This note assesses the implications of the D.C. Circuit Court case of Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in which the court found the North Korean state responsible for the torture and unlawful killing of Kim Dong Shik, a South Korean missionary who was abducted by the North Korean government while in China. In particular, this note shows how the judgment breaks new ground by holding a state responsible for torture and unlawful killing based solely on general evidence of that country’s human rights practices, without additional information about the fate of the victim himself. This note also discusses this case’s implications for the plaintiffs themselves, and for other victims of North Korean human rights abuses.

On December 29, 2011, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the Law on the Status and Treatment of Refugees, which went into effect on July 1, 2013. The law was the culmination of years of effort by the government, NGOs, UNHCR and the lawmakers. It has been widely praised by civil society groups in Korea. However, there has been little critical analysis of its provisions whether it will truly be a successful legislation. This research critically evaluates whether the new law is likely to promote Korean compliance with international legal standards, namely, the 1951 Refugee Convention and major human rights treaties. It finds that while the law represents a significant improvement over current practices, it possesses problematic provisions related to detention, refugee determination, economic and social rights of asylum-seekers, and the treatment of recognized refugees. This essay will conclude by highlighting four outstanding implementation questions that could impact compliance with international standards.

Since its establishment in the year 2001, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea has assumed the role of primary governmental entity addressing human rights issues in the country. In addition to investigating complaints of human rights violations and discrimination, the NHRCK has a policy advisory function, and engages in research, education, and publicizing of human rights issues. This article examines the role of the NHRCK, which came into being in part due to the advocacy of victim rights groups, in promoting and protecting victim rights. It addresses both the rights of crime victims and the rights of victims of human rights abuses. The article analyzes the different ways in which the NHRCK has addressed victim issues, while offering concluding observations as to how the NHRCK can more effectively promote and protect victim rights in the future.