North Korean political camps are indisputably evident examples of a massive killing system, a clear sign of genocide. However, in terms of conviction for the human rights violations in the camps, less attention has been gathered to discuss possible genocide crimes. International society advocating for North Korean human rights has found that the horrible atrocities occurring generally in the state, not only the campsites, would be accused for crimes against humanity in order to establish more successful conviction in court. But this approach would encounter an expected difficult situation without considering genocide charges because of North Korean's unique status in international law. Moreover, one of the reasons to avoid application of genocide charge was that legal protection has been given to the limited groups enumerated in the Genocide Convention; national, racial, ethnic and religious; and political groups like the inmates detained in North Korean political camps are not the groups protected by the Convention. The exclusion of certain groups has been challenged by prominent advocates for the Convention's role for tangible protections to the vulnerable groups. Although international courts have recently found crimes against humanity in cases where genocidal crimes were committed against groups based on political basis, which it is highly likely to apply in North Korean cases, it is important to consider applying genocide charges for North Korean victims in the political camps and other vulnerable groups in similar cases. Therefore, this article analyzes possible genocide charges for North Korean political camps as a preliminary claim for future trial and demonstrates how to establish the crime to protect political groups and possible convictions in North Korean context.

This paper addresses the legality of mask mandates that occurred during the COVID-19 to determine whether it is permissible. The COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the role of the government is essential, and the government should present a consistent approach to slow the spread of COVID-19 and investigate the inevitability of the mask mandates to save lives.
However, there has been some debate over the enforcement of the mask mandates because people assume that mask mandates infringe upon fundamental rights. These arguments call into question a rash decision of mask mandates in the first place to protect the lives and property of the citizen.
To identify the factors that affect the enforcement of the mask mandates, I examined fundamental rights which had caused controversy over people's opposition to mask mandates and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which has expert guidance for wearing masks to all states in the United States during the COVID-19 outbreak. Thus, this article attempts to address the answers to the above questions by analyzing relevant laws and presenting specific measures to settle arguments.

COVID-19 spread over the world in 2020. This is an unprecedented global pandemic. In order to provide their students with the educational service, the universities made a progressive decision: transmission to online class. The students objected this change. They argued that the online class is a breach of contract and it is inferior to the in-person class. This paper is study for the dispute between university and the students. Therefore, the purpose of this study is examine both parties' argument within the purview of contract theory. This theory introduced the ground for the students' motion and universities' defense. Even though the lawsuit is going on, this study would be helpful to expect the court's decision. Moreover, the students and universities will get aid to prevail on their lawsuit if both parties have a plan to bring their actions.