KJC Korea
Journal Central

This study traces discussions on the right to peace in theinternational community, centering on the United Nations (UN),from the formation of the concept of the right to peace in the1970s finally to the UN Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC)announcement of the Declaration on the Right to Peace(A/HRC/32/L. 18) in 2016. In the face of unending armed conflictsin the international community, these discussions were shaped in thefollowing several stages. (1) The right to live in peace discussed atsessions of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in the 1960s-70s:Peace was perceived as a condition of human rights. (2)Declarations of the people’s right to peace in the 1980s: Althoughpeace began to be perceived as a right, it was seen as a right notof individuals but of the people, or collectives. (3) Active right topeace in the 1990s: Representative are the UN Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) discussions onpeace culture and education. (4) The establishment of the right topeace as both an individual right and a collective right in the2010s: The UNHRC Advisory Committee (HRCAC) expanded thescope from armed conflicts to peace education and the right to conscientious objection. (5) The Declaration on the Right to Peacein 2016: Foregoing discussions and efforts ended with a vacuousdeclaration by the UNHRC. Although the right to peace underwent an arduous process ofbeing established as a basic right, it eventually ended up as avacuous concept with no contents and only a long preamble due toconflicts between advanced and developing nations surrounding thisconcept. Many countries that previously did not oppose the ideathat peace was a premise of human rights began to expressdisagreement with the concept of the right to peace, whichperceives peace as an inherent human right. The reason was thatthe power to deter conflicts would be weakened by the concept. Itis noteworthy that the expansion of the scope of the right to peacefrom a collective right to an individual right occurred in theprocess of reaching a compromise over such conflicts. While it is aconsiderable progress that the right to peace was established as abasic individual right, it must also be noted that, on the other hand,such a development can, in the end, diffuse and weaken the focuson armed conflicts, which can be seen as crucial to peace. Thestudy examines the perceptions of the UN and national governmentsand the participation of countless non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and also focuses on the spread of a perception in SouthKorea since the 2000s that views inter-Korean relations from theperspective of the right to peace.

The objective of this paper is to revive the fundamental premiseof the human rights advocacy at the end of the Secondary WorldWar and to provide an alternative approach to the current prevailingapproach for the realization of human rights. By interrogating theUnited Nations’ early endorsement of the ‘conditions’ for humanrights and a human rights-friendly social and international order, thepaper identifies several dimensions which comprise these conditions. Although human rights advocates generally understand and supportthe notion that human rights is best realized through the optimumsynthesis of the conventional standard-implementation work and thecondition-formation work, they tend to shy away from this approachon grounds of its presumed abstractness and difficulty in utilizingthem in practical terms. However, the paper argues that there aresome feasible ways for the human rights advocacy work to shapethe ‘conditions’ for the realization of human rights. The essayconcludes that human rights movement and research should pursuean integrative approach to overcome the limitation associated withthe conventional judicial justice-oriented approach for human rights.

This article is mainly concerned about the question of whether oursociety recognises and secures the constitutional social rights ofnon-citizens who are present as a member of this society. The issueof non-citizens with respect to the basic constitutional rights testswhether our constitution establishing fundamental values and norms ofthe society, as well as its interpretation is firmly grounded in theuniversal value of human dignity in this increasingly globalised world. Marking the 30th anniversary of our Constitutional Court, this articlecritically reviews the views of the Court on the social rights ofnon-citizens based on the major relevant cases. It examines theinternational human rights standards in relation to the social rights ofnon-citizens. It also discusses the approaches of the South AfricanConstitutional Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court inthis respect. This article aims at advancing the constitutional debatesabout the social rights of non-citizens on the basis of the universalvalues of human dignity, freedom, and equality.

Adoptee deportation from the U.S. to South Korea drew attentionof the world media because it is such an exceptional and irrationalcase. Intercounry adoptees are living in the adoptive countriestaking for granted that they are citizens of the country. But it isnot true in the U.S. and recently an adoptee deportee committedsuicide in Korea. This phenomena is not accidental or exceptionalunder the law and system of intercountry adoption between Koreaand the U.S. This is unavoidable consequence of the related legalloophole that these two countries maintained until 2013. International legal norms governing intercountry adoption has madea remarkable progress in regards to the cooperation between thesending and receiving countries of intercountry adoption, i.e. HagueConvention on Intercountry Adoption. However, these two countries,Korea, the biggest and longest sending country in the world, theU.S. the biggest receiving country in the world, were so ignorant ofthese international legal norms for the protection of the rights ofthe child. In this paper, assessing the international norms on theintercountry adoption and nationality of the child, I will try to explain why the legal system related to the intercountry adoptionbetween Korea and the U.S. was so vulnerable and weak to protectthe rights of the child. These analysis will lead to the policysuggestion to restore the rights of the adoptees in the U.S. andprovide appropriate protection for the children in Korea.

In 1990, homosexuality was officially excluded from the diseaselist, However, transgender identities still remains as a mentaldisorder. Since 1900s, medical discussions on transgender havebegun. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association add‘Transsexualism’ and ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ in DSM-III. The pathologization of transgender identities has brought socialstigma and discrimination against transgender people. Therefore, asthe transgender human rights movement has grown up in 1990's,discussion of de-pathologization has developed. In addition, healthmodel of transgender has been shifted from pathology model toself-declaration model. In 2013, the American PsychiatricAssociation revised ‘gender identity disorder’ as ‘gender dysphoria’,which is less pathological terminology. In addition, at 2018. 6. 18.,World Health Organization release ICD-11, which removed ‘genderidentity disorder’, ‘transsexualism’. This revision means thattransgender identity is no longer classified as a mental disorder. De-pathologization of transgender identities is not only related to medical context, also associated with how transgender is treated andrespected in social context. In this respect, discussion ofde-pathologization should be accompanied by changes in genderbinarynorms and structures which suppress transgenders.

Cultural and artistic activities for women with disabilities have long been emphasized on narratives centered on therapeutic treatment and overcoming barriers. Treatment approaches have the limitation of allowing the disabled people to remain in the position of the object, not the subject of cultural and artistic activity. Overcoming narratives emphasize the individual efforts and its “unusual” life stories of successful disabled individuals, and this hides the reality of the human rights of persons with disabilities. Despite the increasing number of cultural and artistic activities of disabled people, there is little discussion concerning the relationship between human rights of persons with disabilities, their cultural activities, and the socio-political meaning of the outcome. If the meaning of cultural rights is restricted to physical accessibility, it is difficult to reveal the position of persons with disabilities who lack resources as creators/producers of culture and arts as well as their labor rights. I analyze, as an activist of the NGO Women with Disabilities Empathy (WDE), the political meaning of the disabled women's arts and culture movement based on the activities of the Disabled Women’s Theatre Group Dancing Waist, WDE. Furthermore, this article explores the social changes necessary to ensure independence and subjectivity in the process of enjoying and producing culture and arts. In particular, disabled women's cultural and artistic activities are deeply connected with interdisciplinary human rights issues such as gender, sexuality, bodily ab/normality, labor rights, deinstitutionalization and the social welfare system. It is a daily space that supports the right to failure, emphasizing the meaning of the extreme dancing waist as a field of practice against the discrimination defined as abnormal, and suggests the discourse reconstruction of the culture of the disabled. It emphasizes the meaning of the <Dancing Waist> which is a routine space supporting the right to fail and practicing actions against the discrimination toward ableist society. And finally this article suggests a discoursive reconstruction of the disabled people's cultural rights.

The human rights of migrants living in Korea have been easily violated. Futhermore, refugees, migrant detainees, the victims of human trafficking, and stateless persons are the most vulnerable people in terms of human rights protection. One of the reasons why their fundamental rights are not guaranteed is that according to the Constitutional Law the human rights holders are ‘nationals’ rather than people. The normative power of the international human rights norms, therefore, should be enhanced by revising the article 6 (1) of the Constitutional Law.