Want to bookmark your favorite articles and stories to read or view later? Start your independent membership today.
Join us today
Already a member? Log in
Two captured North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia against Ukraine are now in South Korea.
The move has raised questions about how they will be investigated, protected and resettled, as well as the legal basis for their transfer.
The soldiers are expected to undergo interrogation and security screening before South Korean authorities decide whether to grant them protection and begin the resettlement process.
Seoul’s Unification Ministry said Monday their cases would be reviewed under relevant laws and past practices, suggesting the North Korean Defectors Protection and Settlement Act would apply.
Under the law, the National Intelligence Service (NIS) investigates applicants taken into pretrial detention, verifying their identity, reasons for leaving North Korea, and security-related matters.
The investigation and temporary protection can last up to 90 days, with a possible extension in the event of unavoidable circumstances.
The soldiers’ military backgrounds and direct knowledge of North Korea’s deployment in Russia could lead to a more in-depth debriefing.
Those granted protection typically receive resettlement training before entering South Korean society.
Yu Yong-weon, an opposition lawmaker who met with the soldiers in Ukraine in February 2025, said they had served in North Korean special forces and could provide information on Pyongyang’s training, military capabilities and participation in the war.
Do they benefit from protection?
The unification minister normally determines whether a North Korean arrival qualifies for protection, although the NIS director can make the decision for national security reasons.
Yu told Reuters the sensitivity of the matter could also keep them out of the public eye longer than other North Korean arrivals.
Their physical and psychological state is also likely to be assessed.
Yu said that when he met them, they were being held separately in a Ukrainian detention center and that the prolonged isolation and uncertainty may have affected their mental health.
Did Ukraine have the right to transfer them?
The Third Geneva Convention requires that prisoners of war be released and repatriated promptly after the end of active hostilities. This does not necessarily prohibit early release or transfer to a third country.
South Korea and Ukraine have not revealed the legal basis for their transfer, including whether it officially ends the soldiers’ prisoner-of-war status.
Peter Ward, a researcher at the Sejong Institute, said repatriation was a basic principle governing prisoners of war, but it should not apply where it could harm their well-being or human rights.
“There is ample basis in humanitarian law and human rights law for these prisoners of war to be transferred to a third country of their choice, provided that third country of their choice is prepared to receive them,” Ward said.
Lee Shin-wha, a Korea University professor and former human rights envoy to North Korea, said the transfer could still generate legal and diplomatic friction because international law treats North Korea as a separate state, while South Korea considers North Koreans its citizens.
Their stated desire to come to the South and the risks they might face in the North justify their acceptance, she said.
Could they have been sent back to North Korea?
International human rights law would preclude the dismissal of soldiers if they faced a real risk of torture, persecution or other serious ill-treatment.
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits returning a person to a country where they run such risks.
Lee said repatriation was the general rule for prisoners of war, but international practice also recognized voluntary repatriation and prohibited returns that could lead to persecution or torture.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has paid tribute to soldiers who committed suicide while fighting against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, where the two men were captured.
Both men have repeatedly expressed their desire to visit South Korea, including in media interviews and during a meeting with Yu.
Ward said North Korea had little basis under international law to demand their return.
How did South Korea react?
South Korea, which is a major arms producer, has faced pressure from some Western countries and kyiv to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons but has so far focused on non-lethal aid, including mine-clearing equipment.
President Lee Jae Myung announced a $100 million support package for Ukraine at the NATO summit in July, while his government reiterated that lethal weapons were excluded. Seoul also pledged to continue its humanitarian aid and support for reconstruction.
At their July summit, Lee and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy agreed that the issue of North Korean prisoners of war should be handled in accordance with soldiers’ free will, international law and humanitarian principles.
South Korea demanded an apology from Ukraine after Zelenskiy revealed the transfer at the U.N. General Assembly last week, saying kyiv had violated an agreement to keep the file confidential.
Seoul said confidentiality was necessary to protect soldiers and their loved ones in North Korea.
Kyiv said no secrecy agreement existed.
Gn world
