The DPRK is a sovereign member of the UN, and as such has the right to appoint its own delegates. So Kim has (or could be granted) the right to attend and speak at the UN at least insamuch as any other delegate does. Whether as effective head of state he’d get any special speaking privileges over and above what a normal delegate does, I don’t know. (Constitutionally the late Kim Il-Sung is still the head of state as “Eternal President”, but for practical purposes the UN recognizes Kim Jong-Un as the current head of state.)
Nevermind
Yes, many years ago Fidel Castro came to talk at the UN, complete in character with combat fatigues and a pistol in his belt. The USA as host of the UN had no choice but to let him in, despite having no diplomatic relations. Kim presumably could do the same.
Kim was on a state visit to China a few years ago. On the way back by train, it seems a huge explosion destroyed a train in an NK town near the Chinese border. Kim for some reason was on a different train. Lately he’s been very careful and avoided travel outside the country whenever possible.
Khrushchev waved a shoe about ( it’s murky ) at the UN in 1960, and at the time Nikita Sergeyevich was de facto head of state of the Soviet Union.
I imagine back then many Americans thought of the Soviet Union as a greater threat than modern Americans consider present-day North Korea.
Pretty easy to avoid travel when you’ve been sealed in a glass sarcophagus for the last six years. (It was Kim Jong-Il, not Kim Jong-Un, who narrowly avoided that explosion on his way back from China.)
Universal jurisdiction means any country in the world can try a particular crime, not just countries whose nationals have been victims of such crimes (that would be a case of ratione personae jurisdiction, which is well established). Universal jurisdiction is still somewhat fuzzy in international law and not as well established as other grounds for jurisdiction, but for crimes against humanity it is increasingly accepted.
In the case of Kim Jong-un, the added complication is that he is a sitting head of state (at least I think he is; Communist countries have a notoriously complicated nomenclature for public offices and titles, so it’s not necessarily the case that the person whom everybody perceives as the “leader” is formally head of state), so he would have personal immunity. Which begs the question whether personal immunity also extends to crimes against humanity, which some people say it does not. International law, and in particular customary international law, is quite in a flux here currently.
In international law, the laws of immunities of heads of state and of diplomats also apply as between countries that are in a state of war with each other.
The ICC’s jurisdiction includes cases referred to it by the UN Security council. Those can be cases dealing with citizens of non-signatories like NK. The UNSC no longer needs to create ad hoc special courts.
Others tapped in on some of the other issues with respect to Kim Jong-Un.
…he would be even crazier than we thought! 