<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. North Korea’s Obligation Under International Human Rights Covenants

The Right to Food

Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) enshrine a right to food. Adopted in 1948 by the General Assembly, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration couches the right within the broader context of an adequate standard of living that includes health, food, medical care, social services, and economic security.

The ICESCR, to which North Korea is a state party, addresses the right to food more directly. Among other things, it binds North Korea to work cooperatively with the international community to alleviate hunger within its borders. Article 11 of the ICESCR states:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.⁶⁹

In 1999, the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the U.N. body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the ICESCR by state parties, provided an official interpretation of the right to food, clarifying states party duties. In General Comment 12, it said that:

15. The right to adequate food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obliga­tions to respect, to protect and to fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and an obli­gation to provide.  The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any meas­ures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. The obliga­tion to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people’s access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food secu­rity. Finally, whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, States have the obligation to fulfil (provide) that right directly. This obligation also applies for persons who are victims of natural or other disasters.

17. Violations of the Covenant occur when a State fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level required to be free from hunger. In deter­mining which actions or omissions amount to a violation of the right to food, it is important to distinguish the inability from the unwillingness of a State party to comply. Should a State party argue that resource constraints make it impossible to provide access to food for those who are unable by themselves to secure such access, the State has to demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all the resources at its disposal in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority, those minimum obliga­tions…. A State claiming that it is unable to carry out its obligation for reasons beyond its control therefore has the burden of proving that this is the case and that it has unsuccessfully sought to obtain international support to ensure the availability and accessibility of the necessary food.⁷⁰

A state violates its obligations as a state party when it allows or engages in discriminatory distribution practices designed to consolidate control, or further political goals. General Comment 12 warns states parties against discrimination in access to food and affirms the requirement to protect vulnerable populations:

18. [A]ny discrimination in access to food, as well as to means and entitlements for its procurement, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status with the pur­pose or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of the Covenant.

28. Even where a State faces severe resource constraints, whether caused by a process of economic adjustment, economic recession, climatic conditions or other factors, measures should be undertaken to ensure that the right to adequate food is especially fulfilled for vulnerable population groups and individuals.⁷¹

The ICESCR recognizes that states may not have adequate resources to immediately realize all the rights, such as the right to food, contained in the Covenant. But this is no excuse for inaction. Rights must be progressively realized, as Article 2(1) of the Covenant makes clear:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.⁷²

The U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1990 issued General Comment 3, which in paragraph 9 explained that progressive realization:

[I]mposes an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards that goal. Moreover, any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.⁷³

In paragraph 10, the General Comment stated:

[A] State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant. If the Covenant were to be read in such a way as not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it would be largely deprived of its raison d’être.⁷⁴

Freedom of Movement

Freedom of movement is an important component of safeguarding other rights, including the ability of people to seek alternate sources of food, or to seek asylum should they flee their own country on account of persecution. North Korea requires its citizens to obtain state permission to travel anywhere outside their immediate residential or work areas. Such permission is hard to come by, and many North Koreans resort to traveling without permission, becoming easy targets of security officials who often extort those who are capable of bribing them, and gravely mistreat those who are not.⁷⁵ North Korea should abolish restrictions on travel and stop corruption and human rights violations by security officials. Such restrictions on travel were among the reasons for massive starvation in the 1990s: many people who didn’t have alternative sources of income or food other than the PDS died without ever getting out of their residential areas.⁷⁶

General comments adopted by The Human Rights Committee, the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its state parties, under Article 40, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), state:

Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person. It interacts with several other rights enshrined in the Covenant, as is often shown in the Committee’s practice in considering reports from States parties and communications from individuals.

Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence. In principle, citizens of a State are always lawfully within the territory of that State.  

Article 12 of the ICCPR specifies the restrictions to the right to move freely:

Freedom of movement can be restricted for security reasons—but the restrictions should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. As defined by the U.N. Human Rights Committee… the restrictions should not make movement the exception rather than the norm.

In November 1999, The Human Rights Committee provided general comments on Article 12 of the ICCPR:

Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

Beyond the right to food and freedom of movement, a host of other human rights including freedom of expression, association, and information, which make it possible to publicly complain, discuss, debate, or disseminate information about food problems, are essential in averting famine or widespread hunger. Severe restrictions on all these rights remain in place in North Korea.