• 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Dragon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Dragon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

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

          • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • Dragon@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

                • Dragon@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  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.

                  • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    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.