Body
Several weeks ago, the Financial Times ran an update on an interesting legal strategy for holding North Korea accountable for human rights abuses. Back in December 2014, the DC Circuit Court issued a landmark decision in a case brought by the family of Reverend Kim Dong Shik, kidnapped by North Korea in 2001 while doing humanitarian work and presumed dead. The court drew on international tribunals and used an evidentiary standard suggested in an amicus brief by Human Rights First; their site reviews the case. The Israeli NGO Shurat HaDin, known for suing states such as Iran and Syria on behalf of victims of torture or terrorism, was also in the game. The circuit court reversed a previous decision by a lower court and thus effectively entered a default judgment against North Korea, which failed to show up in court. An important precedent was to toss out claims of sovereign immunity on the grounds that they did not pertain in cases involving human rights abuses.
The question was how to collect on the $330 million judgment? In April, the family and its lawyers hit on a strategy: to put a lien against the Mudubong, the North Korean cargo ship that had run aground in a coral reef off the coast of Mexico. (We mentioned this strategy briefly in a post on sanctions a few months ago). The ship has been held by Mexico because it was under international sanction. Two weeks after the ship ran aground, the UN Security Council—followed by the US Treasury and others—issued new sanctions against Ocean Maritime Management for its involvement in arms trade in violation of UNSC resolutions. OMM is considered the ultimate owner of the Mudubong, despite the effort of North Korea to create a shell-company (Mudubong Shipping Company, in fact) and appeals to get the ship back.
The Mexican court declined the Kim family’s appeal, claiming it did not have jurisdiction to recognize the US decision. But the plaintiffs have promised to fight on as Mexican law does provide for the attachment of assets when enforcing a claim.
There is, however, one predictable effect of these efforts: OMM will now be cautious about where it goes. The natural fallback? Russia. Leo Byrne at NKNews has developed a maritime tracking service, and notes in a recent update that several OMM vessels appear to be plying their trade with Russia more frequently; Maritime Executive has also picked up the story. Marine.link too. Moscow might hide behind a technicality: since the UN Security Council designations, OMM has been shifting ships around to new entities. Russia could claim that until those entities are designated they have no legal grounds for seizing the ships. But this is sophistry and we suspect that Russia simply has no interest in complying. We are happily proven wrong, but are not holding our breath.
