Latest in North Korea
On Feb. 27, the New York Times revealed that, according to an undisclosed United Nations report, North Korea has been supplying Syria with components for its chemical weapons and ballistic missiles programs.
Does law—international jus ad bellum or domestic war powers—substantially influence U.S. threats of force against North Korea? Does law enhance or degrade deterrence of North Korean provocations? Does it help or hinder efforts to coerce North Korea toward concessions?
These questions are rarely asked, but they should be. Here’s why.
This post is the third of three essays on addressing the crisis with North Korea. Read parts one and two.
This post is the second of three essays on addressing the crisis with North Korea. Read parts one and three.
This post is the first of three essays on addressing the crisis with North Korea. Read parts two and three.
President Trump designated North Korea a sponsor of terrorism on Monday, returning it to the list of official state sponsors along with Iran, Sudan and Syria.
The headline accompanying an Oct. 15 piece in the New York Times declared forthrightly that "The World Once Laughed at North Korean Cyberpower. No More." That is, as they say, a bold claim.
On October 1, 2017, reports emerged of an odd interdiction of North Korean arms in August 2016. Acting on a tip from Washington, Egyptian customs officials boarded the Jie Shun, a bulk freighter sailing under the Cambodian flag, as it passed through the Suez Canal.
In his debut before the U.N. General Assembly last week, President Trump vowed to “totally destroy North Korea” if the United States “is forced to defend itself or its allies.” Analysts are divided over whether the president’s message aids or undermines efforts to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.
President Donald Trump released an executive order yesterday declaring, in effect, the time has come for the international community—China, in particular—to choose sides over North Korea.