Episode 3: Conversation with International Lawyer Seung Pyo Hong

Jul 9
25 min read

Updated: Aug 2

Click the arrow (›) below to expand or collapse the transcript.

TRANSCRIPT

Stella Mi-cheong Cheong (00:09)

Hello, listeners. Welcome to Conversations4citizenship. I'm Stella Mi-cheong Cheong from UCL. Today, we are going to have a conversation about human rights and fundamental rights to Education with the human rights lawyer, SeungPyo Hong from Rosenberg, so please give a warm welcome to SeungPyo. Hello SeungPyo. So wonderful to have you with us here today. How are you?

Seung-Pyo Hong (00:51)

Thank you for inviting I'm very good, thank you! excited to talk about human rights and education, which is a very important issue.

Stella Mi-cheong Cheong (00:59)

Without further ado, I'm going to pass over to Kamille, who's going to lead this episode. Kamille!

Kamille Beye (01:06)

Hello, everyone, it is my great pleasure to introduce SeungPyo Hong as our distinguished speaker today. Before I start with him, I would like to tell you that I am a fourth-year doctoral student at the University College London and I'm focusing on quality education in higher education spaces in post-conflict. So without further ado, let me give you a short bio introduction of Mr Hong. So SeungPyo Hong is collaborateur at Wagener & Associés, a Luxembourg boutique law firm, as well as researcher at Sciences Po Paris with Prof. Emeritus Patrick Messerlin. He has had extensive experience in both academia and international organisations on international investment law, public international law and international economic policy. And he's now focusing on the impact of assessment of neoliberalism, in the shaping and forming of the modern international economic insecurity discourse, especially between the EU and Asia. Besides traditional fields of studies, SeungPyo has research interests in the field of blockchain and law, and the utilisation of blockchain technology in the shaping of modern society.

He was a Lecturer of International Relations at the Korea Naval Academy and is also a reserve Naval Officer of the Republic of Korea Navy (LTJG). He is a graduate of Sciences Po Paris with law degrees from Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, and Université de Paris II Panthéon-Assas, and holds an LL.M in International Law from the University of Cambridge and he is a current PhD candidate in International Investment Law from Seoul National University, School of Law. This is a very distinguished background you have Mr Hong, and I'm so excited to ask these questions about education and the pandemic and citizenship. So I'd like to start off with this first question. So how do you interpret article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the wake of the large movement, the people that make them the crises currently in Ukraine, recently in Syria and Haiti, and other touchpoints around the world?

SeungPyo Hong (03:25)

Thank you for the thorough introduction of myself. So yes, definitely, a trailing issue in data collection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which actually stemmed from the French declaration, of universal human rights back in 1789. So I think there's a geopolitical dimension, obviously, in the declaration that says everyone has a right to a nationality, given the differences of reactions of your states across different asylum seekers crises and refugee crises happening from Syria, Haiti, and nowadays Ukraine, the sheer number of recognition by EU states, vis-à-vis with those political refugees or asylum seekers have been tremendously disproportionate between the nowadays crisis in Ukraine compared to a serious situation, for instance. So when one says, when one talks about nationality really is there, it really is a dimension of geopolitics, which is essentially the power play. So more state is considered key partner in international security and international defense. The population from these countries will be recognised eventually. So I think there's a much-needed discussion within both academia and international society to discuss these issues. And fortunately, unfortunately, at the same time, the issues are getting quite clear as we move into the further developments of the crisis in Ukraine.

Kamille Beye (05:00)

That's really interesting to talk about the idea of citizenship being tied to geopolitics, because there's been a lot of conversation, especially recently about NATO. And there was an article on Al Jazeera recently that talked about NATO only works if you're white. And of course, your Europe is a predominantly white, general area. But we look at how France is preparing for their election and the different things that are going on there with the hijab. It's interesting how citizenship, and what one thinks of as a citizen plays a part. And that brings me to my next question. And this is, what are your thoughts on France's response to citizenship? Considering its diverse colonial history? And how does that legacy play out in the education system? And maybe even currently, what situation in Ukraine, and what their current population with this discussion of the hijab having to be removed?

SeungPyo Hong (05:53)

Definitely. So I think we need to distinguish between citizenship and the concept of citizenship and the concept of nationality here, citizenship, which is more of a social construct that evolved around a certain nation-state environment, is essentially geopolitics and political and sociological concept, whereas nationality would really be construed as a more of a legal concept. So by that definition, I believe that citizenship differs from nationality and the rights to citizenship, as I said previously, would eventually be a political and geopolitical process. So with that distinction, France as a country that came up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in the 18th century, as a rather enlarged concept of citizenship, from my perspective, because essentially, as you mentioned, rightly, the whole history of colonialism at all, I think one of the motives of the French Republic back in the days was that whether it be born in Paris, or born into colonial states, or countries, the level of education at the set, which is the equivalent of high school should have been stayed the same. So, you wouldn't have a different level of education from, let's say, the epicentre of France, or in the periphery of friends. So, there was really this Republicanism idea of the French Republic, to try to provide access for every French citizen, and equal access to education, because they simply wanted to deliver the whole idea, the whole core of the French Republic values. So, it's a very different approach from, say, a purely state-centred point of view of education, because there's always this Republicanism value that is attached to education. So that was to mention, and along with that line of thoughts, obviously, that Republicanism is, should be coined by the populace, but at the same time, has it contained a certain set of normative values within itself, right? So, depending on the direction of the government, let's say the direction of the president French republic, I would say that the content of the education could vary eventually. So I think it's no surprise that within the current administration of Macron, the whole discussion around colonialism was very much nuanced by the recognition of justice, for instance, within the pantheon. So, I'm open to not being born French, but sort of assimilated into the French culture individual over the context that French modern history. So yes, citizenship should be construed as an instrument of nation building the emanation of republicanism in France, whereas nationalities, which is a purely legal concept that gives you obviously, the rights to different human rights, such as political or civil, classical human rights.

Kamille Beye (08:53)

Okay, so then how does this idea, using citizenship and nation-building? How does that or how has that possibly evolved in your own thinking and experiences in the UK and France and Korea?

SeungPyo Hong (09:07)

Excellent questions, a little bit of comparative politics over there (Laugh). I'd say that the whole notion of citizenship has taken place with a long history in the French Republic because of the sheer history of revolution. So obviously, it was a movement of the population to really assert their rights as citizens of the ancient French Empire, which put in force the whole concept of republicanism in France, whereas, in the UK, I think, ever since the Magna Carta and the whole conception of Habeas Corpus. So they said to me, that individuals would be the owner themselves, which dates back to the 16th or 17th century, I think, the difference between the French and the UK approach in terms of citizenship, was the French had really, this core value of republicanism. At its core at its heart of citizenship, the way I see it in the UK is that it was an emanation of natural rights more because of the whole basic nature of the Magna Carta. So I wouldn't say that there was really a political plan between the assertion of the UK citizens in claiming their citizenship, it was rather the assertion of fundamental liberties, right. So I think, between the Manche between the English Channel those, or properly the differences approach is to citizenship. And the case of Korea is quite interesting, in my perspective, because obviously, we've had a long history of imperialism until the beginning of the 20th century. And we've been through a whole period of colonisation by the Japanese empire throughout the early 20th century. So the whole idea of a revolution against authorities or against authoritarianism, only happens 200 years later, compared to the French Republic. So I would say in Korea, the whole perspective of people really revolting against the authority to really claim their rights to citizenship, or their rights to the legitimate holder of those natural rights only came in the middle of the 20th century. So we're a little bit far behind in the whole acclamation of citizenship. And, obviously, we had 20 past years, almost 30 years and the continuity in modern history. So that also played a role in a certain concept of citizenship in South Korea, to a later stage. Needless to mention that the first democratically elected government in South Korea was only in 1993. So that gives a little bit of context to the systems we're talking about here.

Kamille Beye (11:55)

And then how have these experiences in these different systems the UK, France and Korea? How have they shaped your current views on citizenship?

SeungPyo Hong (12:05)

Hmm, yes, I do you have some complexes that have been done in those countries. I would say that I do like the discourse that happens within the European Union about the EU citizenship as a whole, as sort of this globalist idea, trans passing this concept of sovereignty. So really, like when you live in the EU, obviously have the right's right to freedom of movement, and all these fundamental rights guaranteed, but within this big block, states, EU states. So let's say that this European concept of citizenship would be a very international concept and also a constructivist concept that has been coined by obviously the founders of the EU, whereas the UK, obviously, with the recent Brexit. I think there is a movement trying to rebuild this UK citizenship or the identity of being a subject or population of the UK. But since I'm not an expert on this matter, I'll leave the sound judgement to you, perhaps, Kamille, give me your tracks to explain a little bit about the ongoing debates around London or in the UK. And conservatorium approach to citizenship, as I said, it is quite a recent concept. But at the same time, it's also very geo-political, given that Korea obviously had strong ties with the States within the whole Transpacific area. And obviously, there was this history of immigration to the States, this very close-knitted relationship between South Korea and the US. So, I think it was a recent display portrayed in this famous series ‘Pachinko’. I haven't watched it. But obviously (Giggle), I was told that it's a great Virg. And you see, there is a little bit of the history of immigration, this American Dream aspect, which only tells that probably because of the history of suppression within the military junta regime in South Korea, there were people that suffer from the lack of built-up citizenship in South Korea until very recently.

Kamille Beye (14:12)

That's fascinating. So, it's almost like this whole idea of the Habeas Corpus, the idea of people owning themselves. And then the idea of the fundamental liberties from France came together in the Korean perspective, only recently.

SeungPyo Hong (14:26)

Precisely, and with a little bit of touch the of our friend, the United States, obviously. So fighter movement after the beginning of the Cold War, the weight of the Korean War in-between.

Kamille Beye (14:38)

But give us Liberty or Give us that? Definitely (Editor’s note: SeungPyo responded to Kamille’s question). Then I want to ask you since you have these different ideas that you've been able to reflect on, in your own experience, how do you go about teaching the idea of citizenship to young cadets or how did you go about that and in the Korean naval academy?

SeungPyo Hong (14:58)

An excellent question! and I do very much politically correct, that's true this question, to be honest. So yes, I mean, when you think about a military establishment, its goal is to preserve, you know, the national security and to protect the national interests. So there is a certain discourse, there's a certain philosophy behind educating outside the young cadet. But at the same time, me coming from a rather liberal background in Europe, I didn't really want to adhere too much to that one-sided or to some extent, really, I'm biased concept of citizenship. So traditionally speaking, or classically speaking at the Naval Academy, you would have this curriculum that will eventually create those products of the nation. So essentially, once you commit yourself to a military career or office here in South Korea, you are apparent to the States, I think it's pretty much the same in neighbouring countries from that perspective, but the degree of you losing your private sphere, I would say it's debatable, it obviously varies in different countries. For instance, in Korea, let me give you an example. So the cadets, but the measurement that we put in, in the Navy jargon, were not able to have romantic relationships, so to speak, until very recently, it was prohibited by the school's policy by the academies policy. And for me, from an external observer, even though I was a faculty member, that was a measure of liberty site, for instance, because the invasion of the public sphere, into the private sphere, into the most intimate space of the private sphere, which is, you know, emotions, was clearly measured to instrumentalise Human Resources at all, for the better good, which is national security. But I wouldn't say that applies in the same way in different countries, for instance, France, or the UK, which is the UK, obviously, the whole concept of becoming a Navy officer is different from directly going to the naval academy after high school, I guess, the UK it's a different system of recruitment, to form featuring naval officers. So yes, that was, I think one of the points that I really remarked on the whole invasion of the private sphere, vis-à-vis the public sphere, which is dictated by the state, but within that environment, nevertheless, I tried to profess as much as possible, the whole liberal values in all the idea of freedom. So I guess I did my best.

Kamille Beye (17:29)

That's very interesting. There's the whole idea of an invasion of private space upon the public spheres. It transitions nicely into this idea of education being contested because most education systems are controlled by the government. And so I just wanted to know, based on this idea of invasions of private space, and of course, the public narrative, how do you feel or which do you feel, Hmm Let me rephrase that. Where do you feel that education is most contested globally?

SeungPyo Hong (18:02)

Hmm, excellent question! Let me go back to a little trivial conversation that I had with a doctoral friend here and obviously lost in a very small country, it's got a population of 600,000 people. But one of the things that Luxembourg is pretty advanced because of the sheer diversity of the presence of foreigners demands more than 50% in the country, acceptance to, let's say, different colours, different races, different cultures, is quite liberal, it's quite open, you wouldn't expect people getting free marks in their races, or their religion or their colours, very rainbow country. But at the same time, this friend of mine got me into thinking that even though the education system could be very liberal, the actual implementation of the education system could be a form of violence. And I asked him back, what do you think so? And he goes on to me and this example of a Gauss curve, right, so, standard deviation, so pretty much 80% of any given species population is within two or three standard deviations away. But they're always these extremes, sort of naturally given extremes, like the 10 per cent at both ends. And what his remark was quite interesting, as a general, as a GP, in saying that education or this institution called education wouldn't really give these 10 per cent people on both extremes there, say within the system. So at the same time, it transcribed concrete examples that bet from as early as kindergarten there would always be a group of kids. So the 80 per cent have a go with the other 10 per cent extreme ends of the population. And once you see, once you sort of experience the violence that could be created within this wonderful institution called education. Now you really start to think about does education have an intrinsic limitation not to be able to care for these extremities? Or education can people within the centre of education really try to chore, those imperfections that are embedded within the system. So those were the angles that I never had before. Because I've been pretty much a good pupil different my treated origin, never had, I really had some problems and some issues within the education system. So from me, it was pretty much conformist, the whole institutionalisation process, that his perspective was just mind-blowing. And it really made me think about the role of education that it's limited at the same time. So in answering your question, I guess, education will be most contested in not being able to, really at some times and really addressed with diversity issues for whole 100% given population. And on top of that, given education could be used as a political arm. So as I said, previously, geopolitical propaganda to some extent. So those human intentions have behind the whole system, all institutions of education could be, I guess, the point of contention, my point of view.

Kamille Beye (21:18)

No, I totally agree. I was thinking about the article, the two sides of education and conflict by Bush and Saltarelli in 2000. Talks about that very same thing, it's only education can be used for good or bad, depending on who's wielding it. And as you were saying earlier, education helps to form people who are products of the nation. So of course, depending on who's in power, education, but what is being taught in schools can change. And that brings me to my next question, I want to talk about this idea of Arendt. She talks about power, community and action. And I want to know if you think those ideas align or do they miss align with how you feel these ideas intersect with education. So how do you feel about the ideas of power community and action? Do they align? Or do they not align with your idea that education and particularly access to education?

SeungPyo Hong (22:13)

First, I think to some extent, education, as I said previously, with a very realistic point of view, could be used as an arm of a state. So as a propaganda machine, but as you said, correctly, it's the humans that really try to take care of the undesired effects of education by intervening within the system. So definitely, there's an element of power, because at the same time, when he talks about power, I think the absolute, the purest, the most absolute form of power, really is the power that God sort of inflates up in its creation, referring to this Christianity philosophy. So what I'm trying to say is that God really had a reflection of itself when he created humans. And for me, that's the most absolute emanation of power or power relation that human philosophy can think about. Because it's the copy of one's feature, it's got it's a copy of one's DNA, eventually, in terms of biology, there is this element of power, or there's this direction of the power of really wanting to create a mini-me to some extent, and I think that's exactly the education of what education is doing. They have this setup idea of a perfect citizen, and they really want to replicate the creation of those perfect citizens, at least from a very classical point of view of education. So I think there's definitely this power role that embeds the institution of education. But at the same time, when we talk about access to education, it also enables the educated people to really reclaim their own private space, compared to the invasion of the public space, a public experience I talked about before. And related, Hannah Arendt talks a lot about the whole idea of the whole notion of the public sphere and how private citizens how individuals must resist as much as possible to not get baited into their private sphere. These are the public sphere. So she really claims about the separation of the private sphere and public sphere, philosophical works. And I guess it's only through education that you can really try to differentiate to which extent your private sphere is eventually invaded so that it doesn't really give you any more room for you to stay as an individual, I think could also go back to the whole meals theory of liberty, right? So individuals really having their individualism is a basis of liberty. So once you lose your individuality, basically, your liberties are guaranteed and you will because you're assimilated to the whole public state your whole existence ceases to exist to some extent, so my guess Yeah, education itself could be used within the whole discourse of power. But at the same time access to education is for me, it's very neat and quite essential to really protect oneself from not being overtaken by let's say, the public sphere, maybe I'm being a little bit of a pessimistic?

Kamille Beye (25:18)

No, no, I don't think so (Laugh). Which brings me to why I think this way because it talks about this idea of people having the ability to resist, right? You want to resist the state interfering. And if you don't have education, especially if you're not able to read and write or critically think you don't have the tools. So it becomes very important what education provides, that makes me want to transition to this idea of the private in the public being invaded with the rise of the pandemic. And so, I want to know, how you feel different nations responded to the pandemic, as far as education, how did it test their fulfilment to the citizens of their rights of education, in light of this whole idea of the private-public.

SeungPyo Hong (26:04)

So I think the general response by different governments around the world was the cause of public action and combatting the pandemic was pretty much built up in exceptional measures, or urgent measures. So an intervention from the Public Order was necessary in order to contain the pandemics and whether without knowing, I guess, the population and the education have been very much eroded in their private sphere in their advancement towards access to education, because obviously, in France, there was a whole period of confinement where pupils couldn't really go to school on a regular basis. And likewise, in Korea, I think we're talking about a whole generation of college students that have never gone to physical classes, and then never attended physical classes. So definitely, there were measures of liberty slides. But at the same time, these measures were able to be overcome by the advances in technology, so major conferences and courses and in classes at home with utilisation of the most advanced technologies, but I guess what's missing between having an alternative education like physical education, to using technology is this concept of social cohesion, or maybe, I would even say social contract by so let me try to clarify this, I think the whole concept of social contract only comes into play physically, by assimilation into societies and assimilation to an environment because this faction called the social contract never does exist. We're not born into the world. And we don't find a social contract that we're going to belong from a class society to a class nation, right? It only comes after, through education, perhaps through assimilation into society. And there, we can really talk about the whole development of the notion of citizenship and nationality. But these exceptional measures take away that pupils and children's possibility of children's accessibility, to interact with other children interact with their first encounter, the first social instrument encounter, which is education, I think it could create massive follow-ups, but in the near future of a society or a generation that could be missing the whole concept of the social contract, potentially, because the interaction was enough for the threshold, the absolute threshold of building social cohesion was just not there. So then how can we justify a social contract, when you really didn't vouch for or renew, we didn't really experience it, the whole process of signing a social contract could be one of the problematic things that I'll be able to raise my voice is up against.

Kamille Beye (28:58)

It also that very soon in the next generation, as they start to be the college or the academic experience and go into the world of work, we're going to be seeing the effects of this idea of lack of social cohesion. So it won't be long before we see the ramifications of the COVID experience. So that brings me to this idea of international law. So how does international law work with civic societies to ensure that global mandates are followed? If we think about this idea of the social contract, and these interactions that we are learned through experiences and education, we know they're going to be missing? So how do people in your profession work with local entities to ensure that as we go back into, ‘our new normal’ that global mandates on education are being followed?

SeungPyo Hong (29:50)

So I guess there are two different international law instruments, then we can relate to education one is obviously the declarant three National Instruments which like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a declaration of value, but the execution part is dependent on the national on the sovereign states to implement them. And another category of international law instruments is really more specialised international organisations such as UNESCO, which is the agency within the UN that is specialised in education and ramification of human progress in human sciences. And yes, the real implementation of mandate international organisations' mandate should follow on both sides, both on the UN level and birth on the specialised agencies level. And obviously, UNESCO is a very competent organization, despite being a little bit far away from everyday life. So at the end of the day, I could only say that international legal instruments could give like a guideline, as I said before, and need an idea or idea world where everything should be well theorised and well above the average level of education. But it really comes down to the implementation of national sovereign states to follow the global mandate. So I can only urge the participation of the civil societies that could act in-between these international organisations, lofty goals, and perhaps, or sometimes the national sovereign states' reluctance to really put in place the global mandate and education. So an institute like yours will be a very, excellent venue for promoting discussions about the problems and good things about education, there is a place for the academia to really intervene in bridging the gap.

Kamille Beye (31:43)

So then I'd like to ask you, about this idea of bridging the gap and working with different organisations and implementing the declaratory instruments. How does one distinguish education as a right, versus education as a social goal?

SeungPyo Hong (32:00)

An intriguing question, I would say, so from a declarative point of view, obviously, we declare we the United Nations, we the people around the world declare that education is a right certain right that should be stirred up and all population that, obviously, the whole implementation part is dependent on sovereign states. So this is a big gap that we need to be addressing constantly, to put in place the lofty declarations, and the access to education, I think is a way is a method of affirming the declaratory rights to education. Because we don't access education, by logic, you wouldn't have education at all. So I guess access to education would be an instrument that should be very concretised. And that should be open to public discourse and public debates. Because every nation will have different approaches to education, and only through public discourse, and only through exposing the problem that takes up how to provide better access to education, or how to provide better means for education within any society, really, the education policy could only fulfil its obligation to essentially provide rights education, my point of view.

Kamille Beye (33:21)

Then I have one more question. And I'm thinking in terms of nowadays, all these different conflicts around the world, of course, we see people moving from different spaces. And we talk about education as a product of a nation. And so I'm just curious to know if you've ever heard or come across conscious objections regarding education as we know about conscious objections to war, or people don't want to fight based on religious or spiritual beliefs. And have you ever come across an idea of a society or group but then a society not wanting to teach the curriculum? Because the curriculum is harmful? Yeah,

SeungPyo Hong (34:03)

yeah. This whole debate between evolution and creation within the US, I guess, falls within that category and Korea as well. Since it's been a society that has been very much attached to the whole idea of Confucianism. There are a set of parts in, the mountains in Korea, where they really want to stick to the traditional ways of teaching things, based on confusion, as we call the ‘Hakdang’. (Editor’s note: school in Hangul) And yes, those pupils or the parents of those people actually go through an alternative curriculum, which is different, but which serves a certain goal within that central philosophy within that satellite school of thought.

Kamille Beye (34:41)

That's amazing. I think this has been just a wonderful conversation and I would love to turn it over to my colleagues, Adam and Stella, to see if they have any questions for you. Can I start with Stella, please?

Stella Mi-cheong Cheong (34:56)

Alright. Oh my goodness. So Good. Thank you. SeungPyo, Mr Hong, thank you so much for your contribution to this episode. Honestly, I blew my mind with your incredible answers and responses to all the questions, you came up with a fantastic idea and shared your personal experience. Thank you so much. I have a lot of questions. But given the time constraints, so yeah, I'd like to ask you about the current French situation, because we didn't touch on the current French situation, the politics, because we know there was the first-round vote of the French presidential election yesterday. Surprisingly, Jean-Luc Mélenchon who is a leader of radical-left politics got over 20% of the first-round vote. Given the persistence of the far-right ideologies, the so-called 'alt-right' globally, this phenomenon seems to be unusual to me, So, I'd like to hear your thoughts

SeungPyo Hong (36:09)

keep going on. I think the first the whole debate about the first election in France was really against Macron and even the government's measures that had impacts on personal liberty on the whole concept of liberty side. So despite being on the far left or far right, the French electorate really was, I always, I would say frustrated about measures taken on a sort of draconian measures at the end of the day, because Emmanuel Macron indicated to the government within the context of terrorism in Paris, 2015. So, from the first day on at the office, in the end, he said he had to take on exceptional measures, urgent measures, and this measure only got for long by the whole intervention of 'Gilets Jaunes'. So, yellow jacket people protested the obvious reforms of the public sector, which then again, got aggravated by the whole sanitary situation. So within his all end date past years, the French state had to take a lot of draconian measures of limiting personal liberties. And I guess that's the point when, you know, whether you may adhere to the leftist idea, or to the far-right idea. Citizens, the population, and the French population really wanted to raise their voice against too much intervention of the public boards into the private sphere. So I think that would be my analysis of the divided nation. To some extent, it's, it's quite fascinating how the French Republic is divided just like the election that happened in South Korea, about a month ago.

Stella Mi-cheong Cheong (37:46)

Yeah, I understand. I agree. Thank you. Thank you so much. Adam, I think you also have another question.

Adam Lang (37:55)

Thank you very much. Just an observation, actually, in our podcasts, we're reaching out to a wide range of audiences, we're reaching out to academics, HR, lawyers, practitioners, and also students. And I was asked this question the other day, by a daughter, a friend of mine, who wants to be a human rights lawyer. She's doing her A- level at the moment in this country. And I just wondered what you'd say to her because she will hopefully be listening to this podcast in the future. What you'd say to her, I think you'd probably say, Yes, of course. But why? Why would you encourage people to go into that? And if you had a sort of crystal ball, and you've touched on it, we're talking about migration and the tensions about limitations, human rights and education and the tensions between sort of liberal democracies and authoritarian countries, would you think are the some of the key issues that young people coming into human rights law would be grappling and facing in the future?

SeungPyo Hong (38:54)

I would like to give a quote, from that perspective, so ‘Right, that is sleep. Right, that is not claimed’. It's going to stay asleep forever. So I guess what the role of the human rights lawyers, in general, would be that they would try to go to the darkest sides of a given society and try to really undiscovered or unspotted aside that, you're right, whether it be basic fundamental human rights or any, any other rights. And I guess, a certain degree of humanitarianism should be required in the profession, and an interested, as I said, lofty declaratory rhetoric, right, there need really to be implemented in the littlest in the closest level as possible. So I guess one of the common realities of human rights lawyers is that people are quite at the end of the day, idealistic and say it is a bad thing, because obviously, as I mentioned, the whole Gauss curve of 80% and you know the rest of the 10 % and really clean a little bit of our costs when he people to make their voices heard after all. So I think from that perspective, it will be highly recommended to make their voices heard. Right. I think they'll be there.

Adam Lang (40:12)

Thank you very much.

SeungPyo Hong (40:14)

Thank you, Adam.

Kamille Beye (40:15)

Thank you so much. Are there any other questions because that was just amazing. So, SeunPyo, would you like to leave us with any parting words before I conclude this podcast?

SeungPyo Hong (40:28)

Yes, I thought about it. (Laugh) Thank you everyone for the conversation. And I guess one of the hidden aspects of education, from my personal perspective, is education being used as an instrument or as an institution. And I like to share this idea of potential education not being a 100% good thing for society, obviously, it is a good thing. But at the same time, could be a double-edged sword, which population or society could really try to impose its own set of values instead of ideas on the educated people. So whether it be a minor approach or an alternative approach to education. Yes, I would like to talk about this in a future capacity as well. Thank you.

Kamille Beye (41:20)

Thank you so much. So this concludes our podcasts. I'm Kamille Beye. Thanks for listening to conversations4citizenship. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Be sure to subscribe to conversations for citizenship. A transcript of today's conversation with Mr Hong can be found at www.conversations for citizenship.com This episode of conversations for citizenship was produced by Kamille Beye, Stella Cheong, Adam Lang, and Rowena Palacios, recorded and sound mixed by Heejin Ban, Stay Safe! We stand with Ukraine!

EPISODE SUMMARY

In the third episode of Conversations4Citizenship, Kamille Beye interviews international human rights lawyer Seung Pyo Hong, who shares his insights into the history and geopolitics of human rights and citizenship.

EPISODE NOTES

Episode 3 of the Conversations4Citizenship podcast features international lawyer and law researcher Seung Pyo Hong, currently an associate at Dentons, a boutique law firm based in Luxembourg, and also a PhD researcher in international investment law at the Seoul National University, School of Law. Drawing from his extensive experience in international law practice and research covering both Europe and Asia, Seung Pyo shares with us some insight into the history and geopolitics of human rights, nationality, and citizenship education, especially against the background of the refugee crisis, the war in Ukraine, and other global issues. Follow him on LinkedIn

This episode is hosted by Kamille Beye, together with Stella Mi-cheong Cheong and Adam Peter Lang.

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the podcast through Apple, Google, Spotify or Amazon Music. You may also follow @c4c_ed on Twitter; we look forward to hearing your feedback and your stories. If you would like to explore the possibility of participating in our podcast, do not hesitate to reach out through the online participation form or email us at info@conversations4citizenship.com

List of further readings

Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Bush, K. D., & Saltarelli, D. (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: Towards a peacebuilding education for children. Italy: The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Contact Conversations4citizenship