Over 50 rights groups have expressed their concerns to Chinese President Xi Jinping on the issue of North Korean detainees forcibly returned by Chinese authorities. The applied pressure calls for China to cease its forcible repatriation in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement under international law.
The collective outcry addresses the potential forceful repatriation following the reopening of the North Korean border on August 27. The UN Special Rapporteur had warned in October 2022 about the probable resurgence of forceful repatriation.
Both the rights groups and the UN Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) invoked the non-refoulement principle as stipulated under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. These treaties codify against refoulement, and as signatories, obligation falls on China not to expel refugees to places where their life or freedom would be threatened.
Since 2014, the UN Human Rights Council has observed North Korea committing crimes against humanity targeted at forcible returnees detained by China. Furthermore, OHCHR has confirmed forced disappearances and other human rights violations continue in 2023.
However, China’s response to the UN’s findings in 2014 justified its forced repatriation policies by classifying the North Korean detainees as illegal immigrants rather than refugees, hence not falling within the non-refoulement principle in the conventions.
In light of the subsequent 19th Asian Games, hosted by China from September 23, and the reappearance of 200 North Korean officials, athletes, and coaches since its border reopening, concerns about torture and inhuman treatment faced by North Korean escapees resume. The autocratic North Korean government and its rights-infringing laws have led many of its citizens to defect. Notably, Human Rights Watch reported public humiliation and punishment by North Korean authorities against its athletes who underperformed.
Original article accessible at: www.jurist.org