•  
  •  

Home > Sturm College of Law > Denver Journal of International Law & Policy > Vol. 53 (2024-2025) > No. 2 (2025)

 

Abstract

Since the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed between representatives of United Nations Command, the Korean People’s Army, and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in 1953, tensions have run high on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has time and again threatened an invasion of South Korea and has issued warnings to South Korea that, if provoked, it would not hesitate to use nuclear missiles and chemical weapons against its southern neighbor. Both the threat of an invasion and the deployment of weapons of mass destruction leave open an important question in the event of an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula: What measures would be put into place to ensure the accountability of actors who are responsible for a war of aggression or who deploy prohibited weapons of war?

This article sets forth to answer this question. It analyzes three forms of international criminal justice that can serve the Korean Peninsula: (1) a referral of international crimes to the International Criminal Court; (2) prosecution by domestic Korean courts; and (3) the establishment of a hybrid tribunal, the “Korean War Crimes Tribunal,” in coordination with the governments South Korea and United Nations Command member states. This article will argue that options (1) and (2) are marked by a range of jurisdictional deficiencies and practical impediments, whereas option (3)—the creation of the Korean War Crimes Tribunal—offers a range of advantages that would fill gaps in international criminal justice and promote accountability for international crimes.

Download



Share

COinS