Abstract
AbstractNorth Korea said in January 2019 that it was exploring ways to engage the human rights issue. This was a much welcomed announcement because the issue must be addressed in order for the two countries to reach a formal, comprehensive peace agreement and the lifting or easing of unilateral sanctions. This study utilizes framing as an analytical tool to examine how the North Korean human rights discourse is framed in the United States for the purpose of identifying the salient rights‐based issues covered in two traditional media outlets, namely, the Washington Post and New York Times. Next, it reframes the discourse using a coding schema based on the convergence of the human rights, human security, and non‐traditional security discourses. A reframing of the discourse highlights how the universalist–particularist debate in the traditional rights‐based literature masks the underlying issues of the rights problem. A combination of the traditional rights‐based discourse and the masking of the issues contributes to a disconnect in the way in which North Korea has been engaged in the past. Therefore, a reframing of the discourse using the convergence of the human rights, human security, and non‐traditional security discourses could open new pathways for engagement.
Highlights
Of all the issues that the Americans consider when confronted with world news, human rights is of the deepest concern due to their civic sensibilities of freedom instilled into them from their earliest education
This study sought to examine how the human rights discourse is framed within the Washington Post and New York Times between 2001 and 2017
The human rights issue is likely to be raised as a concern by the U.S Congress in any formal peace agreement that is proposed by the U.S executive branch
Summary
Of all the issues that the Americans consider when confronted with world news, human rights is of the deepest concern due to their civic sensibilities of freedom instilled into them from their earliest education. This study seeks to utilize framing as an analytical tool to examine how the North Korean human rights discourse is framed for the purpose of identifying the salient rights‐based issues covered in two traditional media outlets, namely, the Washington Post and New York Times. It reframes the discourse using a coding schema based on the convergence of the human rights, human security, and non‐traditional security discourses. It concludes by re‐ examining human rights in the U.S national security debate and outlines a new pathway for engagement with North Korea on the rights issue. The study concludes by arguing that how we frame and discuss North Korea matters for addressing issues such as human rights
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
