A Legal Examination of the Sanctions against North Korea & Iran for their Nuclear Program

Abstract

The United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and security, following the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II. However, the subsequent Cold War presented significant security challenges, particularly on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean War outbreak in 1950 heightened North Koreas concerns for its survival. Furthermore, the presence of US nuclear weapons in the region played a pivotal role in motivating North Korea to pursue its own nuclear program. Despite facing sanctions resolutions from the Security Council in response to its nuclear tests, North Koreas nuclear program continues to advance. In contrast, the Iranian nuclear case, which was concurrently addressed by the Security Council, produced different outcomes. Iran, facing international criticism and sanctions against its nuclear program, engaged in negotiations that ultimately led to the adoption of the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015. This stark contrast raises questions about legal obstacles that prevented the UN sanctions regime from achieving similar results in the North Korean case. It also prompts the question of whether the UN sanctions imposed on North Korea can be deemed an unsuccessful experience. When considering the effectiveness and success of UN sanctions, it is important to distinguish between their design and implementation stages. The focus of the present thesis is on the legal challenges that emerge during the implementation phase. In this regard, I analyze those factors that impede the success of UN sanctions in two key aspects: i) ensuring the humanitarian rights of the population in the target state, and ii) exerting sufficient pressure on the target state. Given their relevance to the field of international legal studies, this research will primarily concentrate only on three factors that negatively impact the potential success of UN sanctions: i. unilateral/autonomous sanctions; ii. sanctions evasion by the target state and, iii. third states role in sanctions evasion. Other factors that will briefly be introduced in chapter 3 are not analyzed in this thesis because they are more related to research studies in constitutional law, politics, or international relations. Following an analysis on the illegality of individual states unilateral sanctions in response to violations of international peace and security, the focus shifts to discussing whether these unilateral measures can be considered lawful countermeasures according to international law. The main contention put forth in this thesis is that the unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) in relation to the nuclear issues concerning North Korea and Iran failed to meet the essential legal criteria to qualify as lawful countermeasures. The argument posits that these sanctions divert countries from fully complying with UNSC sanctions, resulting in detrimental humanitarian effects on the population in the target state. Next, I delve into the magnitude of pressure applied to target states and evaluate the impact of sanctions evasion techniques to reduce this pressure. As the target state cannot circumvent sanctions on its own and there are third entities to assist it, I examine how third countries can provide escape routes for the target state in this way. The continuous advancements in DPRKs nuclear program and its defiance of international pressure indicate its refusal to comply with UNSC resolutions. This raises questions regarding the legal grounds for UN resolutions following North Koreas withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Since it is no longer a Member State, it is crucial to examine whether it has violated any other legal rule beyond those stipulated in the NPT. Consequently, a comprehensive analysis of DPRKs nuclear activities through the lens of the ICJ in its 1996 advisory opinion on nuclear weapons becomes necessary. This paper focuses in particular on economic sanctions that can cause humanitarian suffering to the population of the target country. In the context of unilateral sanctions, the thesis examines the economic measures imposed by the US and the EU. Their economic measures have a broader impact compared to sanctions imposed by other countries. This is because the US and the EU are major economic powers with substantial influence on international trade. The thesis is structured into different sections based on the foregoing. In Chapter 1, an introduction to the thesis is provided, delineating its framework, research objectives, significance, legal literature, etc. Chapter 2 conducts a historical study on nuclear cases in North Korea and Iran to identify similarities and differences in the historical procedure of their nuclear programs. Chapter 3 examines the legal status of unilateral/autonomous sanctions of individual states and their negative impact on the potential success of UN sanctions with particular attention to humanitarian concerns. Chapter 4 analyzes the ICJs advisory opinion as an insight for legal assessment of North Koreas nuclear activities, acting as a vital link between chapters 3 and 5. Chapter 5 examines the pressure of sanctions on target states, and sanctions evasion techniques. Furthermore, the involvement of third countries in facilitating or participating in these evasion activities is also scrutinized. Chapter 6 which is the final chapter in the thesis presents conclusion, highlighting implementation problems of the UN sanctions on North Korea and offering solutions to mitigate their effects. My suggestion emphasizes the proactive involvement of legal bodies within the UN system in the decision-making process concerning the interpretation of its sanctions. The primary aim of the suggestion is to enhance the legal comprehension of the sanctions scope and precise implications, thereby fostering coordinated implementation among the Member States. By doing so, it aims to significantly reduce the legal loopholes or discrepancies that could be exploited by the target state to evade the impact of the sanctions.