Why North Korea Should Be Called "North Korea": 

International Political Implications

Yang Il-guk

Vice Chairman, Advanced Unification Research Group,

Hansun Foundation 

1. Introduction

2. The International Political Significance of Article 3

3. South Korea’s Status in a Potential Contingency

4. China and Russia's Ambitions for the Arctic Sea Route

5. Misconceptions About Absorption Unification

6. The Aspiration for Unification is National Power

1. Introduction

On the 28th of last month, the Ministry of Unification announced its plan to initiate a public discussion on whether to refer to North Korea by its official state name, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)." Previously, Minister Chung Dong-young faced intense public criticism after using the expression "ROK-DPRK relations." This represents an overextension of private, interpersonal logic that genuine communication requires recognizing the other party exactly as it presents itself to the complex realm of inter-Korean relations. Such an approach is fundamentally flawed when applied to state-to-state interactions.

In international politics, how one addresses a state is a highly strategic act that carries profound implications for political recognition and diplomatic status. This is precisely why North Korea, in past negotiations, used terms such as "South Korean authorities" rather than the Republic of Korea. For the same reason, they referred to the Bank of Korea as the "South Korean Central Bank" and Korean Air as the "South Korean KAL." On several occasions, North Korean officials even stormed out of meetings, protesting that they were not being addressed as a "Republic."

This behavior was not merely a matter of pride in a struggle for negotiating leverage; it was a deliberate strategy to undermine the constitutional spirit that defines the northern part of the Korean Peninsula as our territory. If we were to refer to North Korea as the "DPRK" at its behest, it would imply formal recognition and respect for Kim Jong-un and his regime. Such a move would effectively alter the foundational values of the ROK Constitution, weaken the cohesion of the ROK-U.S. alliance, and jeopardize our blueprint for future unification. It would constitute an overreach, undermining the very reason for the Ministry of Unification’s existence and its core duties.

2. The International Political Significance of Article 3

Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states, "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands." This is more than a mere territorial declaration; it embodies the position that the current North Korean regime is an anti-state organization illegally occupying our territory, and expresses our determination to rectify this unlawful situation. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 195 (III) of December 12, 1948, which recognized the Republic of Korea as the only lawful government on the Korean Peninsula, provided international legitimacy to Article 3 of our Constitution.

By the same logic, North Korea's declaration of "relations between two hostile states" at the plenary meeting of the Workers' Party of Korea on December 30, 2023, was not just an expression of hostility. It was a declaration that North Korea intends to assert its rights as a sovereign state under international law, and a direct provocation challenging our Constitution. This hard-line posture is less a sign of confidence as a "normal state" and more a deception intended to conceal the systemic contradictions of a regime where nearly half the population suffers from chronic malnutrition. Addressing North Korea as the "DPRK" would appear as a tacit concession to their revisionist narrative.

3. South Korea’s Status in a Potential Contingency

From the perspective of international politics, should a regime collapse occur in North Korea creating a power vacuum, neighboring China and Russia would likely intervene. North Korea has long served as a strategic buffer zone preventing the northward projection of U.S. forces, and maintaining this "breakwater" remains a vital interest for these great powers.

We strengthen the ROK-U.S. alliance and define North Korea as our northern region specifically to ensure that we do not lose the initiative for unification to China or Russia during a contingency. If we treat North Korea as a legitimate "normal state" today, our future efforts toward unification could be interpreted under international law as interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country. This would be tantamount to effectively nullifying Article 4 of our Constitution, which mandates the pursuit of peaceful unification.

Furthermore, this stance contradicts the Preamble of our Constitution, which upholds the spirit of compatriotism and humanitarianism. According to the 2023 report by the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in North Korea, at least 80,000 to 120,000 people are suffering in North Korean political prison camps. Recognizing North Korea as an independent state would mean turning a blind eye to the human rights of our fellow citizens in the North.

4. China and Russia's Ambitions for the Arctic Sea Route

Currently, merchant ships traveling from Northeast Asia to Europe transit through the Strait of Malacca or the Suez Canal. Utilizing the Arctic sea route could reduce the 21,000 km voyage via Suez to 13,000 km, cutting transit time from 30?40 days down to 14?20 days. Beyond fuel savings, this could nearly double vessel turnover rates.

Given the energy supply crisis stemming from the recent conflict involving Iran, it is only natural that China and Russia are prioritizing the security of the Arctic route. In 2024, Russia began the modernization of Rajin Port, including the renovation of the Rajin-Khasan railway. Their calculation is to integrate the northern part of the Korean Peninsula into their logistics corridor ahead of the era of the Arctic sea route.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s previous initiative to acquire Greenland was also a strategic move to secure Arctic ports. It is time for us to coordinate with the United States to block China and Russia from preempting the Arctic route and to ensure that Busan, not Rajin, becomes the hub port. At such a juncture, according North Korea the courtesy of the title "DPRK" could be misinterpreted as a signal that we intend to break away from the ROK-U.S.-Japan security architecture.

5. Misconceptions About Absorption Unification

History, including the cases of Vietnam, Germany, and Yemen, demonstrates that when two heterogeneous systems eventually merge, the process inevitably results in absorption. German unification in 1990 occurred when the East German People's Chamber decided to accede, with the West German flag and system remaining the successor. Similarly, the unification of Vietnam on April 30, 1975?apart from being achieved by force was essentially an absorption of the South by the North.

The Yemeni unification in 1990, proposed by a communist South Yemen that had lost its patron after the Soviet collapse, appeared on the surface to be a union between equals. However, following a civil war triggered by dissatisfaction with power-sharing, North Yemen suppressed the South, ultimately resulting in absorption.

While some in the current ruling camp and certain sectors of society are advocating for theories of compromise suggesting we can bridge the gap through inter-Korean exchanges or peaceful coexistence these are merely intermediate stages. The final outcome can only be a question of who absorbs whom. Future unification will inevitably take the form of South Korea absorbing the North on the strength of our freedom, prosperity, and robust national defense.

6. The Aspiration for Unification is National Power

The late Ray S. Cline, a renowned strategist and former senior CIA official, defined national power as a composite of tangible elements (e.g., economic strength, military size) and intangible elements (e.g., national strategy, public will). The fact that the Sui and Tang empires failed to defeat Goguryeo, or that South Vietnam vanished despite strong support from the Free World, can be explained by the decisive importance of intangible national power.

While the Republic of Korea’s tangible power exceeds that of North Korea by orders of magnitude, we must face the reality that if misguided unification strategies persist and public indifference to unification grows, our ultimate national potential could decline.

Politicians and Korean society as a whole must ask whether we are instilling in the younger generation the pride that we are the only lawful government on the Korean Peninsula, and the resolve to rescue our compatriots suffering under tyranny. This is why I am concerned by a national discourse increasingly saturated with trivial entertainment and cultural escapism.

Referring to North Korea as "North Korea" is an expression of our commitment to the Constitution and our firm resolve to rectify the unprecedented human rights violations occurring in the northern part of our peninsula. Words possess a profound power. We must not commit the folly of abandoning our principled terminology.

This article may differ from the views of the Hansun Foundation

(※ It's a translation based on machine translation)