Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: North Korea states 'nuclear war is unavoidable' as it declares first target will be Japan [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)48. Here's a thought: The UN should put North Korea in the dock at The Hague
Back in 1994, when it was discovered that North Korea had furtively amassed enough plutonium for two bombs, Bill Clinton's administration seriously considered invasion but was horrified at the estimated cost: $100bn and a million casualties. War was averted by the diplomacy of Jimmy Carter, who negotiated an "agreed framework", which soon collapsed and was later replaced by "six-party talks", which have stuttered on for the past 10 years. Meanwhile the military has kept processing uranium and testing missiles.
There are two ways the security council can proceed. One is emollient: give North Korea what, behind all the bluster, it really wants, namely readmission to the NPT as the sixth (or seventh, behind India) nuclear weapon power. That has already been rejected by John Kerry, and would be resisted by other states. It may, however, be the only way, short of military force, to restrain this impossible state. Readmission to the NPT with that status would at least impose on it an eventual duty to disarm (albeit a duty on which, without invasive IAEA inspections, it might cheat).
The other option is to treat North Korea's threat of nuclear war as a crime against humanity, and to refer its behaviour to the international criminal court prosecutor for investigation and potential indictment of Kim Jong-un and his generals.
Using or threatening to use nuclear weapons was declared a crime against humanity by the UN in 1984, while in 1996 the international court of justice ruled that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of (international) law", other than in "extreme circumstances of self-defence", which do not apply to North Korea's current threats of first use.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/07/north-korea-case-to-the-hague
I do not know that Kim ever leaves NK, but this may be a useful diplomatic strategy short of military action. I did not know that threatening to use nuclear weapons is a 'crime against humanity'. I'm glad that it is, just did not know that it has been so determined.
There are two ways the security council can proceed. One is emollient: give North Korea what, behind all the bluster, it really wants, namely readmission to the NPT as the sixth (or seventh, behind India) nuclear weapon power. That has already been rejected by John Kerry, and would be resisted by other states. It may, however, be the only way, short of military force, to restrain this impossible state. Readmission to the NPT with that status would at least impose on it an eventual duty to disarm (albeit a duty on which, without invasive IAEA inspections, it might cheat).
The other option is to treat North Korea's threat of nuclear war as a crime against humanity, and to refer its behaviour to the international criminal court prosecutor for investigation and potential indictment of Kim Jong-un and his generals.
Using or threatening to use nuclear weapons was declared a crime against humanity by the UN in 1984, while in 1996 the international court of justice ruled that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of (international) law", other than in "extreme circumstances of self-defence", which do not apply to North Korea's current threats of first use.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/07/north-korea-case-to-the-hague
I do not know that Kim ever leaves NK, but this may be a useful diplomatic strategy short of military action. I did not know that threatening to use nuclear weapons is a 'crime against humanity'. I'm glad that it is, just did not know that it has been so determined.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
North Korea states 'nuclear war is unavoidable' as it declares first target will be Japan [View all]
bananas
Apr 2013
OP
Yeah, North Korea will be the target and the rest of the world will just be collateral damage.
olddad56
Apr 2013
#55
That is what I was thinking. We have been talking about banks that are too big to fail and Bernie
jwirr
Apr 2013
#23
Or better yet, hack the news broadcast to show documentaries about the survivors of...
Crowman1979
Apr 2013
#8
War makes rich people richer. That's all it does. Oh, yes, and makes PWDM dead or crippled.
valerief
Apr 2013
#11
Except for the fact that 9/11 happened, Iraq shouldn't have happened, and we're not in Iraq anymore
Renew Deal
Apr 2013
#12
Greek tragedy levels of pain if Japan were to be the country to get nuked AGAIN...
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#15
I had to google it. It's the next step up from a metropolitan area.
charlie and algernon
Apr 2013
#34
NK is unlike any other country. It is a racist religious cult which has the backing of its military
snagglepuss
Apr 2013
#39
As I read the UN's position, having a nuclear deterrent is not a 'crime against humanity', but
pampango
Apr 2013
#62
"threatening to use nuclear weapons was declared a crime against humanity by the UN"
bananas
Apr 2013
#60