Essay Example: The Possibility of Transnational Legal Law in South Korea

Before delving into Transnational law in South Korea, one must consider the concept itself. There are several interpretations of what constitutes transnational legal processes. However, the standard definition of the concept draws from the term transnational law. Transnational law was first coined by Philip Jessup during his Storrs Lectures at Yale in the year 1955. The term refers to the legal regulation of actions and events occurring across national boundaries. Furthermore, it also covers both public and private international law. In the past international law only included the law that regulated the relationships between states. Currently, transnational law encompasses legal relationships between and amongst individuals, nations, as well as organizations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

As such, as ahead of schedule as the 1950s, and from there on with expanded desperation, scholars have been calling attention to that the idea of the between national, including international law, no longer gets the job done to clarify the truth they were watching. It is a fact of expanding interrelatedness of different kinds of human on-screen characters cooperating in the international circle (Steintz, 2012). 'International law' not, at this point, contained a large number of lawful relations and legitimate debates, incorporating questions that were in truth being settled, for example, cross fringe business questions among people or potential enterprises in actuality settled in the international business intervention.

Various scholars have, after some time, given to some degree, multiple names to the new reality (Steintz, 2012). For instance, they have utilized 'transnational' or 'cross-outskirt' to suggest the navigating of national limits. 'Supranational' to underscore new territorial game plans, for example, the European Union. 'Worldwide' to conjure the procedures, transcendently monetary and mechanical, is known as 'globalization.' Irrespective of the name, scholars, and experts were encountering and clarifying the breakdown of old polarities and classifications, the change in perspective in international issues that portrayed the twentieth century (Crawford, 2019).

Harold Koh's compelling work presented the thought of 'transnational lawful procedure's as a predicate of transnational law (Steintz, 2012). 'Transnational lawful procedure,' in his recounting the development of the twentieth-century international lawful hypothesis, married the idea of the 'international lawful procedure's the investigation of law's job during the time spent arrangement choices in the international domain and the possibility of 'transnational lawful issues,' which blends general society also, the private, the local and the international, law and strategy. By situating Transnational Lawful Process inside the more prominent Legal Process Movement, he looked to stress that legitimate issues principally emerge not under the watchful eye of courts yet instead during the time spent creation strategy choices, with legal counselors assuming a more important job than judges, and with assent playing an increasingly important role than command (Steintz, 2012).

While the Korean peninsula may have a dark history considering the Korean wars during the 20th century, after the war, however, the situation has slowly gotten better over time with the capitalist South making technological and international progress due to its pro-liberal ideologies. Unlike its northern partner, South Korea has refused to progress sticking to its communist and anti-American Agenda. Ever since the end of the first Korean War in the 1950s, several scholars and historians have been skeptical about the possibility of a second war. Considered by many as the first clash of the cold war, the Korean War is arguably the single most significant aspect of the transnational legal process in the peninsula (Crawford, 2019).

During the three-year period that the war raged, the western bloc, including the USA, bannered together under the guise of the UN to fight for the driving out of DPRK's forces from the South. Accordingly, Russia maintained a loose relationship with the communist north. During the fall of the war, the USA gradually strengthened their grip on the course and established a ceasefire whose terms included a literal drawing of a line in the middle of the peninsula. Ever since, South Korea has proven to be a great ally of the West, with its primary collaborator being the USA. It was only until recently in the 2010s that the relationship between the South and DPRK has become better, and more is expected in the future considering the radical political ideology of USA president Donald Trump ( Ho & Teo, 2017).

As indicated by Crawford, transnational legal processes in the Korean peninsula was non-existent before the cold war. Consequently, The Republic of Korea was established on August 15, 1948, while the DPRK on September 9, the same year (Crawford, 2019). Regardless of their establishment, the countries still maintained a controversial trans legal process. It was only until September 17, 1991, that both states were admitted to the UN (Crawford, 2019). The United States of America-and its President specifically are incredible players taking shape and unmaking of global law. However, the essential thought hidden Transnational Legal Process is that universal law is not, at this point, only for country states or national governments.

What Jeremy Bentham once called "between national law"- the law between and among sovereign countries has advanced into a half and half collection of global and residential law created by many open and private transnational on-screen characters (Steintz, 2012). These sovereign and nonsovereign on-screen characters incorporate our partners; states, regions, and territories of the United States; government administrations; the media; courts; nongovernmental associations (NGOs); intergovernmental associations (IGOs); and submitted people. These disguised guidelines make default examples of global law-attentive conduct for all members all the while. Those default designs become routinized, "clingy," and subsequently hard to go astray from without supported exertion. The focal knowledge of this examination is that most consistency with the law comes not from intimidation, yet examples of obedience.

The indictment of Kim Jung Un for Human Rights Violations in North Korea

Human rights violators are usually charged and held responsible for their criminal acts by the UN through the International Criminal Court (ICC). As such, if there are ways that the one can make Kim Jung Un responsible for his actions against the citizens of DPRK since his rise to power, would include borrowing ideas from the ICC. According to human rights law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, one way in which the UN supports human rights is through the provision of accountability for gross severe human rights violations (Ho & Teo, 2017).

Therefore, under the statute, Kim Jung Un should be held responsible for upholding the repressive regime he inherited from his father. His actions in repressing the liberties, including the freedom of expression, assembly, and religion, should be considered criminal, and he, be brought to justice. The government in DPRK uses arbitrary arrests and torture in custody to ensure that the people stay in line with its repressive ideology. Moreover, through its security apparatus, the government exploits its citizens for labor, including the use of children and women in the national construction infrastructure. It also uses the same forced labor to carry out activities aimed at extolling the ruling Kim family and the Worker's Party of Korea (Ho & Teo, 2017).

Another violation of Kim led the DPRK government is restrictions on international travel, especially to China. While people may occasionally by train to and from China, many restrictions forbid the people entering Pyongyang, especially regarding the entry of goods, especially technological gadgets. The government regularly collaborates with Xi's China to capture and return North Koreans who have escaped the country. Once such people are returned to the DPRK, they are harshly punished and put in prison camps from where they will be exploited for labor in abhorring conditions.

Currently, the DPRK has ratified human rights treaties, for example, the Conventions on the Rights of a Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. These ratifications go against the human rights mechanisms that are observed across the world. They bring back a patriarchal and male-dominated ideology into motion, making it a crime for women in the country to engage in activities that most women in its neighbor South Korea enjoy.

According to a 2014 United Nations Commission of Inquiry report on human rights violations, DPRK and Kim Jung Un have committed crimes against humanity, which include murder, enslavement, torture, rape, imprisonment, and other types of sexual violations (UN Human Rights Council, 2014). Consequently, the world through the UN has continued to pressure Kim and his government to adopt UN human rights mechanisms. Despite several punishments in terms of embargos, social rights-related sanctions, and possible charging and arrest by the ICC, Kim refuses to engage the UN relying on the sovereignty of its country as protection.

Nevertheless, there are ways through which the international community can force Kim out of power before holding him responsible for his administration's erroneous atrocities against North Koreans. For example, China, arguably DPRK's international collaborator, can cut its trade and supply of energy. Consequently, China can pressure DPRK on human rights issues (UN Human Rights Council, 2014). If successful, such an event will pave the way for the UN to act and hold Kim accountable as he will be powerless.

Conclusively, the measures that can be taken to hold Kim and his administration are tricky since it involves balancing between pressuring the Supreme Leader and hurting the people of North Korea. It is for this reason that Kim has continued to harm his people since his inauguration without consequence. The efforts of the international community, especially those from the US, South Korea, and China have taken a negotiation orientation. Moreover, the entrenchment of repressive ideals in the country has taken root for many decades, making it hard for outsiders to solve the problem.

Summary

As discussed in the paper, there are several interpretations of what constitutes trans legal processes. However, the standard definition of the concept draws from the term transnational law. Transnational law was first coined by Philip Jessup during his Storrs Lectures at Yale in the year 1955. The term refers to the legal regulation of actions and events occurring across national boundaries. Furthermore, it also covers both public and private international law. In the past international law only included the requirement that regulated the relationships between states. Currently, transnational law encompasses legal relationships between and amongst individuals, nations, as well as organizations.

Precipitously, the international legal process in the Korean peninsula has been an issue of controversy since the cold war. The transnational process between the international community and DPRK has taken decades of negotiations between the UN, and the Kim led DPRK. While the past is marred with treaty signing that was lax and somewhat allowed North Koreans to live better, the situation has changed today.