The ethics of United Nations sanctions on North Korea: effectiveness, necessity and proportionality

If the legal foundation and political consensus underpinning United Nations resolutions suggests that North Korea's denuclearization can be understood as a just cause, were the means used by the United Nations also just? This essay draws on jus in bello analogies to analyze UN sanctions via standard ethical criteria of effectiveness, necessity and proportionality. It shows that UN sanctions did not fulfill the effectiveness criterion as they were never likely to result in the denuclearization of North Korea. The necessity condition was strained as the alternative instrument of diplomacy was not utilized in a sustained manner. Expanded sanctions from 2016 did not distinguish between the military and civilian economies. Stringent energy sanctions introduced in 2017 contributed significantly to a precipitous fall in agricultural production in 2018 such that the country could no longer feed about a third of the 25 million population. Post-2016 UN sanctions did not meet the proportionality criterion as they jeopardized the food security of millions of innocents. The DPRK government has primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens but this assumption does not abrogate the responsibilities of others. Broad UN sanctions on the DPRK are neither effective nor proportionate and are, therefore, unethical.