Over the past few years, China has accelerated its program of repatriation of North Korean escapees. At least 620 North Korean escapees were returned to North Korea in 2023, in three reported mass expulsions. Over 260 others were sent back in 2024. These repatriations violate international law, and must be stopped.

The consequences of repatriation for North Korean escapees can be disastrous. According to a recent report from the United States Congressional Executive Commission on China and information received by various UN Special Procedures, they are often subjected to harsh interrogation, torture, violence, forced abortion, and imprisonment upon return to North Korea. According to new research by the Citizens’ Alliance on North Korean Human Rights, this can include years of hard labour in prison camps (kyohwaso), and producing goods such as textiles and wigs for Chinese companies – thus creating a financial incentive for further repatriations. Some repatriated North Koreans are able to avoid serious punishment through paying bribes or forced donation of ‘loyalty money’, but still face serious social consequences upon return.

China’s program of repatriation violates international law. China has ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Article 33 of the Refugee Convention prohibits the expel or return (‘refoulement’) of refugees where their ‘life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’. Two questions thus arise: are the North Korean escapees ‘refugees’? And if so, would their life or freedom be threatened on the basis of one of the five protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, and political opinion) if repatriated?

The answer to both questions is positive. Many of the North Korean escapees have left because they desire freedom; others leave for economic reasons. Regardless, upon arrival in China they should all be considered refugees sur place, meaning people who were not refugees when leaving their country, but who later became refugees. Once North Korean citizens flee their homeland, the Kim regime assumes they are political opponents, and they thus face the prospect of politically motivated punishment, abuse, and even torture upon repatriation.

With no safe way to return home, North Korean escapees are political refugees, no more and no less. That does not mean that China must allow them to stay in the country. South Korea welcomes North Korean escapees as co-nationals, and China could legitimately send them to Seoul. However, their choice to instead repatriate escapees to North Korea violates China’s conventional duties, and China incurs state responsibility for any such actions.

China has also ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (‘Torture Convention’). Article 3 of the Torture Convention prohibits refoulement to ‘another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.’ It is well recognised that North Korean escapees would face the threat of torture and death upon repatriation to North Korea. This is true regardless of their motivation for leaving the country. Even those leaving because they were starving would be subject to this fate. Thus, even if denied refugee status, they still should not be returned to North Korea. They should enjoy complementary protection.

While China and North Korea have signed bilateral border agreements that provide for North Korean escapees to be repatriated, China is still bound by the non-refoulement norms contained in the Refugee Convention and Torture Convention. These are jus cogens norms, from which no derogation is allowed.  As such, in these circumstances, the provisions of these bilateral border agreements pertaining to repatriation cannot be followed under international law.

Lee Jae Myung, who is the favourite to be South Korea’s next President, is known as a friend of China who supports engagement with the North Korean regime, and is unlikely to pressure the Chinese government to change its repatriation policy. Even if he did, pressure from South Korea alone historically has not been enough. South Korean officials have been demanding that China cease the repatriation program for years. It is therefore incumbent on the international community to maintain a spotlight on China’s practice. One can only hope that eventually the Chinese side realises that its role in sending North Korean escapees back to suffer torture and abuse is harming China’s reputation and leadership role in the region.