ABSTRACT
During the last decade, the term R2P has been included in a number of resolutions. The UNSC has reaffirmed this concept in thematic resolutions and has referred it to numerous countries’ situations. However, it is noteworthy that with the exception of the DPRK, the third pillar of R2P has only been invoked when there is an existing or imminent conflict. Therefore, even though there is still a lot of work to do and many situations like Tibet, for instance, remain almost totally ignored, the author considers ‘positive’ the fact that, for the first time, the R2P has been invoked for a ‘peacetime’ situation. This can represent a ‘widening’ of the R2P concept that has, so far, only been invoked and applied to mass atrocity situations related to armed conflicts. It represents a new awareness of the fact that long-term situations that involve crimes against humanity, but do not rise to the level of armed conflict like North Korea, can be in the long-term, equally destructive. In any case, the author considers the UN response through R2P to the North Korean situation as ‘weak’. The COI’s Report, in its conclusions, stated that ‘the international community must accept its R2P the people of the DPRK from crimes against humanity because the North Korean government has manifestly failed to do so’.32 It called upon the international community to impose targeted sanctions, to ensure that those responsible for the crimes against humanity committed in the DPRK were held accountable, and to reinforce a human right dialogue. However, UN sanctions against North Korea have achieved, so far, almost nothing and the DPRK continues to be a champion in gross human rights violations. Finally, the author disagrees with the COI’s Report conclusion on the possibility of
