MichaelKirby

I am glad that you have been following closely the findings of the COI report. I hope that you will consider the ways in which (now there is a Korean translation of the short report, shortly to be supplemented by a translation of the factual findings) you can make the report available to fellow Koreans in North Korea. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) is one of the most advanced digital economies in the world. There must be a way by which it would be possible to make the report of the COI available to every person in North Korea who has access to the intranet of that country. Please consider what can be done. The people of North Korea have a right, so far denied to them, to know what the COI of the United Nations has found concerning their country and the officials of the government and military of DPRK.

It is true that amongst the recommendations of the COI, the suggestion of referral of the question of North Korea to the ICC was one of the most important. This, objectively, should be done. It would signal to North Korea and the world that they must change and quickly. Nothing else has a prospect of such an immediate impact on thinking. Any such prosecution would put severe limitations on international movements of any named North Korean officials. It could have implications for further sanctions on relevant international financial transactions engaged in by or for such persons. Although some heads of state claim impunity (at least during the time they serve as heads of state) from prosecution for international crimes, international law does not recognise impunity in the case of the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity. Indeed, such crimes are crimes of universal jurisdiction. Although the COI on DPRK held back from finding a case suitable for prosecution on the grounds of genocide in the case of North Korea (because the traditional definition of genocide relates to destruction of people on the ground of ethnicity, nationality, race or religion) (North Korea's destruction of people is fundamentally based on grounds of actual or imputed political belief) the finding of a case suitable for prosecution on the ground of crimes against humanity is itself a most grave finding. It demands action of the United Nations. It enlivens the United Nations principle of the Responsibility to Protect. The United Nations cannot simply stand idly by and fail to fulfil its responsibility, given that North Korea cannot be relied upon to protect its citizens from such grave crimes.

It is important to understand that the international community is at a critical stage in the evolution of its responses to the most serious international crimes: including genocide and crimes against humanity. This is a testing time for the world and its people. But at least now we have established the principles of international criminal law. We have also established the ICC to uphold that law where the court has jurisdiction and a prosecutor determines that a prosecution should be undertaken and where the ICC is convinced, on the basis of the evidence, that proof is established beyond reasonable doubt that the named suspect is guilty of such crimes. By reference to past human history, we have made important progress in the last 60 years. The essential question presented by the grave human rights violations revealed in the report of the COI on DPRK is whether effective and prompt action will be taken. If it is, that will send an important signal not only to the oppressive officials in DPRK. The same signal will be heard around the world by oppressors and autocrats. This is the way effective rule of law was established originally in those countries that enjoy that fundamental right. It is the way the human species must ensure that the international community operates in defence of universal human rights and in defence of international peace and security. The two are intimately connected. Particularly, one might say, in the case of North Korea because of its possession of weapons of mass destruction and instability.

I don't think it is immoral to go to North Korea as a tourist. But it does not really help the human rights situation very much. May be meeting foreigners will break down the hatred against many of them. But tourists must understand that they will be under strict control. They will not be able to go far from their hotels and they will be constantly in the presence of their ‘’guides’’. This is not really tourism. It is controlled visits designed only to raise foreign currency, most of which will go to support the elite, not the ordinary people. That is the good thing about tourism. Meeting ordinary people and finding that we share so much in common, including our universal human rights.

Curiously enough, I found most of the cases I sat in as an appellate judge (1984-2009) extremely interesting. My problem was not falling asleep on the bench. It was hyperventilation! Judging is a great responsibility but a very interesting job.

As to the decision to pursue a life in the public sector rather than make more money in the private sector, I grew up as a law student and legal practitioner in an age in which it was an enormous privilege in Australia to be invited to become a judge. I was a good advocate; but I think I was better at judging. I valued the opportunity to fulfil the trust of the parties and the community that I would decide the cases independently and fairly and then explain my reasons in language that they could understand, even if they did not agree. These are the experiences that I brought to bear in the work I performed, with my colleagues, in the COI on North Korea. I chose the profession of law when I was at school. This was mainly because I was much better at subjects like history, English and debating than I was at mathematics. There are three books written on my life and if you are really interested you can find reference to them on my website. But I suggest you probably have more important things to read! Including the report of the COI on North Korea!

(edit added links)

Good luck for your studies. Always remain idealistic about our world and its people.

The world can help by getting engaged with the report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI). And writing to politicians (especially foreign ministers) to insist that they should support the recommendations, including the one for referral of the case of North Korea to the international criminal court.

It is now up to the nation states to consider what should be done. Reports suggest that North Korea has 20 nuclear armed weapons and missile delivery systems. There is therefore a matter of urgency and I believe that the international community understands this. The issues of peace and security are already on the agenda of the Security Council. What is needed is not a new resolution as such but an extension of the mandate that is already before the Security Council. It has the ultimate responsibility for the peace and security of the world. China, which is a key to the solution to the predicament of North Korea, is a great country, a mighty civilisation, most important economy and, as a permanent member of the Security Council has been extremely prudent in the use of the so-called veto. It has only invoked that privilege on nine occasions. I believe, and am hopeful, that wise leadership on the part of the permanent members of the Security Council will produce an effective response to the shocking revelations in the report of the COI. Simply to oppose and ignore the report because, generally, a country is opposed to country specific mandates is not an adequate response now that the report has been produced pursuant to the decision of the Human Rights Council (HRC). Nor is it sufficient to say that the COI report cannot be accepted because the COI was unable to persuade the country concerned (DPRK) to cooperate. This is to give all member countries of the United Nations and effective veto over human rights investigations decided by the HRC. That is not a correct understanding Of the Charter. The veto is confined to the Security Council and then is subject to the provisions Of the Charter.