Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was labelled as axis of evil by President Bush in 2002. On one hand, DPRK has been developing missile programmes and nuclear weapons, on the other hand, they maintain the network and link to so-called rogue state and non-state actors such as Iran, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Burma. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1718 and 1874 in response to North Korea’s first nuclear tests in 2006 and second one in 2009. Nevertheless, DPRK allegedly attacked South Korean Navy warship and killed 46 of its sailors on 26 March 2010, fired artillery shells at South Korea’s Yeonpyeong island and killed 4 people on 23 November 2010.
DPRK has been posing threat to international peace and security, disobeying the SC resolutions with showing defiance and perversity, and continuing its brinkmanship. Nonetheless, international community cannot conduct pre-emptive attack on them, insofar as necessity of attack and imminence of threat are proved as evidences. ‘In other words, a state may not military action against another state when an attack is only a hypothetical possibility, and not yet in progress—even in the case of weapons of mass destruction’ (O'Connell, 2002:11). Bush administration failed to prove it, therefore many states considered Operation Iraqi Freedom as unlawful attack, and rejected to accept the operation.
Even though Sofaer (2003:226) advocates that ‘[p]re-emption must be considered responsibly, on a case-by-case basis, but it remains one aspect of every government’s duty to protect its people’, approval or concession of pre-emptive attack as well as preventive one leads to necessarily wreak grave threat in international community. That is because rogue states such as DPRK would justify their use of force in the name of pre-emptive self-defence, learning from Bush doctrine and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The principle is that state(s) should exhaust peaceful alternatives before resorting to use of force.
O’Connell (2002:17-18) argues that ‘[i]f the Bush administration has convincing evidence of any serious threat to it from Iraq, it would stand a good chance of getting Security Council authorization to use force’. That might be true, however at least UN or the Security Council require a mechanism where member states have to prove the convincing evidence of threat posed on them as well as intelligence to other member states or Security Council. Insofar as such a mechanism is not established, pre-emptive attack and preventive use of force could not be legal military action.
Seven months after adopting UNSCR 1874, the South Korean warship was sunken allegedly by DPRK and 46 sailors were killed. Then, eight months later, North Korea attacked by bombs on the Yeonpyeong island of South Korea. International peace and security is jeopardized by a rogue country. The authoritarian North Korea is currently centred in rogue connection with Iran, Syria, possibly Burma and Hezbollah. Therefore, analysis of DPRK’s brinkmanship is productive for international community to deal with rogue state and non-state actor.
The Banco Delta Asia (BDA) case implies significant lessons. Firstly, coercive measure of criminalization such as the section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act is powerful, useful and influential to be imposed on targeted state. Secondly, the coercive sanction should be imposed on independently. Being separated from diplomacy, the measure would function much effectively. Thirdly, coercive measure of criminalization should not be legislated by only powerful country, but must be legislated and implemented by member states of international community in order to enhance the power and efficacy of the sanction. The lessons are true to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the United Nations regime. The member states and participants of PSI currently operate on voluntary basis under the international law and domestic laws. If the PSI strongly recommends its member states and participants to legislate coercive measure of criminalization, it is assumed that the achievement of PSI operation would be successfully increasing.
As to dealing with North Korea particularly, People's Republic of China (PRC) ’s commitment is indispensable for international peace and security. Needless to say sincere implementation of UNSCRs, China must participate in the PSI and legislate coercive measure of criminalization. As demonstrated in the BDA case, coercive measure is damaging in the authoritarian state. Considering the fact that the dear leader, Kim Jong-il bribes and rewards the cadres and security forces, targeted coercive sanction on those high ranked members is the most effective. Again, DPRK is the core of rogue network. Accordingly to be concluded, coercive measure of criminalization is crucial strategy for international community to deal with not only North Korea but also other rogue states.
Reference
- Byman, D. and Lind, J. 2010. Pyongyong’s survival strategy tools of authoritarian control in North Korea. International Security, 35(1). pp. 44-74.
- O’Connell, M, E. 2002. The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense. The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, Task Force Papers, pp. 1-21. Available from: http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf
- Sofaer, Abraham. D. 2003. On the Necessity of Pre-emption. European Journal of International Law, 14(2), pp. 209-226.
Notice: Except for direct citations, this article also includes some ideas asserted by other scholars. However, this page is not for academic purpose but just for a weblog, therefore the author curtails of referring all of the books, articles and documents.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿