DPCW 10th Anniversary: Are Wars Really Decreasing? A Night That Made Me Reflect on Our Children’s Future
After putting the kids to bed, the house suddenly becomes quiet.
In that quiet moment, something I had read earlier in the day came back to mind.
One of them was an article about the 10th anniversary of the DPCW.
It wasn’t something I could just read once and move on from—it stayed with me for quite a while.
The article begins by looking back at the global situation over the past decade.
The ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, Tcontinued tensions in the Middle East.
On top of that, the spread of nuclear weapons and the arms race have made the global situation even more unstable.
As I read, I found myself thinking honestly:
“Things must have improved at least a little… right?”
But the tone of the article didn’t leave much room for that kind of optimism.
In this context, the DPCW comes back into focus.
It was proclaimed in Seoul on March 14, 2016, and consists of 10 articles and 38 clauses.
At its core, the idea is simple:
Not to resolve wars after they break out, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.
The content itself doesn’t feel unfamiliar—in fact, it feels quite familiar and intuitive.
Principles like limiting the use of force, reducing weapons of mass destruction,
and resolving conflicts through negotiation and mediation.
As I read, I naturally found myself wondering:
“It makes sense… but is it really possible in reality?”
The article also points out the limitations of the UN system.
It explains how, within international politics, the UN framework has revealed significant constraints.
In particular, the structure centered around the permanent members of the Security Council is highlighted as a key issue.
The United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—these five countries hold veto power.
Because of this, national strategic interests often take priority over global consensus.
As a result, the more critical an issue is, the more likely decisions are to stall.
The article cites Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an example of this structural limitation.
Despite strong criticism from the international community, the UN’s ability to respond effectively was restricted—largely because Russia itself is a permanent member.
Reading this, I began to better understand why international law sometimes struggles to function effectively in reality.
Because of this, the direction suggested by the DPCW stands out more clearly.
The attempt to design peace based on “all of humanity,” rather than individual nations, certainly seems meaningful in itself.
However, it can’t stop there.
In the end, countries have to take action—and within the current system, that doesn’t seem easy.
The latter part of the article turns to nuclear weapons, which felt even heavier to read.
Once used, nuclear weapons would not affect just one region—their consequences could spread across the world.
North Korea has continued to strengthen its nuclear capabilities since 2006, and tensions surrounding nuclear development persist in the Middle East.
Under these conditions, any conflict could have global consequences.
This leads to the argument that we need to reduce the arms race and establish norms that can prevent war itself.
One thing is clear:
The DPCW has not yet become international law.
Rather than a complete solution, it is closer to a proposal—a direction we may need to move toward.
And perhaps that is why it feels even more important.
In the end, everything comes down to one question:
Can the current international order truly prevent war?
The article raises this question, and experts tend to believe the answer is “not yet.”
That’s why the discussion turns to the need for new norms and stronger legal mechanisms.
After reading it, I found myself wondering: Will the world our children grow up in be safer than it is now?
I don’t have a clear answer yet, but the fact that these discussions continue means things haven’t come to a complete stop.
Even if progress is slow, I want to believe we are still moving forward.
댓글
댓글 쓰기