Report on the Classification of the 2024 North Korean Human Rights Assessment and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

The Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Unification has announced its decision to classify the 2024 report on human rights in North Korea, ceasing its public disclosure. The official rationale cited is the perceived ineffectiveness of past public reports in improving conditions for North Korean citizens. However, this decision raises significant concerns regarding transparency and commitment to international human rights standards, directly impacting the advancement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Violations of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The conditions documented in previous reports highlight a complete absence of the principles enshrined in SDG 16. The North Korean regime’s actions represent a systemic failure to protect fundamental freedoms and ensure justice.

2.1 Documented Abuses in Contravention of SDG 16 Targets

• Target 16.1 (Reduce Violence and Death Rates): The state engages in routine torture and executions, including the public shooting of teenagers for consuming foreign media and the execution of a pregnant woman.
• Target 16.3 (Promote the Rule of Law and Equal Access to Justice): The concept of human rights is non-existent, with citizens treated as property of the ruling family. There is no access to justice or rule of law for ordinary citizens.
• Target 16.A (Strengthen National Institutions to Prevent Violence): State institutions, such as prison camps and detention facilities, are primary instruments for perpetrating violence, including torture and human experimentation.

2.2 Impact of Non-Disclosure on SDG 16

The decision to classify the report undermines key tenets of SDG 16 by:

1. Obstructing public access to information (Target 16.10), thereby shielding a regime from international scrutiny and accountability.
2. Weakening the global partnership (SDG 17) for monitoring and addressing crimes against humanity.
3. Failing to contribute to the historical record of culpability, a crucial step towards future justice for victims.

3.0 Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

The human rights crisis in North Korea is intrinsically linked to a failure to achieve other core SDGs.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The regime’s opulent lifestyle exists in stark contrast to the widespread starvation and forced toil of the general population.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Systemic torture and alleged human experimentation are extreme violations of the right to physical and mental health.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The documented execution of a pregnant woman exemplifies the brutal violence perpetrated against women.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The governance structure institutionalizes extreme inequality, treating citizens as slaves to the ruling elite.

4.0 Conclusion: A Divergence from International Commitments

While the South Korean government has chosen to classify its findings, other international partners, such as the United States Department of State, continue to publicly document North Korea’s human rights abuses. This divergence in approach weakens the unified international effort required under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The act of classifying a record of crimes against humanity is fundamentally at odds with the global commitment to uphold human rights, justice, and strong institutions as foundational pillars of sustainable development.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The text describes a complete breakdown of justice, peace, and institutional integrity in North Korea, highlighting issues like executions, torture, and the absence of rule of law. It also touches on the role of other governments (South Korea and the U.S.) in documenting or obscuring these issues, which relates to institutional responsibility.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article explicitly mentions that “ordinary North Koreans starve and toil” while the ruling elite “live in opulence.” This directly points to a crisis of hunger and food insecurity, which is the core focus of SDG 2.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  A specific and egregious example cited in the article is the “execution of a pregnant woman.” This highlights extreme violence against women, connecting the human rights crisis to the goals of protecting women and achieving gender equality.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article draws a stark contrast between the opulent lifestyle of the Kim family and the suffering of the general population, who are described as starving, toiling, and being treated like “slaves.” This illustrates an extreme form of inequality within a country, a key concern of SDG 10.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

  The article directly relates to this target by documenting state-sanctioned violence. It cites “the execution of a pregnant woman,” the “public shooting of teenagers,” and notes that the regime “maintains power through executions, torture.”

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

  The article describes a system that is the antithesis of the rule of law. Statements that “Human rights, as the world understands them, do not exist there” and that citizens are treated as “slaves” show a complete absence of access to justice. Torture and executions in “prison camps and detention facilities” further confirm the violation of this target.

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.

  This target is relevant in two ways. First, the execution of teenagers for “watching South Korean dramas” is a brutal violation of the freedom to seek and receive information. Second, the South Korean government’s decision to “classify” its human rights report, turning it into a “state secret,” works against the principle of ensuring public access to information on human rights abuses.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

  The article’s statement that “ordinary North Koreans starve” directly points to the failure to meet this target. It describes a situation of widespread hunger affecting the general population.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.

  The specific example of the “execution of a pregnant woman” is an extreme form of state-perpetrated violence against women, making this target highly relevant.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.

  The description of citizens as the “private property—and slaves—of the Kim family” while the family “live[s] in opulence” signifies the most extreme inequality of outcome and a complete lack of equal opportunity.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Implied Indicators for Target 16.1:

  The article’s references to “executions,” “public shooting,” and “torture” imply the relevance of indicators like 16.1.1 (Number of victims of intentional homicide) and 16.1.2 (Conflict-related deaths). The human rights reports themselves, which document these acts, serve as a qualitative data source for these indicators.

• Implied Indicators for Target 16.3:

  The mention of “prison camps and detention facilities” where torture is “routine” implies that an indicator such as 16.3.2 (Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population) would be relevant, as it points to a lack of due process.

• Implied Indicators for Target 16.10:

  The punishment for watching foreign media implies the relevance of 16.10.1 (Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates), though in this case, the victims are ordinary citizens seeking information.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Implied Indicators for Target 2.1:

  The word “starve” directly implies the relevance of indicator 2.1.1 (Prevalence of undernourishment). The article suggests this is a widespread problem among the general population.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Implied Indicators for Target 5.2:

  The “execution of a pregnant woman” is a data point for indicator 5.2.1 (Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence), representing the most extreme form of physical violence by the state.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Implied Indicators for Target 10.3:

  The description of a society where the population is treated as “slaves” implies a complete failure to meet this target. While not a formal UN indicator, the existence of a slave-like class versus an opulent ruling family is a powerful qualitative indicator of extreme inequality of outcome.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: news.nate.com