Hyo-Je Cho
By the time the former authoritarian regime gave way to more pluralist democratic politics in Korea after the late 1980s the concept of human rights was almost synonymous with the typical notion of human rights as the individual’s last resort against the state’s repression. To the extent that the ‘mainstream’ or ‘traditional’ view of human rights was clearly defined, however, there were very few, if any, coherent counter-arguments against the prevailing concept. While the former was abundantly documented and reported (cf. Amnesty International, 1986; Asia Watch Committee, 1987; Ranard, 1980), the latter existed only as a rather defensive argument based on the ‘necessary evil’ logic under the circumstances of political exigency. This meant that although there were severe restrictions on citizens’ freedom in all their guises in the past there existed a largely undisputed ideal of ‘universal’ human rights. This is an interesting point of departure from a more articulated, albeit flawed, form of counter-concept of human rights such as the one illustrated by the so-called ‘Asian value’ debate. In short, the conceptual landscape of human rights in Korea in the 1980s consisted of a rather clear-cut, standard formulation of human rights as liberty-equality-fraternity on the one hand, and of a merely reactive and somewhat temperamental inclination against the rights discourse on the other, hence the vastly asymmetrical picture.
The contemporary landscape of human rights in Korea, however, is an altogether different story; it has greatly departed from the earlier picture. Nowadays two different concepts of human rights compete and clash with each other. A hasty answer to why this kind of change has occurred might be easily framed as the pro-human rights versus anti-human rights antagonism. But one needs to go beyond this simplistic interpretation and search for a more nuanced, socio-historically informed clue, since there are multi-faceted collaborating factors which have eventually led to the present state. In what follows I shall argue that the combination of policy changes, political contingencies and socio-economic conditions has acted as an important filter through which the different discourses of human rights have been tested, advocated and facilitated, resulting in the emergence of the two different human rights concepts. These socio-historical catalysts include the institutionalization of human rights discourse; changes in perceived relationship between human rights and democracy, and the proliferation of rights discourse; the penetration of neoliberal economic doctrine in many spheres of society; and the internationalization of the North Korean human rights issue.
It has long been accepted that human rights discourse in Korea in its modern manifestation was borne out of the situation since the early 1970s when clashes between the authoritarian state repression and the civil society’s resistance began to escalate. It might be stated that the road to official recognition of human rights fully gathered momentum during the presidencies of Kim Dae- Jung (1998–2003) and Roh Moo-Hyun (2003–2008), respectively. A number of institutionalized human rights can be identified. Among them was the creation of the National Human Rights Commission in 2001, perhaps the most symbolic, visible and tangible result of the institutionalization of human rights. The ‘policy recommendation’, the organization’s primary means of enforcing its decision, is found to have had some notable, quantifiable effect on the criminal justice system, though not without limitations due to its non- binding nature (Lee, 2007b). Another example of the institutionalization of human rights includes attempts to look into the human rights abuses committed in the past. For the first time some of the past atrocities which had been virtually a taboo subject were openly revisited and discussed in public, with historical incidents of sensitive nature increasingly becoming subject of heated debate in academia as well as in the media. After the long political controversies the state apparatus including the judiciary began reviewing past human rights violation cases which culminated in the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2005. Alongside this, separate investigative bodies were set up along the lines of specific issues such as unaccounted death cases or the Jeju island massacres of the late 1940s. Also created were some particular truth committees under the auspices of various government bodies including the police, the defense ministry and the security agency. In addition, a move to disseminate the idea of human rights through the formal educational curriculum became another manifestation of the institutionalization of human rights. There were attempts to make human rights education mandatory for the military, the police and immigration officials. Although the policy changes were haphazard and slow the very fact that such an education was ever attempted at all would have been inconceivable just a few years ago.
The traditional human rights movement has engaged with the above changes enthusiastically. The human rights movement, as well as pro-democracy civic activities in general, not only have been influenced by the institutionalization drive of human rights, but they have also become an important driver of the institutionalization process itself. It is often pointed out that Korean politics has a distinctive feature of ‘movement politics’ with heavy inputs from civil society, ideationally as well as in terms of personnel (Cho, 2000). Through this process the traditional discourse managed to become one of the important pillars of the governing ideology the successive governments of Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun relied upon. This change in official language and policy, although far from flawless, had a profound impact on the bureaucracy in general; the discourse of human rights was allowed to penetrate into the hitherto forbidden core of the old establishment. This in turn had transforming effect on the human rights, since the institutionalization inevitably required human rights advocacy and discourse to be subject to bureaucratic rule, regulations and organizational constraints. The human rights community had to learn the ‘art of governing’ and, in many cases, had to allow institutionalized human rights policies to be held accountable to the normal organizational process, including a call for more public scrutiny on matters concerning budgetary control.
On the one hand, the institutionalization of human rights predictably further undercut the counter-discourse’s room for maneuver. For at that time it was more difficult, if not impossible, for the counter-argument of human rights to make its case in the changed environment. But on the other hand the situation produced a rather paradoxical effect that the counter- discourse was able to acquire some policy leverage to scrutinize the traditional human rights movement with the very bureaucratic criteria the institutionalization was supposed to be subject to. This was most evidently demonstrated after the conservative Lee Myung-Bak government in 2008. Indeed the national human rights institution was forced to capitulate over the government’s demand to trim down the personnel and activity level in line with the governmental overall drive to make a ‘small government’. The onslaught on the institutionalized human rights using the bureaucratic organizational means proved to be an effective tactic on the part of the counter-discourse because the attack allowed the counter-discourse to criticize hegemony of the traditional human rights movement without having to oppose the human rights value in itself (Ju, 2007). It is worth noting that some segment of the press and media has been at the forefront of this attack with the intellectual input from the conservative constituency.
With an increasing tendency toward institutionalization came proliferation of human rights discourse and movement. For the past two decades there developed two contradictory but somehow related trends: a dramatic expansion of various human rights movements; and the proliferation of interest-based rights discourse and its associated collective action. All sorts of different issue areas of human rights (‘horizontal dimension’) have been brought into light with the corresponding formation of groups working for their respective causes. The speed with which this expansion has come about and the relative ease with which the public has accepted the basic tenets of these issues are remarkable. The most prominent among this trend were issues related to discrimination or, more precisely, to the struggle for ‘recognition equality’ (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). The disability issue was the first in a long list of ‘recognition inequality’, which was able to find a legislative solution (Nam, 2007). An interesting development is the ‘discovery’ of such sub-category within the disabled as the disabled women, an important insight into the double hardship of women with disabilities in a traditionally male-centered society (Cha, 2005; Hong and Sung, 2003). Also to be taken into account is the reality of the mentally disabled persons whose existence had been virtually hidden away from the public eye (Lee, 2007a). The plight of former patients of Hansen’s Disease is another example of this resurfacing of long suppressed human rights issues (Jung, 2006). Discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation has also been subject to heated public debate. As the lid on the taboo subject was lifted the protection of human rights for, and the endowment of full ‘social’ citizenship upon, those who are discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality began to be addressed in academia as well as in civil society (Kwon, 2009; Seo, 2005). The protection of the elderly in a rapidly aging society has also been on the agenda of human rights movement (Yoo and Kang, 2008). In addition to issues related to ‘recognition equality’ there emerged new human rights issues based on the re- interpretation and radicalization of freedom. These include, among others, human rights of students and children (Cho, 2007), basic rights of the enlisted service personnel (Lee, 2005), and the deprivation of education rights and persistent mental-physical abuse of the elite student-athletes (Kim, 2009b). The long-forgotten subject of those who are incarcerated on account of their conscientious objection to military conscription has been accepted as a public agenda on citizens’ liberty in the last decade (Ahn and Jang, 2002; Lee, 2004b). Furthermore, new human rights issues reflecting the changed socio-economic circumstances under globalization such as rights of migrant workers have become important components of human rights movement (Gray, 2004; Seol, 2005).
The expansion of human rights agenda was accompanied by the proliferation of interest-oriented rights discourse and its related collective action. According to Lee (2004c) just as the democratization process proceeded and deepened so came into being intense social conflicts in every aspect of public policy. This was exacerbated by the some public attitude that interpreted democracy as mere interest-group advocacy (Jang et al., 2002). A recently published paper vividly chronicles the prolonged and fierce opposition by certain community members to a proposed sports facility for the disabled on grounds of concern over the possible drop in property price in the neighborhood. The author of the study castigated the phenomenon as ‘collective selfishness’ disguised as ‘rights advocacy’ (Kim, 2009a). An exasperated human rights activist even suggested that ‘Human rights movement no longer deserves its name sake; it is now indistinguishable from material-interest movement’ (Oh et al., 2007: 18).
The concurrent expansion of the human rights movement and the proliferation of rights claims of all sorts have left significant impacts on the direction of post-democratization democracy in Korea. On the one hand, the closely intertwined discourse of democracy and human rights in the past was gradually and progressively separated. The hyphenated collocation of ‘democracy-human rights’ became increasingly less used as the governments of Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun broadened the democratic constituencies. While debate on democracy was increasingly replaced by talks about ‘post-democracy’, human rights discourse was increasingly fragmented into myriad ‘issue fightings’ without much interconnecting common fabric linking the whole human rights community (weakening of ‘vertical dimension’ of human rights). The trend was somewhat slowed down only after the advent of Lee Myung-Bak government when some sections of the population came to perceive that the retreat of democratic practices went hand in hand with gradual but inexorable chipping away of human rights. On the other hand, the grossly amplified rights claims and the public’s general assertiveness may have helped steer the country’s democracy away from a more inclusive, deliberative model toward something of a ‘direct action democracy’ model (cf. Carter, 2005). The raised visibility and normalization of interest-group politics had far more affinity with the counter-discourse of human rights than with the traditional discourse. The proliferation also allowed an opening of a political window through which the counter-discourse was able to argue forcefully for more possessive rights and for the inherent right to pursue one’s material gain under the banner of ‘rugged individualism’ and ‘rational’ self-seeking.
The radical shift toward the neoliberal economic paradigm in the last two decades in Korea was perhaps the most important structural factor for the differing evolution of human rights concepts after democratization. The response of the traditional human rights movement to this economic shift was by and large critical and resistant. One common theme which ran through the whole debate was the effect of globalization on poverty and widening inequality. In this regard Lim’s (2006) assertion that human rights movement must be first and foremost a fight against poverty in a rapidly globalizing era was testament to a paradigm shift from the pre-democratiza tion era when the human rights struggle was exclusively an antithesis of authoritarian rule in a political sense. This shift in emphasis is clearly observable from the human rights community. A survey of human rights NGOs in Korea revealed that the primary focus of their activity at the time of investigation was to expose the extent to which people suffered in the wake of economic crisis, that human rights NGOs engaged in efforts to bring international pressure to bear on the government to solve problems related to poverty, and that the NGOs called for necessary measures to establish social welfare safety net for those who are most at risk (Kim, 2004). Irregular workers usually comprised the largest portion of those who were legally sanctioned against the backdrop of flexible labor policy, strict adherence to law-and-order policy and alleged bias of prosecutorial power (Lee, 2006). It is noteworthy that women in particular are found to have been subject to multiple suffering under globalization condition, which is more gender-specific and more discriminatory (Shim, 2006). Moreover, South Korea is no exception in terms of exploitation of women through human trafficking in a more globalized world. This was compounded by a geo-political situation of the country where large-scale US troops are stationed. The influx of women into these military bases from places like the Philippines and former Soviet republics made the already unbearable condition of women more internationalized and more difficult to contain (Lee, 2004a). Related to this there has also been a surge in interest within human rights community on the rights-based corporate social accountability (Cho, 2008a).
One of the most interesting aspects of neoliberal globalization in relation to human rights is that it has actively been engaged in formulating a more proactive, coherent counter-discourse of human rights. The new counter-discourse claimed that free market alone could deliver true fulfillment of human rights through encouragement of the individual’s competitive instinct and the unprecedented material improvement. This kind of ‘possessive human rights’ concept had as its central tenet the principle of property rights from which flows the notion of other rights. Another notable development was the specific application of legal logic to support the neoliberal concept of human rights. This was one of those classical examples where neoliberal predominance was given intellectual justification (Cho, 2008b, Park, 2008; and for a more critical understanding see Park, 2007). The impetus for a vigorous counter-conceptualization of human rights mainly came from the business-related associations such as the Federation of Korean Industries and economists of neoliberal leaning. It should be made clear that this ‘minimalist’ understanding of human rights not only is not conducive to the accepted consensus on the inclusive ‘indivisibility’ principle of human rights, but also refuses to acknowledge the norms and standards of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights that South Korea had ratified in the early 1990s.
Interest in and publicity about the human rights situation in North Korea started to take a clearer shape in the 1990s when a series of famines struck the country with devastating results including deaths, starvation, chronic malnutrition, diseases like tuberculosis, displaced people and ‘economic refugees’. The plight of North Koreans seeking food and shelter in Northeast China was put on the international agenda, and North Korean refugees coming to and settling in South Korea have become a normal part of social life here. Alongside this phenomenon of humanitarian nature emerged sketches of human rights atrocities inside North Korea that echoed familiar repertoire of totalitarian repression such as surveillance and control of population, labor camps for political prisoners and a very low level of citizens’ liberty. The North Korean human rights situation has become one of the most fiercely debated subjects in South Korea in the last several years. The stark polarity in opinion on the issue means that even the very basic aspect of the debate has not been agreed upon, let alone solved. The North Korean human rights issue has become an important horizontal element — an indispensable issue area within the whole gamut of human rights issues — for the counter-discourse. Indeed the counter-discourse took a firm shape as a visible alternative challenger to the traditional human rights movement through the North Korean human rights issue.
Based on normative arguments Kim (2005c, 2006b) usefully classified the main controversies surrounding the issue in three parts: first, a debate over primacy between human rights and sovereignty; second, a debate over priority of civil rights versus priority of the right to life; and, third, a debate over the relevance of individual human rights versus the significance of the right to peace. In each category there are disagreements between the traditional human rights movement and the new conservative human rights movement. In contrast to the case of neoliberal economic trend it was the new movement that took the active initiative on the North Korean case.
The new movement’s proactive approach is well reflected in the sheer amount of literature it has generated. For example, Youn (2005) justifies an active outside intervention on North Korea with an analysis on forced labor camps for political prisoners. In the same vein Han (2006) describes human rights violation in all its forms in North Korea including abuses in civil and political rights as well as arbitrary deprivation of people’s right to feed themselves. Huh (2005) is scathing about the lack of sufficient public concern over the North Korean human rights situation and suggests that the more attention it receives the more likely it could be improved. For those who are taking a hard-line stance and who are supportive of North Korea’s democratization, a regime change approach appears to be virtually the only solution for improving the human rights situation in the country. Another characteristic of the new movement is that it often describes itself as an internationalist in that it regards international intervention (American assistance and involvement in particular) as an integral part of any solution (Kim, 2005a, 2005b) and that it seems to believe in the ultimate effectiveness of external coercion and pressure (Kim, 2008). The new human rights movement’s stance may have been bolstered by the George W. Bush administration’s equally hard-line policy toward North Korea (Kim, 2006a). Those who are major actors in raising North Korean human rights issues comprise a small number of long-standing human rights groups, the so-called New Right Movement, some church-supported NGOs, some right-wing media and intellectuals with neoconservative views.
The response of the traditional human rights movement to the North Korean human rights issue was by and large the opposite to that of the new movement. The former considers sovereignty of North Korea as an important starting point of the debate, thereby rejecting external intervention as dangerous and ineffective, emphasizes the right to survival and right to peace, believes that reports of human rights situation in North Korea tends to be exaggerated or inaccurate, regards the United States as the problem-giver in the first place rather than the problem-solver (Kang, 2005), and finds solution in the form of humanitarian assistance, more cooperation between the two Koreas and reconciliation. It must be noted, however, that the traditional human rights movement has been criticized as having acted with a double standard that it did not take as universal and principled stand toward North Korea as it had done toward authoritarian rule in South Korea in the past. This does not necessarily mean that there is no interest or concern from its side; the reverse may be true (cf. Suh, 2007). But critics of the traditional human rights movement point out that its problem lies in its general reluctance to face up to the reality, let alone confront the problem, with its usual vigor and moral fortitude.
As has been explained, by the time the military dictatorship came to an end the concept of human rights in Korea was almost always associated with democracy and pro-democracy movement at the time; human rights were indeed seen to have a collocated relationship with democracy both as a qualifier of and as a catalyst for democracy (Cho, 2002, 2006). This line of interpretation was within the firm grasp of traditional pro-democracy human rights movement. The experience of last 20 years, however, has changed the rather monistic approach of the traditional human rights discourse. But at the same time an alternative discourse of human rights, which had originally started as a justificatory rhetoric of conservative ideology, has risen to some prominence, after having reinvented itself as a distinctive, if idiosyncratic, voice of human rights from a right-wing perspective. Therefore, it may be possible to claim that there now exist two rather diametrically placed conceptions of human rights in contemporary Korea.
It has been argued that the reason for and process of the emergence of two different concepts of human rights can be attributed to the four contingent developments in the intervening years. The parameters have helped redefine conceptual contours of the traditional human rights movement and have also allowed room for a new concept of human rights to emerge. Owing to the institutionalization of human rights the traditional discourse has had to formalize and rationalize its concept of human rights according to rules and regulations of the official governing structure. The institutionalization has also enabled the counter-discourse to attack the traditional discourse not on the basis of human rights principles per se but of political accountability, thereby securing some foothold for its own existence. The expansion of human rights issue areas and the concurrent proliferation of rights claims steered the traditional discourse away from the correlative twin concept of ‘rights-duty’ toward the concept of de- monopolizing vested interests at all levels, creating a whole new set of human rights movements which are civil society-led and ‘maximalist’ in character. Interest groups of all kinds quickly took advantage of the situation the proliferation of rights claim created, adding additional voice to the self- seeking rights concept of the counter-discourse. The neoliberal economic paradigm triggered the traditional discourse’s deeper and broader commitment to economic rights and social justice, while the paradigm provided the counter-discourse with a stimulus to formulate a ‘minimalist’ human rights concept along the lines of a ‘free market plus law-and-order’ model, thereby furnishing a vertical dimension of human rights of its own. The North Korean human rights issue has left the traditional discourse with an obvious lacuna in terms of an important issue area within the ‘horizontal’ dimension of human rights movements. The deficit has also left a distorting impact on the hitherto ‘universal’ human rights concept of the traditional discourse. The counter-discourse has vigorously pushed the North Korean issue into the international as well as domestic human rights agenda, justifying it as one of the most urgent human rights issues of our time.
The corollary of this differing evolution of human rights discourse is a clear bifurcation between the two seemingly irreconcilable concepts, i.e. the maximalist, civil society-oriented concept versus the minimalist, illiberal, internationalist human rights concept. Therefore it may well be that the future of human rights in Korea will be dependent, at least partly, on the interaction and rivalry of the two alternative human rights concepts, and on their future evolutionary trajectory.
Ahn, Kyong-hwan and Bok-Hee Jang, eds. 2002. Conscientious Objection. Seoul: Saram-saenggak.
Amnesty International. 1986. South Korea: Violations of Human Rights. London: AI.
Asia Watch Committee. 1987. A Stern, Steady Crackdown: Legal Process and Human Rights in South Korea. Washington, DC: Asia Watch Committee.
Carter, April. 2005. Direct Action and Democracy Today. Cambridge: Polity.
Cha, Seon-Ja. 2005. ‘Discrimination and human rights protection of women with disabilities’. Journal of Civil Law 13(2): 133–166.
Cho, Hee-Yeon. 2000. ‘Democratic transition and institutional politics, people politics and citizen politics’. Economy and Society 46: 170–198.
Cho, Hyo-Je. 2002. ‘Human rights in Korea at the crossroads: A critical overview’. Korea Journal 42(1): 204–227.
Cho, Hyo-Je. 2006. ‘Human rights as a qualifier and a catalyst for Korea’s democracy’. H.M. Hsiao, ed., Asian New Democracies: The Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan Compared, pp. 179–204. Taipei: Taiwan Foundation for Democracy Foundation.
Cho, Hyo-Je. 2008a. ‘A preliminary study on human rights-based corporate social accountability’. Journal of Asiatic Studies 51(3): 128–160.
Cho, Jae Hyun. 2008b. ‘The comment on function and role of National Human Rights Commission of Korea’. Korean Constitutional Law 14(2): 67–97.
Cho, Kum-Ju. 2007. ‘Outcome of surveys on human rights of middle and high school students in 2006’. Korean Journal of Youth Studies 14(3): 189–216.
Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.
Gray, Kevin. 2004. ‘The “underclass” of migrant workers in Korea’. Journal of Asiatic Studies 116: 97–128.
Han, Ki-Hong. 2006. ‘Human rights situation in North Korea’. Philosophy and Reality 68: 80–91.
Hong, Seok-Joon and Jung-Hyeun Sung. 2003. ‘A study on the self-identity and human rights of women with disabilities: focused on construction of group identity as community and human rights’. Asian Women 42: 47–83.
Huh, Man-Ho. 2005. ‘Should we keep silent about human rights issues in North Korea’. North Korea 407: 67–74.
Jang, Sang-chul, Hyo-Je Cho, Sang-Pil Park, and Won-Oh Chung. 2002. ‘Democratization and interest groups: State, non-profit organization, and social capital’. Trends and Perspectives 54: 156–185.
Ju, Seong-Young. 2007. ‘No justification of existence for the National Human Rights Commission’. Korean Unification 1: 76.
Jung, Keun-Sik. 2006. ‘Dissolution of settlement village and network of migration in Hansen’s Disease ex-patient communities’. Society and History 69: 43–81.
Kang, Jeong-koo. 2005. ‘Responsibility of the U.S.A. for the human rights problems in North Korea’. Reunification of Korea 259: 68–71.
Kim, Jong-il. 2005a. ‘Human rights situation in North Korea and international society 1’. North Korea 400: 152–157.
Kim, Jong-il. 2005b. ‘Human rights situation in North Korea and international society 2’. North Korea 401: 122–127.
Kim, Jong-il. 2008. ‘Human rights situation in North Korea cannot be achieved without its regime change’. North Korea 434: 94–103.
Kim, Ki-Sup. 2009a. ‘Collective selfishness shown to the construction of a sports facility for the disabled’. Korea Journal of Sports Science 18(3): 359–369.
Kim, Nyung. 2004. ‘Neo-liberalism, poverty, and the role of human rights NGOs in Korea’. Korean Journal of Humanities and the Social Sciences 93: 67–99.
Kim, Sang Kyum. 2009b. ‘A study on human rights of student athletes and on the protection of educational right’. Sports and Law 12(1): 11–34.
Kim, Su-am. 2006a. ‘Bush administration’s human rights policy on North Korea’. Korean Journal of Political and Diplomatic History 27(2): 345–372.
Kim, Woen Sick. 2005c. ‘The situation and prospect of discourse on North Korean human rights’. Society and Philosophy 9: 99–129.
Kim, Woen Sick. 2006b. ‘The examination of normative arguments in the discourse on North Korean human rights’. North Korean Studies Review 10(1): 75–95.
Kwon, In-Sook. 2009. ‘Analysis of sexuality within the army, focusing on sexual desire, masculinity and homosexuality’. Economy and Society 82: 38–65.
Lee Cheol-ho. 2007a. ‘The Mental Health Law and the human rights of persons with medical disorders’. Korean Constitutional Law 13(4): 229–258.
Lee, Gwang-Ryol. 2006. ‘Human rights of imprisoned workers and democracy in Korea’. Situation and Labor 17: 97–105.
Lee, Ho Jung. 2007b. ‘Five years of Korean national human rightscommission: evaluation and prospect; effects and limits of policy recommendations of NHRCK-focused on the effects to the criminal justice system’. Democracy and Law 33: 59–91.
Lee, Jung Ok. 2004a. ‘The globalization of human rights and the human security of women in sex industry’. Korean Journal of Women’s Studies 20(1): 195–227.
Lee, Kye-su. 2005. ‘Premodern military culture and human rights of the soldier’. Democratic Law Studies 28: 160–180.
Lee, Nam-seok. 2004b. Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience. Seoul: Greenbee.
Lee, Young-Hee. 2004c. ‘Democratization and social conflicts: focusing on social conflicts and public policies’. Trend and Prospect 61: 36–67.
Lim, Chae-Hong. 2006. ‘Poverty and human rights’. Yeungnam Law Journal 12(1): 45–58.
Nam, Chan-sop. 2007. ‘The meaning and main contents of the act to prohibit discriminating against people with disabilities’. Health and Welfare Forum 127: 23–33.
Oh, Wan-Ho, Min-shik Choi, Yong-mok Kim, Sang-woo Park and Chang-soo Lee. 2007. ‘Human rights movements at local level’. Human Rights 1: 17–20.
Park, Rae-Goon. 2007. ‘Neoliberalism, collapse of the state of rule of law and human rights movement’. Radical Review 34: 10–25.
Park, Cheoll. 2008. ‘Rule of law and economic development’. Justice 106: 39–79.
Ranard, Donald L. 1980. ‘Korea, human rights and United States foreign policy’. Tom J. Farer, ed., Toward a Humanitarian Diplomacy: A Primer for Policy, pp. 177–226. New York: New York University Press.
Seo, Dong-Jin. 2005. ‘Human rights, citizenship and sexuality’. Economy and Society 67: 66–87.
Seol, Dong-Hoon. 2005. ‘Migrant workers and human rights’. Democracy and Human Rights 5(2): 39–77.
Shim, Young-Hee. 2006. ‘Globalization and women’s security in Korea’. Gender and Society 5: 11–52.
Suh, Bo-Hyuk. 2007. North Korean Human Rights: Theory, Practice and Policy. Seoul: Hanul.
Yoo, Seong Ho and Sun A. Kang. 2008. ‘Nursing home staff’s knowledge on the 2004 revised Older Koreans Act for elder abuse, reports of elder abuse and attitudes about sanctioning mandatory reporters’. Social Welfare Policy 33: 311–333.
Youn, Hwang. 2005. ‘An analysis on the realities of human rights policy and prison camps of the political criminals in North Korea’. Reunification Strategy 5(2): 172–228.