Argumentation, Impact, and Normative Change: Responsibility to Protect after the Commission of Inquiry Report into Human Rights in North Korea

in Global Responsibility to Protect
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In 2014 a unhrc report found North Korea was practicing mass atrocities, contravening the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm, and it called for sanctions and referral of the matter to the International Criminal Court. This paper assesses the report’s impact upon ‘the matter of human rights in North Korea’ and upon the R2P norm itself. We find that when a relatively ‘demanding’ standard is applied, whereby R2P is judged to be effective only if it affects the actual human rights situation, the report has had little impact. But judging impact according to a more ‘forgiving’ standard suggests the report has substantially affected international debates about human rights in North Korea. We also argue that the report affected the R2P norm itself: specifically, Pillars i and ii are now considered relevant in cases of ‘chronic’ abuse, although strong opposition to the position that Pillar iii measures are also relevant remains strong.

Argumentation, Impact, and Normative Change: Responsibility to Protect after the Commission of Inquiry Report into Human Rights in North Korea

in Global Responsibility to Protect

Sections

References

2

Kofi Annan‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty’The Economist18 September 1999.

3

Francis Deng and Roberta CohenMasses in Flight: The Global Crisis of Internal Displacement (Washington: Brookings1998).

8

Jennifer Welsh‘The Responsibility to Prevent: Assessing the Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality’Cooperation and Conflict 51:2 (2016) 217.

17

Thomas Risse‘Let’s Argue: Communicative Action in World Politics’International Organisation 54:1 (2000) 7.

18

Wayne Sandholtz‘Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules Against Wartime Plunder’European Journal of International Relations 14:1 (2008) 103–104.

20

Sandholtz‘Dynamics’106–109.

23

Alex J. Bellamy‘The Responsibility to Protect Turns Ten’Ethics & International Affairs 29:2 (2015) 163.

55

Bellamy‘A Chronic Protection Problem’237.

77

Zifcak SpencerUnited Nations Reform: Heading North Or South? (New York: Routledge2009) 77.

87

Alan Bloomfield‘Norm Antipreneurs and Theorising Resistance to Normative Change’Review of International Studies 42:2 (2016) 322–326.

88

Shirley V. Scott‘International Law as Ideology: Theorizing the Relationship between International Law and International Politics’European Journal of International Law 5:1 (1994) 313–25.

94

Barnett and Duvall‘Power in International Politics’48–52.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 53 53 25
Full Text Views 156 156 73
PDF Downloads 10 10 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0