Intercultural Dialogue and Human Rights in North Korea

2019 ◽  
pp. 118-147
2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Sue Lee

North Korea conducted 2nd nuclear test on May 25, 2009. It made a vicious circle and continued military tension on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea regime got a question on the effectiveness of the six party talks and ‘security-economy exchange model’. In addition, the North Korea probably disappointed about the North Korea issue has been excluded from the Obama administration's policy position. So the dialogue or relationship recovery with the United States and North Korea through six-party talks or bilateral talks will be difficult for the time being. This paper examines the EU policy on North Korea. Based on the results, analyzes the EU is likely to act as a balancer on the Korean Peninsula. Through the procedure of deepening and expanding the economic and political unification, the EU utilizes their cooperative policies towards North Korea as an ideal opportunity to realize their internal value and to confirm the commonness within the EU members. The acceleration of the EU's unification, however, began to focus on human rights, and this made their official relationship worse. Yet, the EU is continuously providing food as wells as humanitarian and technological support to North Korea regardless of the ongoing nuclear and human rights issues in North Korea. Also, the number of multinational corporations investing in North Korea for the purpose of preoccupying resources and key industries at an individual nation's level has been increasing. The European Union has unique structure which should follow the way of solving the problem of member states like subsidiary principle. It appears to conflict between normative power of the European Union and strategic interests on member states. This paper examines if the European Union is useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation in the near future.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-203
Author(s):  
Patricia GOEDDE

AbstractThis article asks how legal mechanisms are employed outside of North Korea to achieve human rights diffusion in the country; to what extent these result in human rights diffusion in North Korea; and whether measures beyond accountability can be pursued in tandem for more productive engagement. Specifically, it examines how the North Korean government has interacted with the globalized legal regime of human rights vis-à-vis the UN and details the legal processes and implications of the UN Commission of Inquiry report, including domestic legislation, and evidence collection. While transnational legal mobilization has gathered momentum on the accountability side, it is significantly weaker in terms of achieving human rights protection within North Korea given the government’s perception of current human rights discourse as part of an externally produced war repertoire. Thus, efforts to engage the North Korean population and government require concurrent reframing of human rights discourse into more localized and relatable contexts.


2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Palazzani

L’articolo analizza, nella prospettiva filosofica, i percorsi intrapresi dalla bioetica in rapporto al pluralismo culturale, discutendo criticamente i principali orientamenti di pensiero del dibattito attuale. Il punto di partenza è l’imperialismo culturale, quale posizione etnocentrica che assolutizza la cultura (ritenuta, in modo unilaterale, la migliore) marginalizzando le altre. L’orientamento opposto è quello del relativismo culturale che considera la bioetica il prodotto storico-sociale della cultura di appartenenza, proponendo il principio di tolleranza inteso nel senso di sopportazione pragmatica di ogni cultura, ritenuta equivalente rispetto a qualsiasi altra. Alla luce delle incongruenze dell’imperialismo culturale (che finisce con imporre arbitrariamente la propria come la cultura dominante) e del relativismo culturale (che accettando acriticamente ogni cultura non evita anzi acuisce i conflitti e porta alla separazione delle culture), l’articolo cerca le linee argomentative per giustificare una prospettiva bioetica trans-culturale (nell’orizzonte dei diritti umani fondamentali) che consenta il dialogo interculturale in bioetica come ricerca costruttiva dell’integrazione tra le culture nella ricerca della verità comune nel riconoscimento della dignità umana. ---------- The article analyses, in a philosophical perspective, the bioethical theories as regards cultural pluralism, discussing in a critical way the must important trends of actual debate. It identifies cultural imperialism as the ethnocentrical perspective which makes one culture as absolute (considered the best one), marginalizing the other cultures. As opposite trend, the articles discusses cultural relativism which considers bioethics as an historical and social product of a culture, emphasizing tolerance as a pragmatic principle of acceptance of every culture, without condition. In the light of the objections to imperialism (which impose in an arbitrary way one culture as the best one) and cultural relativism (which accepts any culture without condition with conflicts and separation of cultures as consequences) the article looks for arguments able to justify a transcultural bioethics (in the perspective of fundamental human rights) which permits intercultural dialogue in bioethics as a constructive research of integration of cultures in search of a common truth recognized in respect of human dignity.


Author(s):  
Antonio Perez-Estevez

Which political and juridical foundation can justify the transit from the Western, particular, to the universal? John Rawls tries to answer this question in his article, "The Law of Peoples," proposing a kind of contract or agreement. A first agreement should be attained among liberal-democratic societies on a few political and social issues such as human rights. Then this agreement can be widened to non-liberal/democratic but well organized hierarchical societies or those that satisfy the requisites of being peaceful, of having a reasonably well organized legal system, of admitting a measure of freedom-political and religious-and of admitting the right of emigration. These two groups of nations would belong to a Society of Nations with the juridical and political duty of fulfilling the few political issues that have been previously accepted. But Rawls' proposal overcomes neither eurocentrism nor western-centrism. It seems that the first circle of liberal democratic nations would decide which peoples satisfy the requirements of the 'well organized hierarchical societies.' This second circle of nations are only invited peoples; they are not supposed to contribute new proposals, but only to accept the proposals of the liberal-democratic nations. I present a new effort to attain human rights through a true universal dialogue in which the representatives of all cultures and peoples can equally speak, make proposals, and listen or accept the proposals of others.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document