10
nK bAd!!! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🤡 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 6 months ago (16 children)

Surrender specifically is a combatant concept (defecting and espionage are not), non-combatants don't surrender under military law, they migrate or seek asylum. E.g. to surrender you must be a combatant in this case an active service member.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    Sure, but in a country with universal conscription I'm not sure that's exclusive to the military context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Universal conscription doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It's simply a mandatory service term, not permanent combatant status. Much like in the ROK, Thailand, etc., eligible citizens serve a set period then return to civilian life, they aren't subject to surrender laws before or after their term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

    I understand this but am not familiar with the specifics. In Israel, for example, I know people remain on reserve duty long past their conscription period.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    This isn't relevant anyway the fact is the laws you posted are seemingly entirely normal laws that are common around the world, and you were wrong that they aren't allowed to travel abroad by the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (11 children)

    How is that not relevant? If people are in reserve services presumably this law would apply to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    No reserves are not active combatants unless called upon just like in every country that has reservese (I can't think of one that doesn't). And even if it did the law itself as written is perfectly inline with international norms the fact they have universal conscription or a possible large reserve force doesn't change that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    It looks like North Korean citizens enter service for ten years, and stay in reserve for another 30. Presumably we agree that this law prevents them from seeking asylum in South Korea until at least the end of that ten year period, which is pretty restrictive. I don't see any reason to believe it wouldn't also continue into the reserve period or even after, especially since the law is written as a law applying to "citizens" assuming the translation is correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    I don’t see any reason to believe it wouldn’t also continue into the reserve period or even after

    Because surrender has a specific meaning that requires the person in question be an active combatant. The law applies to citizens as it cover this but also espionage and defection which do not require this caveat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Look, even if it doesn't apply to reserve force members, the claim that North Koreans are free to leave the country is at best misleading if they have to wait until they are 30 years old.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    That's a disgustingly bad faith interpretation of what is said and is patently false. They have laws surrounding surrender that are inline with international norms same with defection and espionage none of these apply to leaving legally as you would know if you went to university in China plenty of non 30 year olds learning there. Citizens of the DPRK are permitted to travel by the government it's the UN sanctions stopping them travelling beyond China and Russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    The core question isn't whether they can study in China, it is whether they can freely cross the border into South Korea to seek asylum.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    First off no. That was not the core question. You said:

    Take, for example, the claim that North Koreans are permitted to leave the country.

    The answer is yes they are permitted. Despite how you attempt to twist what the law says and what we were talking about to dodge this fact.

    Secondly obviously you can't move to a hostile power during wartime that's called defecting. No country on Earth currently or has ever allowed that.

    Are you trolling?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    obviously you can’t move to a hostile power during wartime that’s called defecting.

    I'm not trolling. This is what people claim when they say people can't leave the country. Debunking this claim without acknowledging that the core idea is true is dishonest.

    No country on Earth currently or has ever allowed that.

    I am pretty sure that people traveled between the US and the USSR in both directions during the cold war. Indians and Pakistanis can travel back and forth. Heck, Americans can go to Iran right now if they can figure out a way to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    If you wish to continue to troll I think we should end this here. Citizens of the DPRK are allowed to travel (just not defect to a country they are at war with) what stops them is visa refusals due to UN sanctions. The US and USSR were never at war that's why it was the cold war. India and Pakistan have normalcy as core parts of their ceasefire terms from the most recent scuffle (which never did escalate to all our war). Funny you bring up Iran who the US never declared war on but do you know where they aren't allowed travel by the American government, the DPRK because they are at war with them. Please educate yourself and grow up trolling is unbecoming once you mature past 12.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •