and heralding a new era of humanitarianism. Yet, it also marks a move away from a tradition of 'military skepticism' which, despite its misgivings, played a key role in the development of creating acceptable, workable IHL treaties. While humanitarians want to act as a moral limiting force against militaries, the military men who participated in the Hague and Geneva Conferences often acted as a 'realist' limiting force on the humanitarians. The paper will argue that this "conservative humanitarianism" is vital to the future of IHL and its historical influence should not be forgotten by those who desire to see the emergence of practical and workable IHL treaties.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: After the end of the Cold War, the international community increasingly responded to gross violations of human rights and violent humanitarian crises. In many cases, economic sanctions have been imposed, peacekeeping operations deployed, or humanitarian interventions carried out to address massive human suffering. At the same time, however, in at least as many cases, the international community did not respond to the same extent to such crises. Why did the international response remain selective? This paper examines the causes of selectivity that are puzzling for international relations (IR) theory. While constructivist accounts show that humanitarian norms can trigger such interventions, they are unable to explain why these same norms virtually did not lead to strong international responses in similar cases of human suffering. Rationalist approaches, on the other hand, do account for such non-interventions which they ascribe to countervailing power capabilities and cost-benefit considerations. However, rationalist approaches cannot provide explanations for interventions in crises that do not affect geostrategic or economic interests. Since constructivist and rationalist theories offer partial explanations of the puzzle--the former by demonstrating that humanitarian norms matter, the latter by providing for factors that constrain the impact of these norms--I will derive a set of variables or conditions from both accounts. I then use fuzzy set analysis to examine why and how humanitarian norms, power capabilities, economic and security interests, institutional involvement, as well as number of control variables (and combinations thereof) led to strong international responses to some humanitarian crises but not to others.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The present paper aims to confront the manifolds aspects of military “humanitarian” intervention along with the conceptualization of national sovereignty. It is argued that, among the many forms of humanitarian interventions (such as, sanctions, material assistance, aid, etc.), military intervention should always be the last resort in order to guarantee both the protection of human rights and regional stability. The discussion about intervention into a sovereign state has been for a long time an inherently part of international studies. On one hand, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty (therefore, the state-centrism perspective and the absolute refuse to external intervention without consent) and, on the other hand, the consolidation of the concept of human rights, advocating that interventions are necessary where human abuses are practiced. Merging them, in order to verify the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention in a contemporary world, has been the real challenge to many scholars in the field. In spite of this, it is imperative to bear in mind the multifarious aspects of conflictuality and humanitarian interventions in the light of the past experiences and future challenges.