DPRK's government believes that a state of war exists, and both its behavior and its communications with its own people are consistent with that belief. So surely the answer must be closer to "to a point."

This draft shows by its ending that the real subject is personal, not technical. I think the best way to make it better is to honor that real subject. At the beginning of the century planning for Korean reunification made sense. But the human reality is of indeterminate separation, danger and human cost. That, it seems to me, is what you are really writing about.

End of War (?)

-- By ChloeJo - 16 Apr 2024

In Evelyn Waugh's Novel Scoop, Mr. Salter has limited expressions of assent. When Lord Copper was correct, he says, "Definitely." When Copper was wrong, he says, "Up to a point." For instance, "Hong Kong belongs to use?" "Definitely, Lord Copper." Or "What's the capital of Japan, Yokohama, isn't it?" "Up to a point, Lord Copper."

When asked "Has the Korean War ended?" what would Mr. Salter say? Would his answer be "Definitely" or "Up to a point"?

Historical Background

After World War II, the Soviet-backed government in the North and an American-backed government in the South divided the Korean Peninsula on the 38th parallel. On June 25, 1950, the Northern Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea, aiming to militarily conquer the South. Concerned that the Soviet Union and Communist China might gain more power, President Harry Truman sent troops to a combined United Nations military effort. The war lasted three years and ceased as the United States and China signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. The Korean Peninsula remains divided, with military personnel from both North and South Korea occupying the demilitarized zone.

Legal Definition of End of War

de facto war v. de jure war

The law identifying the end of international armed conflict is sparse at best. The Geneva Conventions refer to the end of the conflict with phrases such as “when the last shot has been fired.” However, as with most human relationships, one may end a war unilaterally, but bilateral consent is necessary to establish peace. The material sense of the Korean War may have ended in 1953. Nevertheless, whether the Korean War really ended needs more exploration about the meaning of “armistice”.

Application to the Korean War

In the Korean War, the signed document was an armistice, not a peace treaty. What would be the legal effects of the armistice agreement? Does this simply mean a temporary suspension of “active hostilities”? The original meaning of armistice has been limited. The Humanitarian Law Guide states that an armistice is a truce, a temporary suspension of hostilities and thus does not reflect a juridical end of the state of war. However, after World War 1, the armistice changed its characteristic from suspension to cessation. WW1 ended with an armistice in 1918, as the Germans sent a late-night radio message to Marshal Foch, commander-in-chief of the Allied forces, requesting permission to send a delegation through the lines to negotiate an armistice. Germany agreed to the terms of the proposed terms of Allied forces including Article 20 stating that hostilities at sea must cease immediately.

Professor Yoram Dinstein, in War, Aggression, and Self-Defense, claims that the modern definition of an armistice agreement has evolved to mean the termination of a war, as the significance of a peace treaty is lost, and belligerent rights cannot continue. Accordingly, the case of the Korean Armistice Agreement, although it did “not produce peace in the full meaning of the term,” indicates that the Agreement was not intended to be a suspension of hostilities, but rather to be a complete cessation of them, leading to the end of the war. The original language of the Korean Armistice Agreement provides that “the undersigned… in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, … with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, … The Commanders of the opposing sides shall order and enforce a complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed forces under their control…” 4 U.S.T. at 236, 239 (emphasis added.)

Even though there is some room for debate about whether an armistice agreement terminates a state of war completely, it would be fair to presume that Mr. Salter would answer Korean War has ended “Definitely.”

Signed Peace Treaty

The following question would be then: if the Korean War has ended, then is it necessary to have a signed peace treaty? I don’t know a definite answer to this question but, rather than a passive meaning of the absence of war or armed conflict, it is important to obtain the active meaning of establishing peaceful relations. If only the normalization of relations between South and North Korea is achieved, there is no need for a declaration of peace.

In reality, starting from the declaration of withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea with diplomatic relations with over 160 countries, has been in ongoing conflicts with South Korea, the United States, and Japan. As a nuclear-armed state with long-range missiles, North Korea will be ranked alongside countries like Israel or Pakistan. There is no rational reason for the United States to adhere to its non-aggression treaty, and not only the Korean Peninsula but also the peace of Northeast Asia will be jeopardized.

Therefore, based on the mutual trust accumulated so far, South Korea should induce North Korea towards nuclear peace independently through disclosure, declaration inspection, and verification of nuclear materials, facilities, weapons, and technology. There is little chance that a peace treaty with North Korea without denuclearization will pass through the U.S. Congress, anyway.

The quest for peace on the Korean Peninsula mirrors global struggles for reconciliation and harmony. President Trump’s 2020 Middle East Peace Plan highlights that true reconciliation remains elusive as both sides resist compromise. Any meaningful peace treaty must garner the consent of all parties involved. Until such a consensus of Israel and Palestine is reached, the cycle of conflict and tension is likely to persist. Thus, as we strive for peace in our own lives and communities, let us also advocate for understanding, dialogue, and cooperation, honoring the sacrifices of those who have suffered the consequences of war.

Honoring my Grandfather's Journey

My grandfather, a Korean War veteran, sacrificed his health in service to his country. His hearing impairment from handling artillery serves as a reminder of the enduring scars of war, while news of his recent battle with lung cancer underscores the ongoing costs of conflict.