THE SECURITY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR CRISIS: DIPLOMACY AND SANCTIONS

 

This article has been written by Ms. Jaanvi Keshav, a 4th year student of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla.

 

Abstract

 

This research paper delves into the multifaceted response of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the North Korean nuclear crisis, examining the intricate balance between diplomacy and sanctions. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the crisis, the role of the UNSC in maintaining international peace and security, and the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts coupled with sanctions in addressing the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. The research explores the legal frameworks, resolutions, and diplomatic engagements that have shaped the international community’s response to the North Korean nuclear threat.

 

Introduction 

 

The North Korean nuclear crisis has been a persistent challenge to international peace and security since the early 21st century. Stemming from North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, the crisis has triggered global concerns. The history of North Korea’s nuclear program, its motivations, and the evolving nature of the crisis set the stage for a comprehensive examination of the Security Council’s response. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) holds a pivotal role in maintaining international peace and security, as outlined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The UNSC’s authority to address threats to peace includes the power to impose sanctions and authorize the use of force. As the primary organ responsible for responding to crises, the Security Council’s decisions and resolutions shape the international community’s collective response to security challenges. The North Korean nuclear crisis underscores the significance of the UNSC’s role in managing and resolving complex geopolitical issues. This research aims to provide a thorough examination of the Security Council’s response to the North Korean nuclear crisis, with a specific focus on the interplay between diplomacy and sanctions.

 

1.Background of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis

The North Korean nuclear crisis emerged as a complex geopolitical challenge that has persisted since the early 21st century, marked by North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its subsequent withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. The roots of the crisis can be traced back to the Korean War (1950-1953), which left the Korean Peninsula divided into North and South Korea. Over the years, North Korea, under the leadership of the Kim dynasty, sought to establish itself as a nuclear-capable state, viewing nuclear weapons as a means of safeguarding its regime and asserting its influence in the region. Tensions escalated in the 1990s as North Korea’s nuclear program advanced, leading to international concerns and diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear ambitions. Despite intermittent periods of engagement and negotiations, North Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006, further exacerbating the crisis. The subsequent years witnessed a series of provocations, including missile launches and additional nuclear tests, prompting global condemnation. The international community, primarily through the United Nations Security Council, responded with a combination of diplomatic initiatives and sanctions to address the evolving threat and maintain regional stability.

 

2.Legal Frameworks and Resolutions

 

The United Nations Charter serves as the foundational document guiding the actions of the international community. The Charter outlines the principles and purposes of the United Nations, emphasizing the maintenance of international peace and security. Within this framework, Chapter VII grants the UN Security Council the authority to respond to threats to peace and act on matters of international security. As the North Korean nuclear crisis emerged, the Charter provided the legal basis for the Security Council’s involvement and the formulation of subsequent resolutions.

 

 Key Security Council Resolutions

• Resolution 1695 (2006): Adopted in response to North Korea’s missile tests, this resolution expressed grave concern over the situation and demanded that North Korea cease its missile-related activities. It highlighted the importance of diplomatic efforts to address the crisis peacefully.
• Resolution 1718 (2006): A pivotal resolution following North Korea’s nuclear test, it imposed sanctions on North Korea, targeting its weapons programs and restricting the export of certain goods. The resolution emphasized the international community’s united front against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
• Subsequent Resolutions and Their Impact: Over the years, the Security Council issued additional resolutions, each building on previous measures. These resolutions aimed to tighten sanctions, address proliferation concerns, and encourage diplomatic solutions. Analyzing the evolution of these resolutions provides insights into the adaptability and effectiveness of the UNSC’s legal responses.

 

3.Diplomatic Initiatives

• Six-Party Talks and Multilateral Engagement

The Six-Party Talks, involving North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States, emerged as a key diplomatic mechanism to address the North Korean nuclear crisis. Commencing in 2003, these talks aimed to find a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The multilateral nature of the discussions provided a platform for engaging all relevant stakeholders, fostering regional stability, and demonstrating the international community’s commitment to diplomatic solutions.

The diplomatic process involved negotiations on denuclearization commitments, security assurances, and economic cooperation. Analyzing the dynamics of the Six-Party Talks allows an examination of the challenges and achievements in multilateral diplomacy, shedding light on the complexities of reaching consensus among diverse actors with competing interests.

• Bilateral Diplomacy

Bilateral engagements, particularly between North Korea and the United States, played a crucial role in shaping the diplomatic landscape. From the Agreed Framework in the 1990s to the more recent summits between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump, these interactions had significant implications for the overall diplomatic trajectory. Evaluating the effectiveness of bilateral negotiations helps gauge the impact of direct engagements on denuclearization efforts and regional stability.

• Humanitarian Considerations in Diplomatic Efforts

Beyond the political and security dimensions, diplomatic initiatives also addressed humanitarian concerns. The provision of humanitarian aid, negotiations on family reunifications, and discussions on human rights issues formed part of the broader diplomatic agenda. Analyzing the incorporation of humanitarian considerations into diplomatic efforts provides insights into the complexities of balancing security concerns with the well-being of the North Korean population.

 

4.Sanctions Regime

 

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has employed a series of sanctions against North Korea to curb its nuclear ambitions and discourage activities that threaten international peace and security. These sanctions, authorized under various resolutions, are multifaceted and target different aspects of North Korea’s economy, military capabilities, and leadership. The overarching goal is to induce a change in behavior and encourage North Korea to comply with international demands for denuclearization. Following are some of the sanctions imposed by UNSC;

• Asset Freezing and Travel Bans: Resolutions, such as 1718 (2006) and 2270 (2016), have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities associated with North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. These measures aim to restrict the movement and financial capabilities of key figures involved in the proliferation activities.
• Trade Restrictions: The UNSC has implemented trade restrictions on certain goods, including arms and luxury items, through resolutions like 1718 (2006) and 2371 (2017). These restrictions limit North Korea’s access to resources that could contribute to its military capabilities and inhibit the flow of luxury goods to the regime.
• Export and Import Bans: Resolutions, such as 1718 (2006) and 2397 (2017)

have imposed bans on the export and import of specific goods, including coal, iron, seafood, and textiles. These measures target North Korea’s revenue streams and aim to undermine its economic capacity to support its nuclear program.

• Financial Sanctions: The UNSC has implemented financial sanctions, including restrictions on North Korean banks and the prohibition of certain financial transactions. These measures, outlined in resolutions like 1718 (2006) and 2371 (2017), aim to disrupt the financial networks supporting North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities.

 

5.The Role of International law

 

 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stands as a cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Opened for signature in 1968, the NPT has been signed by a majority of the world’s nations, including North Korea. The treaty is based on three main pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology (non-proliferation), promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy (cooperation), and pursuing nuclear disarmament.

 

• Despite being a party to the NPT, North Korea announced its withdrawal in 2003, a move that heightened international concerns regarding its nuclear ambitions.

The withdrawal raised questions about the effectiveness of the NPT in preventing proliferation and highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to address non-compliance.

 

• North Korea’s nuclear activities in violation of the NPT raised questions about the efficacy of the treaty’s safeguards system.

The international community, through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), worked to address these violations and emphasize the importance of adherence to NPT obligations.

 

• The NPT Review Conferences provided a platform for states to assess the treaty’s implementation and discuss ways to strengthen its effectiveness.

The North Korean case underscored the challenges in enforcing the NPT and the need for a unified international response to non-compliance.

 

Customary International Law

Customary international law, derived from consistent state practice and accepted as law, plays a crucial role in shaping norms related to nuclear weapons.

Principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, the obligation to negotiate in good faith, and the responsibility to prevent harm to the environment are integral to customary international law and have implications for the North Korean nuclear crisis.

• State Responsibility:

States have a responsibility under customary international law to prevent actions within their jurisdiction that may cause harm to other states.

The North Korean nuclear crisis highlighted the importance of holding states accountable for actions that violate international norms and principles, emphasizing the need for a collective approach to address proliferation challenges.

• Security Council Resolutions and Customary Law:

Security Council resolutions, while serving as specific legal instruments, also contribute to the development of customary international law by reflecting the consensus of the international community.

The resolutions addressing the North Korean nuclear crisis contribute to the evolving norms surrounding nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

 

6.Evaluation of the UNSC’s Response

 

the evaluation of the UNSC’s response to the North Korean nuclear crisis underscores both achievements and shortcomings. While the Security Council has demonstrated its ability to unite in the face of a shared threat, the complexity of the crisis demands a nuanced and adaptive approach. On one hand, the UNSC has demonstrated a united front by adopting a series of resolutions aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The Security Council’s ability to garner international consensus on punitive measures showcased a commitment to addressing the crisis collectively. Additionally, diplomatic initiatives, such as the Six-Party Talks, underscored the UNSC’s role in facilitating multilateral dialogue.

However, the effectiveness of these measures has been a subject of debate. While sanctions were intended to induce a change in North Korea’s behavior, critics argue that they have disproportionately affected the civilian population, leading to humanitarian concerns. The resilience of the North Korean regime and its ability to adapt to sanctions, coupled with the persistence of its nuclear program, raises questions about the overall impact of the UNSC’s approach. Diplomatic efforts, despite occasional breakthroughs, have yet to achieve a comprehensive and lasting resolution. Despite the existence of the NPT and customary international law, North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and subsequent nuclear tests demonstrated the challenges in enforcing non-proliferation norms. The UNSC’s reliance on sanctions as a primary tool has faced hurdles in implementation and enforcement, with concerns about evasion and the involvement of third-party actors.

 

7.Conclusion

 

The North Korean nuclear crisis has been a persistent challenge that has tested the efficacy of the international community, with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) playing a central role in crafting responses. The multifaceted nature of the crisis has demanded a nuanced and coordinated international approach. The UNSC’s efforts, marked by a combination of diplomatic initiatives and sanctions, reflect the global community’s commitment to maintaining peace and security. While the UNSC has achieved notable successes in garnering international consensus through resolutions and imposing sanctions, the humanitarian impact of sanctions and the resilience of the North Korean regime underline the need for a comprehensive and adaptable strategy. The interplay of international law, including the NPT and customary norms, has shaped the legal landscape but has also exposed limitations in enforcement and compliance. The case of North Korea serves as a valuable lesson for future instances of nuclear proliferation, emphasizing the need for a collective and dynamic international response. The challenges faced in this crisis underscore the ongoing importance of the UNSC in adapting its mechanisms to effectively address complex and evolving threats to global peace and security.

 

References

 

1. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/north-korea-crisis.
2. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-missile-tests-military-capabilities.
3. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations.
4. This article was originally written by Jean du Preez and William Potter. The link for the same is herein https://nonproliferation.org/north-koreas-withdrawal-from-the-npt-a-reality-check/.
5. United Nations Security Council. (2006). Resolution 1718. S/RES/1718
6. United Nations Security Council. (2006). Resolution 1695. S/RES/1695.
7. This article was originally published on Arms Control Association. The link for the sam e is herein https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-Resolutions-on-North-Korea.
8. United Nations Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2371. S/RES/2371.
9. United Nations Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2397. S/RES/2397.

 

 

Abstract

 

This research paper delves into the multifaceted response of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the North Korean nuclear crisis, examining the intricate balance between diplomacy and sanctions. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the crisis, the role of the UNSC in maintaining international peace and security, and the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts coupled with sanctions in addressing the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. The research explores the legal frameworks, resolutions, and diplomatic engagements that have shaped the international community’s response to the North Korean nuclear threat.

 

Introduction 

 

The North Korean nuclear crisis has been a persistent challenge to international peace and security since the early 21st century. Stemming from North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, the crisis has triggered global concerns. The history of North Korea’s nuclear program, its motivations, and the evolving nature of the crisis set the stage for a comprehensive examination of the Security Council’s response. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) holds a pivotal role in maintaining international peace and security, as outlined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The UNSC’s authority to address threats to peace includes the power to impose sanctions and authorize the use of force. As the primary organ responsible for responding to crises, the Security Council’s decisions and resolutions shape the international community’s collective response to security challenges. The North Korean nuclear crisis underscores the significance of the UNSC’s role in managing and resolving complex geopolitical issues. This research aims to provide a thorough examination of the Security Council’s response to the North Korean nuclear crisis, with a specific focus on the interplay between diplomacy and sanctions.

 

1.Background of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis

The North Korean nuclear crisis emerged as a complex geopolitical challenge that has persisted since the early 21st century, marked by North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its subsequent withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. The roots of the crisis can be traced back to the Korean War (1950-1953), which left the Korean Peninsula divided into North and South Korea. Over the years, North Korea, under the leadership of the Kim dynasty, sought to establish itself as a nuclear-capable state, viewing nuclear weapons as a means of safeguarding its regime and asserting its influence in the region. Tensions escalated in the 1990s as North Korea’s nuclear program advanced, leading to international concerns and diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear ambitions. Despite intermittent periods of engagement and negotiations, North Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006, further exacerbating the crisis. The subsequent years witnessed a series of provocations, including missile launches and additional nuclear tests, prompting global condemnation. The international community, primarily through the United Nations Security Council, responded with a combination of diplomatic initiatives and sanctions to address the evolving threat and maintain regional stability.

 

2.Legal Frameworks and Resolutions

 

The United Nations Charter serves as the foundational document guiding the actions of the international community. The Charter outlines the principles and purposes of the United Nations, emphasizing the maintenance of international peace and security. Within this framework, Chapter VII grants the UN Security Council the authority to respond to threats to peace and act on matters of international security. As the North Korean nuclear crisis emerged, the Charter provided the legal basis for the Security Council’s involvement and the formulation of subsequent resolutions.

 

 Key Security Council Resolutions

• Resolution 1695 (2006): Adopted in response to North Korea’s missile tests, this resolution expressed grave concern over the situation and demanded that North Korea cease its missile-related activities. It highlighted the importance of diplomatic efforts to address the crisis peacefully.
• Resolution 1718 (2006): A pivotal resolution following North Korea’s nuclear test, it imposed sanctions on North Korea, targeting its weapons programs and restricting the export of certain goods. The resolution emphasized the international community’s united front against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
• Subsequent Resolutions and Their Impact: Over the years, the Security Council issued additional resolutions, each building on previous measures. These resolutions aimed to tighten sanctions, address proliferation concerns, and encourage diplomatic solutions. Analyzing the evolution of these resolutions provides insights into the adaptability and effectiveness of the UNSC’s legal responses.

 

3.Diplomatic Initiatives

 

• Six-Party Talks and Multilateral Engagement

The Six-Party Talks, involving North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States, emerged as a key diplomatic mechanism to address the North Korean nuclear crisis. Commencing in 2003, these talks aimed to find a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The multilateral nature of the discussions provided a platform for engaging all relevant stakeholders, fostering regional stability, and demonstrating the international community’s commitment to diplomatic solutions.

The diplomatic process involved negotiations on denuclearization commitments, security assurances, and economic cooperation. Analyzing the dynamics of the Six-Party Talks allows an examination of the challenges and achievements in multilateral diplomacy, shedding light on the complexities of reaching consensus among diverse actors with competing interests.

 

• Bilateral Diplomacy

Bilateral engagements, particularly between North Korea and the United States, played a crucial role in shaping the diplomatic landscape. From the Agreed Framework in the 1990s to the more recent summits between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump, these interactions had significant implications for the overall diplomatic trajectory. Evaluating the effectiveness of bilateral negotiations helps gauge the impact of direct engagements on denuclearization efforts and regional stability.

 

• Humanitarian Considerations in Diplomatic Efforts

Beyond the political and security dimensions, diplomatic initiatives also addressed humanitarian concerns. The provision of humanitarian aid, negotiations on family reunifications, and discussions on human rights issues formed part of the broader diplomatic agenda. Analyzing the incorporation of humanitarian considerations into diplomatic efforts provides insights into the complexities of balancing security concerns with the well-being of the North Korean population.

 

4.Sanctions Regime

 

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has employed a series of sanctions against North Korea to curb its nuclear ambitions and discourage activities that threaten international peace and security. These sanctions, authorized under various resolutions, are multifaceted and target different aspects of North Korea’s economy, military capabilities, and leadership. The overarching goal is to induce a change in behavior and encourage North Korea to comply with international demands for denuclearization. Following are some of the sanctions imposed by UNSC;

• Asset Freezing and Travel Bans: Resolutions, such as 1718 (2006) and 2270 (2016), have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities associated with North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. These measures aim to restrict the movement and financial capabilities of key figures involved in the proliferation activities.
• Trade Restrictions: The UNSC has implemented trade restrictions on certain goods, including arms and luxury items, through resolutions like 1718 (2006) and 2371 (2017). These restrictions limit North Korea’s access to resources that could contribute to its military capabilities and inhibit the flow of luxury goods to the regime.
• Export and Import Bans: Resolutions, such as 1718 (2006) and 2397 (2017)

have imposed bans on the export and import of specific goods, including coal, iron, seafood, and textiles. These measures target North Korea’s revenue streams and aim to undermine its economic capacity to support its nuclear program.

• Financial Sanctions: The UNSC has implemented financial sanctions, including restrictions on North Korean banks and the prohibition of certain financial transactions. These measures, outlined in resolutions like 1718 (2006) and 2371 (2017), aim to disrupt the financial networks supporting North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities.

 

5.The Role of International law

 

 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stands as a cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Opened for signature in 1968, the NPT has been signed by a majority of the world’s nations, including North Korea. The treaty is based on three main pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology (non-proliferation), promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy (cooperation), and pursuing nuclear disarmament.

 

• Despite being a party to the NPT, North Korea announced its withdrawal in 2003, a move that heightened international concerns regarding its nuclear ambitions.

The withdrawal raised questions about the effectiveness of the NPT in preventing proliferation and highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to address non-compliance.

 

• North Korea’s nuclear activities in violation of the NPT raised questions about the efficacy of the treaty’s safeguards system.

The international community, through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), worked to address these violations and emphasize the importance of adherence to NPT obligations.

 

• The NPT Review Conferences provided a platform for states to assess the treaty’s implementation and discuss ways to strengthen its effectiveness.

The North Korean case underscored the challenges in enforcing the NPT and the need for a unified international response to non-compliance.

 

Customary International Law

Customary international law, derived from consistent state practice and accepted as law, plays a crucial role in shaping norms related to nuclear weapons.

Principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, the obligation to negotiate in good faith, and the responsibility to prevent harm to the environment are integral to customary international law and have implications for the North Korean nuclear crisis.

• State Responsibility:

States have a responsibility under customary international law to prevent actions within their jurisdiction that may cause harm to other states.

The North Korean nuclear crisis highlighted the importance of holding states accountable for actions that violate international norms and principles, emphasizing the need for a collective approach to address proliferation challenges.

• Security Council Resolutions and Customary Law:

Security Council resolutions, while serving as specific legal instruments, also contribute to the development of customary international law by reflecting the consensus of the international community.

The resolutions addressing the North Korean nuclear crisis contribute to the evolving norms surrounding nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

 

6.Evaluation of the UNSC’s Response

 

the evaluation of the UNSC’s response to the North Korean nuclear crisis underscores both achievements and shortcomings. While the Security Council has demonstrated its ability to unite in the face of a shared threat, the complexity of the crisis demands a nuanced and adaptive approach. On one hand, the UNSC has demonstrated a united front by adopting a series of resolutions aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The Security Council’s ability to garner international consensus on punitive measures showcased a commitment to addressing the crisis collectively. Additionally, diplomatic initiatives, such as the Six-Party Talks, underscored the UNSC’s role in facilitating multilateral dialogue.

However, the effectiveness of these measures has been a subject of debate. While sanctions were intended to induce a change in North Korea’s behavior, critics argue that they have disproportionately affected the civilian population, leading to humanitarian concerns. The resilience of the North Korean regime and its ability to adapt to sanctions, coupled with the persistence of its nuclear program, raises questions about the overall impact of the UNSC’s approach. Diplomatic efforts, despite occasional breakthroughs, have yet to achieve a comprehensive and lasting resolution. Despite the existence of the NPT and customary international law, North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and subsequent nuclear tests demonstrated the challenges in enforcing non-proliferation norms. The UNSC’s reliance on sanctions as a primary tool has faced hurdles in implementation and enforcement, with concerns about evasion and the involvement of third-party actors.

 

7.Conclusion

 

The North Korean nuclear crisis has been a persistent challenge that has tested the efficacy of the international community, with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) playing a central role in crafting responses. The multifaceted nature of the crisis has demanded a nuanced and coordinated international approach. The UNSC’s efforts, marked by a combination of diplomatic initiatives and sanctions, reflect the global community’s commitment to maintaining peace and security. While the UNSC has achieved notable successes in garnering international consensus through resolutions and imposing sanctions, the humanitarian impact of sanctions and the resilience of the North Korean regime underline the need for a comprehensive and adaptable strategy. The interplay of international law, including the NPT and customary norms, has shaped the legal landscape but has also exposed limitations in enforcement and compliance. The case of North Korea serves as a valuable lesson for future instances of nuclear proliferation, emphasizing the need for a collective and dynamic international response. The challenges faced in this crisis underscore the ongoing importance of the UNSC in adapting its mechanisms to effectively address complex and evolving threats to global peace and security.

 

References

1. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/north-korea-crisis.
2. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-missile-tests-military-capabilities.
3. This article was originally published on Global Conflict Tracker. The link for the same is herein https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations.
4. This article was originally written by Jean du Preez and William Potter. The link for the same is herein https://nonproliferation.org/north-koreas-withdrawal-from-the-npt-a-reality-check/.
5. United Nations Security Council. (2006). Resolution 1718. S/RES/1718
6. United Nations Security Council. (2006). Resolution 1695. S/RES/1695.
7. This article was originally published on Arms Control Association. The link for the sam e is herein https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-Resolutions-on-North-Korea.
8. United Nations Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2371. S/RES/2371.
9. United Nations Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2397. S/RES/2397.