legality is relative term to rules and constitution of the country. North Korea is totally dominated by the government therefore sets its own rules. Whatever government does is considered to be legal because they make it to be so.
Legality assumes that the source of the power of the government is legal. These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people. Most countries are democratic, at least in name. There are only a very few despotic countries left (where the source of the power is the "Grace of God" both de jure and de facto).
North Korea claims to be a democratic country, however the government is clearly not elected democratically at all so the acts of of the government can hardly be called "legal". The government of North Korea isn't fairly elected and is probably in power against its citizens' will. The only way they can remain in power is by the application of violence.
Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
You're mixing up terminology. Legal/illegal and right/wrong are separate concepts. Legal/illegal is a system of cause and effect: The law says, "If you do X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you." Or, "If you fail to X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you."
Law does not make something right/wrong. For instance, alcohol is more dangerous to both the individual and society than THC - the active ingredient in marijuana and hashish. Alcohol in moderately large quantities is a poison, whereas THC isn't, it's more chemically addictive and tolerance building, it impairs judgment very similarly to marijuana but has a quality of making people think their judgment isn't as impaired as it is, and is more prone to causing aggressive/violent behavior than THC. In no sane world is alcohol relatively unrestricted and THC is completely prohibited. (For the record, I don't drink or use any recreational drugs) In the United Sates, the law says alcohol is relatively unrestricted and THC is almost completely prohibited. That doesn't get to rightness/wrongness, it just specifies cause and effect.
So law - it's not a right/wrong thing. Is what North Korea did just now wrong? By most people's ethics, oh hell yes it's terrible. But it's legal, because it was signed into law by a body with the capacity to enforce it in its jurisdiction.
These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people.
Citation? Perhaps sociologists or philosophers accept that, but governments certainly don't. If they did, North Korea wouldn't be generally recognized as an independent country. Since it is, and since the current government there is generally recognized as such, it's legal.
For source, see the constitution of pretty much any country that claims to be democratic. Most of them state explicitly one way or other that the exclusive source of power is the people.
The United Kingdom (and more specifically, England) is an exception. Actually, I had the United Kingdom in mind when I've said "most". The system of the government of the United Kingdom is exceptionally complex and in theory it is still ruled by the Sovereign by the Grace of God. In practice though, the Royal Prerogative is exercised by the Crown and not the Sovereign, which means the Government which is lead by the Prime Minister who is in turn the leader of the parliamentary majority which is elected by the people.
Well, here's a potentially-relevant quote from the North Korean constitution:
Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles of nation building and State activities, established the best State and social system, the best mode of politics and system and methods of administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the continuation and consummation of the revolutionary cause of Juche. Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics. The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification.
Here's another:
As a veteran statesman in the world, Comrade Kim Il Sung opened up the new era of independence, carried out energetic activities for the strengthening and development of the socialist movement and the non-aligned movement as well as for world peace and for friendship among the peoples and made an imperishable contribution to the cause of human independence. Comrade Kim Il Sung was a genius in ideology and theory, a master of leadership, an ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commander, a great revolutionary and politician and a great man.
And one more for the road:
Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.
Note that this last one is phrased as a statement of fact, and not as an imperative given to the government. That is to say, "North Korea's government is derived from the public", and _not_ "North Korea's government should be derived from the public".
I will concede that these snippets are taken from the 1972 constitution, which has since been revised a couple of times. However, given the addition of an article declaring Kim Jong-Il to be Supreme Leader in the 2009 constitution, I suspect what the North Korean government is doing is entirely legal, unless you are suggesting that they are somehow bound by (e.g.) the U.S. constitution.
EDIT:
Ooh, here's another good one:
Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.
So, it would actually be illegal for the current government to not be the current government. They are legally obligated by their constitution to maintain the dictatorship.
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982(80)
Assented to March 29th, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
...
>> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
No, you don't have the power. You think you do, until you realise that society actually has the power to stop you, and you are powerLESS to resist. You will find society is typically happy for you to have powers over nothing but your own person and property (an oxymoronic presumption, I know, but adequate), but unfairly try to exert any power over another person and you will find a functional society will tend to react against you and rapidly demonstrate why you are deemed to have implicitly relinquished the power you're now claiming to have, by mere fact of being in your society's jurisdiction.
Well, a government has to follow its own laws. For example, the U.S. government could conceivably bring its troops into a house under gunpoint and have them sleep the night there. It wouldn't be legal, since it's directly against the Third Amendment.
That's what's called rule of law and it is, regretably, not as common as one might think.
Especially dictatorships often had and have some kind of law that allows the dictator to do anything. You could call it rule of law minus one. One person who is exempted from the rule of law is enough to bring the whole system down. Strange, how fickle the rule of law seems to be.
