Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Bolivia votó en contra, junto a Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, Irán Rusia, China y Bielorrusia, de
que el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas considere la posibilidad de llevar ante la
Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) los crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos por las autoridades
de Corea del Norte. La propuesta fue aprobada el pasado martes en el seno de la Asamblea
General de las ONU con 111 votos a favor, 55 abstenciones y 19 votos en contra.
Antes de proceder a la votación, se rechazó una enmienda presentada por Cuba, que planteaba
eliminar de la resolución la petición para que el Consejo refiera el caso de Corea del Norte a la
CPI, la parte fundamental de una resolución de ocho páginas sobre el caso norcoreano.
El embajador cubano ante la ONU, Rodolfo Reyes, defendió en una intervención que la Corte
está siendo usada políticamente por los países poderosos en contra de las naciones en desarrollo,
un mensaje que respaldaron varias delegaciones como la sudafricana y la rusa.
Sin embargo, la propuesta de Cuba fue rechazada con 40 votos a favor, 77 en contra y 50
abstenciones.
Entre los países que apoyaron a La Habana en esa propuesta de modificación estuvieron Bolivia,
Ecuador, El Salvador y Venezuela, mientras que otros que luego votaron “sí” a la resolución se
abstuvieron anteriormente para la enmienda cubana, como Argentina, Colombia, Brasil o
Guatemala.
Según el detallado informe, hasta 120.000 prisioneros políticos están retenidos en cuatro grandes
campos de trabajo, donde son privados deliberadamente de alimentos como forma de control y
castigo y sometidos a trabajos forzosos.
Los autores de la investigación concluyeron que las evidencias eran suficientes para llevar el
caso ante la CPI, algo que sólo puede hacer el Consejo de Seguridad dado que Pyongyang no ha
firmado el Estatuto de Roma para aceptar la jurisdicción del tribunal.
El presidente de esa comisión, el juez australiano Michael Kirby, escribió entonces al líder
supremo de Corea del Norte, Kim Jong-un, para advertirle que como máximo responsable del
Estado debe asumir su responsabilidad sobre esos crímenes, incluso si no ha participado
directamente en ellos.
Corea del Norte reiteró hoy sus críticas al informe y aseguró que no es “creíble”, subrayando que
los expertos nunca visitaron el país y basan sus conclusiones en testimonios de “desertores”.
En las últimas semanas y ante la amenaza de poder terminar ante la Justicia internacional, el
régimen norcoreano ha iniciado una amplia campaña para defender la situación de los derechos
humanos en el país.
Entre otras cosas, Pyongyang mostró por primera vez en mucho tiempo su disposición a cooperar
con la ONU e invitó a dos de sus representantes a visitar el país para analizar la situación de los
derechos humanos sobre el terreno.
OTRO MAS
On the heels of its first conviction, all eyes are on the International Criminal Court. The world
is watching to see if this accomplishment can assist the court in building momentum in its fight
against impunity. With fourteen other cases currently before the court, as well as numerous
others under preliminary investigation, the court seems to have great potential. For its
proponents, things are finally starting to look up. Its opponents, however, might see one
conviction in ten years as little reason to celebrate.
In truth, there is definitely room for the court to grow and improve. This is to be expected,
especially with an international body that requires the coordination and cooperation of multiple
states. While a separate entity from the United Nations, the ICC is similar in its reliance on
international cooperation. Both of these bodies have great potential, but reaching that potential is
dependent on the international community adopting and embracing their mission. For the ICC,
this means states not only voicing support for the court but also referring cases and delivering
criminals to the Hague. Furthermore, these two must work in coordination with each other. This
is especially important in the case of jurisdiction, which is arguably one of the greatest barriers
for the ICC. The court’s one way around jurisdictional issues is the UN’s referral of crimes
committed in states not signatory to the Rome Statute.
The case of North Korea is a great example of the ICC’s issues of jurisdiction. As I mentioned
in my last post, a preliminary investigation is currently underway in relation to North Korea.
The Office of the Prosecutor, in response to requests by member states, is investigating the 2010
sinking of the Cheonan as well as the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island later that same year. It is
believed that a North Korean submarine fired a missile at the South Korean Cheonan, sinking the
ship and killing 46 of the sailors aboard. Additionally, the shelling of Yeonpyeong killed 4 more
South Koreans.
The court has jurisdiction to investigate these potential war crimes because they were committed
on South Korean soil. South Korea is signatory to the Rome Statute, and thus can reasonably
expect war crimes committed on its soil to be investigated by the court. On its own, the
investigation into these crimes seems reasonable and warranted. Where it gets complicated is
when one looks at the broader picture and the egregious human rights violations being
committed within the borders of North Korea.
Last year, Amnesty International released a report detailing the abhorrent system of political
prisons in North Korea. Citizens of the world came to learn about the arrest, torture and murder
of innocent civilians. It became front page news that the country practiced a method of collective
punishment and guilt by association, imprisoning anyone it deemed possibly connected to a
"crime." Not surprisingly, even in such a secretive and isolationist country, word spread about
these crimes.
Here is the problem: North Korea is most definitely not signatory to the Rome Statute, nor
is it likely to ever sign. We might be more likely to see the United States ratify the statute
than North Korea. This means that without a referral from the UN Security Council, the
ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes. It cannot even open a preliminary
investigation. Thus, the ICC is left to investigate the killing of 50 South Koreans (the
importance of which I'm not denying), and is unable to investigate the imprisonment and
torture of approximately 200,000 civilians in the north.
This is a problem the ICC is going to have to deal with if it wants to be a true defender of justice
in the world. There needs to be a realistic way to prosecute such crimes, not a convoluted process
that requires nearly impossible collective support from the international community. One could
argue that the court is capable of pursuing a case against these crimes in North Korea. However,
I am not sure it could be any more difficult than it already is. There needs to be a way to simplify
the process.
Que los americanos buscan tumbar el régimen de corea del norte usando acuerdos que korea del norte
no ha firmado.