December 13, 2024 at 5:00:00 PM
Taeeon Moon '25
On December 3, 2024, at approximately 10 p.m., South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in an emergency national address. He justified his decision by asserting that the National Assembly had become a “den of criminals,” paralyzing the nation’s judicial and administrative systems. He claimed the measure was necessary to “eradicate anti-state forces conspiring to overthrow the liberal democratic order.”
Ironically, the order, claiming to be preserving democracy, became the decisive factor that positioned Yoon as a suspect in destroying the Constitution. As the president is undergoing an investigation for potential treason, is it not a treason to attempt to overthrow one’s very democracy?
Article 77 of the South Korean Constitution stipulates that the President may declare martial law “in the event of war, armed conflict, or a comparable national emergency.” However, even considering subjective interpretations of these conditions, South Korea was not experiencing circumstances that justified such a declaration. This discrepancy immediately ignited significant controversy within the country and abroad.
The National Assembly, led by the opposition, swiftly passed a resolution demanding the repeal of martial law. The 190 lawmakers present voted unanimously in favor. Meanwhile, citizens protested in front of the National Assembly, calling for the order’s immediate revocation. Eventually, the Assembly formally dissolved martial law 155 minutes after it was declared, and President Yoon rescinded the measure approximately six hours after its initial announcement.
If martial law had remained in effect, the military would have been authorized to arrest, detain, and conduct searches and seizures without warrants, utilizing military forces as needed. Proclamation No. 3 specified that all media and publications would be subject to military censorship, while Proclamation No. 4 banned strikes, slowdowns, and public gatherings. Therefore, citizens asserting constitutionally protected rights before the National Assembly likely would have been arrested and punished under these rules.
The most constitutionally contentious aspect of the declaration was Proclamation No. 1, which prohibited “all activities of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, and political associations, including assemblies and demonstrations.” Even in cases where martial law might be justified, the President has no authority to suspend the operations of a constitutional body like the National Assembly. Since the Assembly holds the ultimate authority to revoke martial law, its suspension would effectively eliminate institutional checks and balances. Threatening the foundation of democracy to power-grab on the part of a leader trying to stay in office is intolerable. I considered various possible reasons for enacting such a law, but none made sense.
Following the incident, President Yoon faced accusations of sedition, and multiple lawsuits were filed against him. On December 9, the Ministry of Justice imposed a travel ban on Yoon, marking the first such measure against a sitting president under the current constitutional framework. The opposition attempted to impeach him, but the first impeachment motion failed when lawmakers from the ruling People Power Party collectively boycotted the vote. The President should be impeached because this incident insinuates that anything could happen tomorrow.
The ambiguous motives behind the declaration of martial law have raised significant domestic and international concerns about the state of South Korean democracy. But don’t worry. This incident demonstrates that our democracy can function to prevent unanticipated autocratic control when constitutional checks and balances are effectively enforced. The swift action by the National Assembly and civic protests exemplify the power of an engaged citizenry and the democratic resilience of South Korea.