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

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

Democratic Candidates & Foreign Policy after Iowa, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the (incomplete) results of the Iowa Caucus putting the spotlight on Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, what do we know about their foreign policy platforms? How do they differentiate themselves from Joe Biden? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts and touches on voters' possible perception of Sanders as a "socialist" and how climate change could become an issue in this election.





© 2020   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.