I am doing research for my ethics and international relations class and would like some feedback. My research area is North Korea and is pertaining to both its acts against human rights as well as its nuclear arms program. The United Nations has been investigating North Korea based on its human rights conditions and have found patterns of abuse. With that being said, world powers had been focused primarily on the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. From viewpoint of the United States, as well as the world, should world leaders put the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons as the most important, or is it morally and ethically wrong not to help better the conditions of which the North Korean population is living through now?

It would be greatly appreciated for any comments, questions, or further research suggestions that anyone may have for me that would help in my research. 

Tags: Case, Ethics, IR, Study, and

Views: 202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think a discussion on whether the UN should work toward improving the conditions of North Korean citizens should at the very least discuss whether doing so is plausible. What could feasibly be done to improve the lives of ordinary North Koreans? Are there lessons to be learned about such interventions from the past?

In regards to your basic question about the effects of nuclear non-proliferation vs. humanitarian efforts, I think it would be helpful to look at the effect sanctions have had in the effort to stop nuclear armament!  Have sanctions (put in place to bring the North Korean nuclear program to a halt) hurt the people of North Korea?

What I'm trying, somewhat unsuccessfully, to say is that in working to keep nuclear weapons from North Korea, sanctions have possibly made living conditions for North Korean citizens worse.  This is a really interesting dilemma!


Carnegie Council

Gen Z, Climate Change Activism, & Foreign Policy, with Tatiana Serafin

Generation Z makes up over 30 percent of the world's population and this group of people, most under the age of 20, are already having an extraordinary effect on society, culture, and politics. Tatiana Serafin, journalism professor at Marymount Manhattan College, breaks down the power of this generation, focusing on climate change activism. How can they turn their energy into concrete action?

The Power of Tribalism, with Amy Chua & Walter Russell Mead

"In our foreign policy, for at least half a century, we have been spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics," says Amy Chua, author of "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations." What does this mean in 2019? How can Americans move past tribalism? Don't miss this conversation with Chua and Bard College's Walter Russell Mead, moderated by Bard's Roger Berkowitz.

Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, & Political Responsibility, with Stephen Gardiner

University of Washington's Professor Stephen Gardiner discusses the ethics of climate change from intergenerational, political, and personal perspectives. Should individuals feel bad for using plastic straws or eating meat? What should the UN and its member states do? And how can older generations make up for "a massive failure in leadership" that has led, in part, to the current crisis?





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.