On the 30th, the President’s Office said of the North Korean military’s deployment to Russia, “It is a direct military threat to us to be able to gain practical combat experience and learn modern warfare tactics,” and added, “We feel the need to prepare to create and send a team to analyze the North Korean military’s activities and war situation.” “He said. The government has publicly stated that there is a need to send an observer or monitoring team to monitor North Korean military activities in Ukraine.
A high-ranking official from the President’s Office met with reporters on this day and asked whether the monitoring team would include interpreters or psychological warfare special agents needed for North Korean military newspapers, saying, “The monitoring contents will cover issues related to North Korean military psychological agitation and defection in consultation with the Ukrainian government.” “It is worth considering whether it is necessary,” he said. “It is something that can be reviewed while forming a team.” It was suggested that the monitoring group was considering interrogating North Korean prisoners captured on the battlefield and even helping them defect.
Regarding the government’s dispatch of a monitoring team, Rep. Kim Byeong-ju, the top member of the Democratic Party of Korea, said, “It is a trick to dispatch troops to avoid the consent of the National Assembly. “If it is sent without the consent of the National Assembly, we will seek various legal measures, including the impeachment of the Minister of National Defense,” he said, criticizing “newspapers on North Korean prisoners of war are dangerous acts that invite a proxy war between South and North Korea.”
Among international law experts, many were of the opinion that it would be difficult for the monitoring team to play a role in directly interrogating North Korean prisoners of war in Ukraine. A diplomatic source said, “It is the right of the warring parties to interrogate prisoners,” and added, “Korea, which did not participate in the war, has no right to interrogate or observe.” Lee Yong-ho, a professor at Yeungnam University Law School and former president of the Korean Society of International Law, said, “It would be possible to play the role of a facilitator providing interpretation.”
In addition, according to the ‘Geneva Convention’ signed in 1949, North Korean soldiers who are ‘prisoners of war’ must, in principle, be returned to their home country, North Korea, after the end of the war. However, there is a possibility that North Korean soldiers who want to go to South Korea will not be sent back to their home country as an exception. This is because, considering the reality of North Korea as a dictatorship, the international community can recognize North Korean soldiers who wish to defect as refugees rather than prisoners. The fact that North Korean residents are recognized as South Korean citizens under the Constitution may also be a factor in deciding which country to repatriate prisoners of war to. There is also a precedent in which the international community decided not to return North Korean prisoners of war to North Korea after the Korean War in 1952, out of respect for their individual wishes.
According to the current Military Supplies Management Act and the Defense Acquisition Program Act, the government can support or export weapons to foreign countries after obtaining approval from the Minister of National Defense and the Director of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration. This is different from the United States, where the government must obtain congressional approval to support or export weapons overseas. Democratic Party lawmakers proposed a bill to amend the law at the 22nd National Assembly requiring prior consent from the National Assembly before handing over weapons to conflict-affected countries, but it is pending in the National Defense Committee. If the government wants to send troops to Ukraine, it must obtain the consent of the National Assembly in accordance with Article 60, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
In the legal community, there is an opinion that the monitoring team must obtain consent from the National Assembly if dispatching troops is a prerequisite. Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, said, “If it is for information collection, it does not seem necessary to obtain the consent of the National Assembly.”
Reporter Ko Do-ye [email protected]
-
- great
- 0dog
-
- I’m sad
- 0dog
-
- I’m angry
- 0dog
-
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news now
It seems like you’re providing context about a complex geopolitical situation involving North Korean prisoners of war in Ukraine, as well as legal considerations regarding military support and troop deployment by South Korea. You also referenced the implications of international law, particularly the Geneva Convention, as well as domestic legal frameworks in South Korea.
Here’s a brief summary of the key points from your text:
- Impeachment and Accountability: There’s ongoing criticism of the South Korean Minister of National Defense regarding his handling of North Korean prisoners of war, with concerns that media exposure could provoke conflict between South and North Korea.
- Prisoner Rights and International Law: Experts argue that while the monitoring team cannot directly interrogate North Korean POWs, they might assist in interpretation. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are generally to be repatriated; however, there could be exceptions for those wishing to defect, which complicates the repatriation process.
- Military Support Legislation: South Korean laws require governmental approval for exporting weapons, differentiating from the U.S. system which requires congressional approval. Proposed amendments to these laws are pending legislative decision. Any troop deployment or military assistance to Ukraine would require National Assembly consent.
- Legality of Dispatching Forces: Legal interpretations are divided. Some believe National Assembly consent is necessary for troop dispatch, while others argue it is not required for information collection purposes.
This situation reflects broader themes of international relations, national sovereignty, and human rights, particularly in conflict zones. If there’s a specific aspect you’d like to explore further or if you need clarification on any element, please let me know!
Further discussions about the potential legal repercussions and ramifications of military support for Ukraine, and the South Korean government’s obligations under international law.
the text delves into a multifaceted issue that combines legal, political, and ethical dimensions, reflecting the complex nature of international relations and domestic accountability in the context of military engagements.