In the dim light of a crowded basement in China, Yeonmi Park whispered stories of her homeland to fellow escapees. “I had no words for freedom,” she said, recalling her life in North Korea (Park, 2015). Her story is not just a personal testament to survival but a chilling reminder of a nation where human rights are systematically denied. North Korea’s record of abuses has led to global sanctions and diplomatic isolation, raising critical questions: How effective are these tools in addressing human rights violations, and do they bring about meaningful change?
Human rights violations encompass abuses such as genocide, torture, forced labour, and suppression of freedoms. The international community often responds to such violations through sanctions—economic, financial, or travel restrictions—and diplomatic pressure, including negotiations, public denunciations, or expulsion from global forums. These measures aim to pressure regimes to reform and deter future abuses. However, their efficacy remains contested.
North Korea’s decades-long defiance provides a critical lens through which to examine the effectiveness of such global responses. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is a hermit kingdom where political dissent is met with executions, entire families are punished for one member’s perceived disloyalty, and over 120,000 people languish in political prison camps (United Nations, 2014). The 2014 United Nations Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in the DPRK compared these abuses to crimes against humanity (United Nations, 2014). The international community’s response has been significant yet fraught with challenges.
The Case of North Korea
Sanctions against North Korea began in the 1950s and intensified after its first nuclear test in 2006. The United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and other actors have implemented wide-ranging sanctions targeting the regime’s nuclear ambitions and human rights abuses. These include restrictions on trade in coal, textiles, and seafood—key revenue sources for the regime. Financial sanctions have frozen the assets of key leaders and entities, while travel bans have restricted the movement of officials linked to human rights abuses (U.N. Panel of Experts, 2021).
North Korea’s strict control over information prevents citizens from accessing external perspectives, making it easier for the state to maintain ideological dominance. The regime punishes the possession of foreign media—particularly South Korean and Western content—with harsh imprisonment or even execution, ensuring that dissenting ideas never take root. Similarly, the absence of civil society organisations means that there are no independent labour unions, advocacy groups, or grassroots movements to voice public grievances or mobilise collective action. Without these mechanisms, citizens remain isolated, unable to organise or challenge the government’s authority.
To counter this, major foreign powers bear a significant responsibility in ensuring access to independent media and information channels while supporting internal pressure groups that could drive change from within. Efforts to smuggle external information, such as foreign radio broadcasts and digital content, alongside covert support for underground networks, could help break the regime’s monopoly on truth and empower citizens to resist repression.
Sanctions often exacerbate suffering among ordinary citizens while leaving the elite relatively unscathed. Reports by Amnesty International highlight how food shortages, worsened by trade restrictions, have led to malnutrition affecting 40% of the population (Amnesty International, 2020). The regime has developed sophisticated methods to circumvent sanctions. This includes illegal oil transfers, cyberattacks to steal cryptocurrency (around $1 billion in 2022, according to Chainalysis, and front companies in China (Chainalysis, 2023). Differences in how countries enforce sanctions weaken their effectiveness. For example, China and Russia have been criticised for being lenient in enforcing U.N. sanctions (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
Diplomatic efforts have included U.N. resolutions, high-profile summits, and public denunciations. Over 20 resolutions since 2006 have condemned North Korea’s actions. High-profile summits, such as those between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, aimed at denuclearisation and improving human rights conditions. The U.N. Commission of Inquiry’s 2014 report explicitly called for referring North Korean leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC). While these measures have raised awareness, tangible outcomes remain elusive. China and Russia have vetoed the U.N. General Assembly's repeated calls for ICC referrals (United Nations, 2014). Summits have produced symbolic gestures but little substantive progress, as seen in the collapse of the 2019 Hanoi summit (BBC, 2019).
The United Nations Commission of Inquiry’s report significantly increased international awareness of North Korea’s human rights abuses, leading to stronger sanctions and more vocal advocacy by civil society. Sanctions have curtailed revenue streams critical to the regime’s nuclear and military programs. U.S. intelligence reports suggest that resource constraints delayed missile development projects in 2020 (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020). Diplomatic pressure has fostered greater regional security coordination among South Korea, Japan, and the United States, indirectly addressing some of the regime’s destabilising behaviours.
However, North Korea’s leadership remains insulated from external pressure. The regime’s tight control over information and resources limits the impact of sanctions and diplomatic efforts on its decision-making. The population suffers disproportionately, with international aid often restricted. The World Food Programme estimates that 10.7 million North Koreans are in urgent need of food assistance (World Food Programme, 2022). The lack of enforcement and unity among international actors weakens the credibility of sanctions and diplomatic efforts. A 2023 Human Rights Watch report noted that inconsistent application of sanctions undermines their deterrent value (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
The effectiveness of sanctions and diplomatic pressure varies across contexts. Comprehensive sanctions during the apartheid era in South Africa, coupled with global diplomatic ostracism, were instrumental in dismantling the regime. Similarly, sustained international pressure on Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir led to his indictment by the ICC and eventual removal from power in 2019 (International Criminal Court, 2019). Targeted sanctions against the military junta in Myanmar had mixed results, with temporary reforms reversed following the 2021 coup (Amnesty International, 2021). A combination of sanctions and diplomacy, as seen in the 2015 JCPOA with Iran, achieved a temporary halt to nuclear proliferation but failed to address human rights issues comprehensively (U.S. Department of State, 2015). These cases underscore that the success of global responses depends on tailored strategies, multilateral cooperation, and sustained engagement.
Conclusion
Sanctions and diplomatic pressure remain essential tools for addressing human rights violations, but their effectiveness is contingent on several factors. Holistic approaches are crucial. Sanctions should be complemented by humanitarian aid and efforts to empower civil society within oppressive regimes. For North Korea, increased support for defectors and enhanced broadcasting of external information could weaken the regime’s control. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms and ensuring robust international coordination, particularly with key players like China and Russia, is necessary to enhance the credibility and impact of sanctions. Change in deeply entrenched regimes requires patience and persistence. Short-term metrics often fail to capture the incremental progress achieved through sustained pressure. Innovative tactics, such as leveraging emerging technologies like blockchain to prevent illicit financial flows and cyber diplomacy to counter the regime’s hacking activities, could also bolster efforts. If the regime is sustaining itself through illegal activities—such as arms smuggling, cyber theft, and illicit trade—then targeted measures are crucial to disrupt these revenue streams. A crackdown on its business flow networks, including stricter monitoring of financial intermediaries, increased scrutiny on front companies, and tighter controls on cryptocurrency transactions, can weaken the regime’s ability to bypass sanctions. Additionally, imposing direct pressure on entities that facilitate North Korea’s illicit trade—such as foreign shipping firms and shadow banking networks—can further isolate the regime. Coordinated global action, including intelligence-sharing and legal action against violators, is essential to counter these activities and push the country toward a less regressive stance.
The case of North Korea illustrates both the potential and limitations of global responses to human rights violations. While sanctions and diplomatic pressure have constrained the regime, their impact on improving human rights remains limited. Other examples, such as the role of international pressure in ending Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile, demonstrate the necessity of long-term, multifaceted approaches. A recalibrated strategy—one that balances pressure with engagement and prioritizes the well-being of affected populations—is crucial. Continuous diplomatic engagement with the regime, coupled with external support for its population, could gradually integrate North Korea into the global community. Facilitating humanitarian aid, educational exchanges, and people-to-people interactions might reduce the regime’s isolation and create internal openings for reform. However, such efforts require coordinated actions among major global powers, ensuring that engagement is strategic and does not inadvertently strengthen the regime’s control. As Yeonmi Park’s story reminds us, behind every policy decision is millions of lives yearning for freedom and dignity. Addressing their plight demands not just action but also compassion and resolve.
By Khushi Maheshwari
I am Khushi Maheshwari, a 3rd-year Political Science student with a passion for international relations and geopolitical diplomacy. I aim to make a difference in the world through my words, offering insights and contributing to the global discourse.
References
Amnesty International. (2020). North Korea: How sanctions hurt ordinary people. Amnesty International.
Amnesty International. (2021). Myanmar: The role of international pressure in addressing human rights violations. Amnesty International.
BBC. (2019). Hanoi summit collapse: Why did Trump and Kim fail to reach agreement?. BBC News.
Chainalysis. (2023). North Korea's cryptocurrency theft: Trends and impact. Chainalysis.
Human Rights Watch. (2023). The effectiveness of sanctions in North Korea. Human Rights Watch.
International Criminal Court. (2019). Omar al-Bashir and the impact of international pressure. ICC.
Park, Y. (2015). In order to live: A North Korean girl’s journey to freedom. Penguin Books.
U.N. Panel of Experts. (2021). Report on sanctions and North Korea. United Nations.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). North Korea: Impact of sanctions on military development. U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. Department of State. (2015). The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. U.S. Department of State.
United Nations. (2014). Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. United Nations Human Rights Council.
World Food Programme. (2022). North Korea: Food security and humanitarian assistance. World Food Programme.
תגובות