4 ms·

The very first mention in the PDF states "DPRK’s UN-prohibited WMD and ballistic missile programs". So, that context. The United Nations. You do stipulate "th

The very first mention in the PDF states "DPRK’s UN-prohibited WMD and ballistic missile programs". So, that context. The United Nations. You do stipulate "that the DPRK has ratified" - why does that matter? They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.

pphysch 4y ago
That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally pursue hypersonic nuke WMDs. > They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of. But this is a daily occurrence for the USA as well. https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... (The ICC was created by the UN)
- lostcolony 4y ago
  And? What's your point? I'm not claiming the US has not done things prohibited by the UN, nor even what "degree" of prohibited, or any such thing. I'm pointing out that your objection to the classification of the DPRK's programs as "UN prohibited" is incorrect. The UN has explicitly voted on and introduced sanctions against the DPRK for their WMD program, saying "yeah, don't do that" (the US has independently done so as well). That's it. That's the context around "prohibited". That's the answer to your question. Maybe what you mean is "how is that fair", or "why should the DPRK care about what others 'prohibit' them to do when they don't agree to it", and that's a different discussion; you're free to be an apologist for the DPRK, but to try and undermine the use of "prohibited" when the context is given -right there- in TFA is shitty rhetoric. Also, if you want "specifics", https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-Resolutions-on-North-Korea https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-R...
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    There is as far as I know no UN guidance preventing the DPRK from developing ballistic or hypersonic weapons, which aren't WMDs. It is incorrect to understand anything except their nuclear weapons program as prohibited by the UN. They were merely condemned by the UNSC. The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign, because that would obviously be a grave violation of sovereignty. The exception is sanctions, that in theory have to be followed.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      From that link I shared - Resolution 1718 (unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, 2006): - Decides North Korea shall suspend all ballistic missile activities. - Decides North Korea shall abandon all WMD activities. Resolution 1718’s Principal Sanctions: - Materials and technologies that could contribute to North Korea’s WMD programs and ballistic missile related activities, as set out in prior Security Council documents. Member states are also required to: - Freeze the funds or financial assets of entities designated by the Security Council as providing support for North Korea’s nuclear, missile, and other WMD program >> The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign So there are three things at issue here. First, you carve out sanctions, well, there are sanctions at play here, as above, and the whole point of the document is to alert corporations that they may fall afoul of those sanctions. Second, does the UN have 'legal authority' for actions like this? Well, yes, actually. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Becoming a member nation of the UN requires accepting the Charter. Ergo, the DPRK agreed to be bound by decisions made by the security council when it joined the UN as a member nation. Arguing that this is unfair is like saying states shouldn't be bound by federal laws created since their initial joining of the US; no, joining was agreeing to the decisions of the rule making bodies as well. This differs from, say, the TPNW, which is a treaty that the general assembly adopted, and has had some nations who have signed onto, but which does not actually have legal binding even according to the UN's own charter because of that. Third, does the UN have -enforcement- authority. This is more a pragmatic, rather than legal, concern. And no, it doesn't. It doesn't have a standing army, it isn't in control of any currency, it has no way to enforce a decision if the largest countries don't choose to enforce it for them via some method of coercion. Which is what is happening here; the US accepted the UNSC's decision, and imposed it, and this document is warning that if you don't adhere to that decision within the US' jurisdiction you will be committing a crime that the US will seek to prosecute you for. Which is the context for which "these programs are prohibited" is for.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Yes, exactly. The only binding part of the resolutions is the sanctions. The UNSC doesn't have the power to set universal international law, so the NK ballistic missile program is still legal under international law. However, UN member states can't help NK in those endeavours. If you look at the fine print of the resolution, you can see it is invoking Article 41 of Chapter 7, which allows : "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." It's weird like that, but the UNSC simply doesn't have the authority to impose arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of member states (for obvious reasons).
- zardo 4y ago
  > That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally pursue hypersonic nuke WMDs. That's easy, the US has a permanent seat on the security council. It can veto any attempt to restrict it with international law. Same for Russia and China's WMDs.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The UNSC can't make just anything illegal. It's legal for NK to develop ballistic missiles under international law. It wasn't legal for NK to develop nukes because of the NPT. In theory further developments after they left the NPT are legal. A more interesting example would be, for example, Pakistan, which never joined the NPT and isn't on the security council, yet legally developed nuclear weapons.

pphysch 4y ago

That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally pursue hypersonic nuke WMDs. > They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of. But this is a daily occurrence for the USA as well. https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... (The ICC was created by the UN)

lostcolony 4y ago
And? What's your point? I'm not claiming the US has not done things prohibited by the UN, nor even what "degree" of prohibited, or any such thing. I'm pointing out that your objection to the classification of the DPRK's programs as "UN prohibited" is incorrect. The UN has explicitly voted on and introduced sanctions against the DPRK for their WMD program, saying "yeah, don't do that" (the US has independently done so as well). That's it. That's the context around "prohibited". That's the answer to your question. Maybe what you mean is "how is that fair", or "why should the DPRK care about what others 'prohibit' them to do when they don't agree to it", and that's a different discussion; you're free to be an apologist for the DPRK, but to try and undermine the use of "prohibited" when the context is given -right there- in TFA is shitty rhetoric. Also, if you want "specifics", https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-Resolutions-on-North-Korea https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-R...
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  There is as far as I know no UN guidance preventing the DPRK from developing ballistic or hypersonic weapons, which aren't WMDs. It is incorrect to understand anything except their nuclear weapons program as prohibited by the UN. They were merely condemned by the UNSC. The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign, because that would obviously be a grave violation of sovereignty. The exception is sanctions, that in theory have to be followed.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    From that link I shared - Resolution 1718 (unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, 2006): - Decides North Korea shall suspend all ballistic missile activities. - Decides North Korea shall abandon all WMD activities. Resolution 1718’s Principal Sanctions: - Materials and technologies that could contribute to North Korea’s WMD programs and ballistic missile related activities, as set out in prior Security Council documents. Member states are also required to: - Freeze the funds or financial assets of entities designated by the Security Council as providing support for North Korea’s nuclear, missile, and other WMD program >> The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign So there are three things at issue here. First, you carve out sanctions, well, there are sanctions at play here, as above, and the whole point of the document is to alert corporations that they may fall afoul of those sanctions. Second, does the UN have 'legal authority' for actions like this? Well, yes, actually. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Becoming a member nation of the UN requires accepting the Charter. Ergo, the DPRK agreed to be bound by decisions made by the security council when it joined the UN as a member nation. Arguing that this is unfair is like saying states shouldn't be bound by federal laws created since their initial joining of the US; no, joining was agreeing to the decisions of the rule making bodies as well. This differs from, say, the TPNW, which is a treaty that the general assembly adopted, and has had some nations who have signed onto, but which does not actually have legal binding even according to the UN's own charter because of that. Third, does the UN have -enforcement- authority. This is more a pragmatic, rather than legal, concern. And no, it doesn't. It doesn't have a standing army, it isn't in control of any currency, it has no way to enforce a decision if the largest countries don't choose to enforce it for them via some method of coercion. Which is what is happening here; the US accepted the UNSC's decision, and imposed it, and this document is warning that if you don't adhere to that decision within the US' jurisdiction you will be committing a crime that the US will seek to prosecute you for. Which is the context for which "these programs are prohibited" is for.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. The only binding part of the resolutions is the sanctions. The UNSC doesn't have the power to set universal international law, so the NK ballistic missile program is still legal under international law. However, UN member states can't help NK in those endeavours. If you look at the fine print of the resolution, you can see it is invoking Article 41 of Chapter 7, which allows : "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." It's weird like that, but the UNSC simply doesn't have the authority to impose arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of member states (for obvious reasons).
zardo 4y ago
> That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally pursue hypersonic nuke WMDs. That's easy, the US has a permanent seat on the security council. It can veto any attempt to restrict it with international law. Same for Russia and China's WMDs.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The UNSC can't make just anything illegal. It's legal for NK to develop ballistic missiles under international law. It wasn't legal for NK to develop nukes because of the NPT. In theory further developments after they left the NPT are legal. A more interesting example would be, for example, Pakistan, which never joined the NPT and isn't on the security council, yet legally developed nuclear weapons.