World War II provided an opportunity for the international community to reflect on crimes against humanity. Since then, the international community has become interested in the protection of human rights, and as a result of this, international human rights law has developed in earnest, laying the foundation for the human rights protection system of the United Nations. In addition, starting with the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953, regional human rights systems in the US and Africa have also participated in the UN's efforts to guarantee human rights, and are playing a role as a human rights security system in consideration of regional specificity and relativity.
In Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1 ('Purposes and Principles'), "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all without distinction as to race, sex language, or religion;" In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulated the prohibition of discrimination according to the state or territory, including respect for human liberty and equality as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations. This served as an opportunity to further materialize the universality of human rights'.
However, North Korea, along with China and Cuba, opposes that it should respect the relativity and specificity of individual countries according to their political, economic, and cultural characteristics. In particular, North Korea posted "Our-style human rights theory, Mich embodies the Juche ideology, a philosophical ideas, is an independent human rights theory that rejects the intentions and demands of our people, and is a scientific human rights theory based on correct values and a view of life" in the 'Rodong Sinmun' on June 24, 1995. It is justifying the Juche ideology by using 'Our-style human rights theory'. In more detail, the 'Our-style human rights theory' internally gives legitimacy for maintaining the system, strengthening military politics, and violating the human rights of North Koreans. And externally, it is aimed at non-interference in the international community's internal affairs and strengthening the maintenance of the system. In the end, the human rights of North Koreans are being used to justify the Juche ideology.
As such, to this today, the visual difference between the international community and North Korea's perspective on human rights is still not narrowed. Nevertheless, the international community continues to push forward efforts to improve human rights in North Korea. On March 2006, the United Nations upgraded the Commission on the Human Rights under the existing Economic and Social Council to the Human Rights Council. After that, the Human Rights Council was reborn as a core organization for 'human rights' reform among the three major tasks of the United Nations (security, development, and human rights), and 'North Korea' was at the center of the reform. The Human Rights Council conducted the 3rd Universal Periodic Review'(UPR) for North Korea on May 5, 2019. As a result of the review, a total of 262 recommendations were presented, and the content of the recommendation was 'infringement of the right to liberty to maintain the system'. However, North Korea suggested 'in fact, rejection of acceptance' for 63 recommendations that contained the nature of Infringement of liberty'. However, he expressed his intention to review the acceptance' regarding 'improvement of social rights' such as health, education, and food rights, including the promotion of human rights for the vulnerable. Therefore, it can be confirmed that there is still a large difference in perspective with the United Nations regarding the 'right to freedom'. In addition, the UN expressed the seriousness of human rights violations in North Korea, including the human rights situation of North Korean defectors, the operation of political prison camps, and public executions, through a press release by Special Rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina) in 2019. The UN adopted the North Korean Human Rights Resolution on March 2021 for 19 years in a row, saying, "I condemn the organized and widespread human rights violations (in North Korea) so &r in the strongest terms."
Meanwhile, with the introduction of the concept of governance, NGO's activities in the field of 'human rights' in the international community are expanding further. Through the Human Rights Report each year, Amnesty International is conducting activities to appeal to the international community for support and interest in the systematic and widespread human rights violations in North Korea. Another international NGO, Freedom House, is conducting an annual assessment of political rights and civil liberties' in 210 countries through the annual 'Freedom in the World report'. According to the evaluation results from 2020. to 2021, North Korea received a total of '3' points: political rights '0' and civil liberty '3', which was significantly lower than the average of 56.2 points in 210 countries and received the lowest ranking evaluation. The reason for receiving this score is the 'infringement of the widespread right to freedom'. However, there are also evaluations of the 'improvement of social rights', due to some social and economic changes, such as the growth of small private enterprises.
In this way, despite the interest and efforts of the international community to improve human rights in North Korea, many opinions say that "nothing has changed" regarding whether or not human rights in North Korea have been improved. In other words, the international community and North Korea have not been able to find a common denominator for human rights until now, but the international community already knows that North Korea's social rights have been enhanced. Nevertheless, it continues to enforce recommendations and pressures on the infringement of the right to liberty. The reason is that the international community does not recognize the specificity and relativity of the North Korean systems, but only pursues the universality of human rights'. Therefore, in an effort to find an intersection with North Korea, the international community needs to consider the peculiarities of the North Korean regime based on the 'minimized universal value of human rights'. If so, the expansion of social rights such as food, health, hygiene, and environment among the vulnerable will proceed more meaningfully, and this will be the first step in a practical approach to improving human rights in North Korea. After that, it will not be too late to implement human rights policies to improve North Korea's right to freedom. If there is something to be aware of, it is most important to avoid diplomatic friction with North Korea while attracting a pure humanitarian position by making full use of non-governmental organizations such as NGO. North Korea said, "The human rights issue should not be politicized in any case and should not be used as s tool for international politics". Nevertheless, some countries, including the United States, are officially formulating the incorporation of North Korean human rights issues into diplomatic and security policies, which could dilute the NGO's pure human rights activities.
The reality of human rights in North Korea today is an important proof of the success and failure of the human rights policy toward North Korea that the international community is currently undertaking. Nevertheless, the international community is pushing ahead with the same human rights mechanism as in the past. This could lead to diplomatic friction and derivatively, a crisis in the security situation on the Korean peninsula. It is questionable whether adherence to this policy is the answer to today's human rights policy toward North Korea.