When power overrides the law, where can peace find support? This year's Nobel Peace Prize answered that question through the life of a lawyer. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced on October 9 that South Africa's Navi Pillay was the recipient, stating, "Peace requires justice."
The 85-year-old Pillay grew up in a non-white Indian family in Durban under an apartheid regime. During a time when the legal profession was largely closed to non-white women, she defended anti-apartheid activists. She contributed to a ruling at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that recognized sexual violence committed with the intent to destroy a particular group as a form of genocide. Pillay has also served as a judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the chair of a UN commission investigating the Palestinian territories. Currently, she is an ad hoc judge at the International Court of Justice handling the Rohingya genocide case in Myanmar. In 2015, she delivered a lecture on "Human Rights, Justice, and My Life" at Seoul National University. For Pillay, human rights are not abstract principles but a lifelong practice. I sincerely congratulate her on this honor.
Why Pillay now? The Nobel Committee did not shy away from revealing the harsh realities of the international order. It acknowledged that powerful nations have evaded responsibility and that international law has been applied differently depending on who the perpetrators and victims are. It also pointed out the reality of judges facing sanctions and judicial institutions being attacked. This means that as the law is increasingly overshadowed by power, we must support those who uphold the law even more firmly.
In 2025, it was President Donald Trump who decided to impose sanctions on the ICC. He criticized the committee immediately after the announcement, claiming it had diminished its own value, and the White House expanded the sanctions to the entire court on the same day. The contrast between a president who has openly sought the Nobel Peace Prize and the lawyer who worked under pressure from him is stark. I read this choice as a warning that no one can stand above the law.
The Nobel Committee has neither military force nor coercive power. Instead, it draws international attention to the issues represented by the laureates and influences the direction of international politics. Aung San Suu Kyi's award in 1991 brought focus to the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar, while the 1993 award to Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk marked the peaceful end of apartheid. The following year, the award to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin lent support to the nascent Middle East peace negotiations. The 1996 award to Bishop Carlos Belo and José Ramos-Horta from East Timor highlighted the right to self-determination for small nations, while the awards to Liu Xiaobo in 2010 and the Japanese atomic bomb victims' group in 2024 drew attention to human rights in China and the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, respectively.
While the selection process can be controversial, the names of the laureates always reflect the questions of their time. This is why we must ask why this person was chosen now. Kim Dae-jung's award in 2000 should be understood in this context. The committee recognized his efforts for democracy and human rights in Korea and East Asia, as well as for peace and reconciliation with North Korea. Gunnar Berge, the committee chairman, stated in his acceptance speech that even without progress in inter-Korean relations, the efforts for human rights alone were sufficient for the award, adding that the efforts for reconciliation added a "new and important dimension" to it.
This honor also reflected the achievements of South Korea. The Korean people reclaimed democracy against dictatorship, achieved the first peaceful transfer of power through elections in 1997, and overcame the financial crisis through the collective efforts of labor, management, and citizens. In 2000, the leaders of the two Koreas met for the first time. It was an encouragement from the international community to a Korea moving toward democracy and reconciliation.
The mention of "East Asia" in the award rationale is also noteworthy. The committee viewed Kim Dae-jung as a representative advocate for universal human rights against attempts to restrict them in Asia. In response to former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's argument that Western-style democracy does not suit Asia, Kim Dae-jung asserted in a 1994 article in Foreign Affairs that democracy and human rights are not the exclusive domain of the West but universal values for humanity.
This universalism was not just rhetoric. As the committee's announcement stated, he supported the democratization of Myanmar and opposed the oppression in East Timor. During the East Timor crisis in 1999, I personally heard José Ramos-Horta's appeal and suggested to the president that South Korea participate in an international response. Despite concerns about relations with Indonesia, President Kim contributed to the international community's collective response by dispatching the Sangnoksu Unit.
The 2000 award was not a medal for completed peace but an encouragement for the reconciliation that had just begun, similar to the award given for the Middle East peace negotiations in 1994. The announcement contained hope that the Cold War could end on the Korean Peninsula as well. However, as the North Korean nuclear crisis reemerged and the international situation and inter-Korean relations changed, that hope faded. The Nobel Peace Prize does not guarantee peace; it merely illuminates the path forward. It is up to the parties involved and the international community to walk that path.
This year's selection poses a heavy question for South Korea as well. Realist international relations theory warns of the limitations of international law. Powerful nations often ignore the law when necessary, and the UN's responses are frequently blocked by the veto power of permanent members. In Thucydides' "Melian Dialogue," the Athenian envoy stated, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." In such a world, the first to be shaken are the countries caught between great powers. The history of the Katsura-Taft Agreement and the division of the Korean Peninsula illustrates this danger. South Korea must acknowledge this reality while seeking ways to utilize norms.
Norms can serve as the basis for international support and collective action, raising the costs of unilateral actions. As the logic of power intensifies, adhering to norms becomes a calculation for middle powers rather than an ideal. This calculation is concrete. Our opposition to North Korea's nuclear development is grounded in international non-proliferation norms centered on UN Security Council resolutions and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A country that relies on exports also has grounds to resist economic coercion, such as unjust tariffs or retaliation against THAAD, based on trade norms.
The justification to prevent the fate of the Korean Peninsula from being determined by transactions among great powers lies in the fundamental principle of international law: respect for sovereignty. Of course, having the strength to defend oneself is paramount. Norms and international solidarity can complement the limits of that strength. However, for norms to carry weight, we must first be consistent. Whether in Ukraine or Gaza, our standards must be the same in the face of the dignity and lives of victims, so that our voice on the North Korean nuclear issue gains credibility.
The Korean people understand that the law does not uphold itself. The citizens and lawmakers who acted to halt the state of emergency in the winter of 2024 did so to uphold the constitution. The international community is no different. In a world without a global government to enforce the law, norms gain strength only when countries committed to upholding them come together. This is why South Korea must actively engage in upholding the principle that no one stands above the law.
On the Korean Peninsula, both North and South must respect agreements, reduce military tensions, and consistently work to protect the lives of all residents through dialogue and humanitarian cooperation. Ultimately, justice and peace are realized in the lives of people.
Former President Kim Dae-jung described the Nobel Peace Prize as "an honor and the beginning of infinite responsibility." The glory of 2000 must lead to today's responsibilities. When power overshadows the law and war disrupts lives, what efforts will we make for peace? The Nobel Peace Prize is asking.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.