On December 3rd at 11:00 PM, President Yoon Suk-yeol of the Republic of Korea declared martial law, claiming the urgent need to protect Korea's liberal democratic system from anti-state coalitions. He deployed special forces from the Korean army to key strategic locations, including the National Assembly, the Democratic Party headquarters, and the National Election Commission, to secure control of them. However, only two hours later, members of the National Assembly convened a meeting and voted to nullify the martial law. Yoon accepted their decision around 4:30 AM, making it the shortest-lived martial law in South Korean history.
The ongoing political crisis is already impacting both domestic and international affairs and it has reopened questions about South Korea's constitutional and political status. This article aims to contextualize the current moment and provide food for thought regarding possible ramifications.
This event reflects the complex South Korean political landscape, which seems to have driven Yoon to declare martial law for the first time in 44 years. The roots of the political instability can be traced back to 2016, when then-President Park Geun-hye was impeached for the abuse of power. Park's removal from office marked the downfall of the conservative political coalition in Korea and facilitated the rise of the progressive Together Democratic Party and its leader Moon Jae-in, who became Park's successor shortly after the impeachment.
President Moon sought to reshape South Korea by addressing longstanding abuses, referred to as jeok-pye ("old evils"). His administration pursued extensive legal actions against key figures from previous conservative regimes, and one of the prosecutors who gained prominence was Yoon. Known for his dedication to justice, Yoon played a pivotal role in investigating Park, which earned him the position of prosecutor general. However, his career took a dramatic turn when he launched an investigation into Cho Kuk, then the Minister of Justice and a close ally of Moon. It led to significant political controversies and forced Yoon to resign. Afterwards, he joined the People Power Party (PPP), South Korea's largest conservative political party, which was searching for a strong presidential candidate. Despite his lack of prior political experience, Yoon secured the party's nomination and won the presidential election.
However, Yoon's lack of political experience quickly became evident. His attempt to oust Lee Jun-seok, the leader of the PPP, who had clashed with him during the presidential campaign, divided the conservative bloc as Lee responded by founding a new party. His leadership was further weakened by allegations of misconduct involving his wife, and accusations of protecting a senior military official from legal actions. These scandals eroded public trust in his administration, leading to a historic defeat for the PPP in the 2024 legislative election, where it suffered the worst losses since democratization.
As a result, the Together Democratic Party gained control of the National Assembly and passed legislation that directly opposed Yoon's policy agenda. Recently, the Assembly downsized the government's budget proposal, creating significant challenges for Yoon's administration. In addition to these legislative obstacles, Yoon faced direct political threats. Several of his senior officials were impeached by the assembly, and Cho, now a member of the National Assembly, publicly announced his plan to initiate impeachment proceedings against Yoon. Given these escalated political tensions, Yoon's abrupt decision to declare martial law, while sudden and radical, was not completely out of the blue.
In his speech announcing martial law, President Yoon claimed that his motivation was the protection of " the free constitutional order". As established above, he is more likely to have been politically motivated. Yet, the situation has drawn attention to South Korea's constitution and has opened the question of whether this can serve as a catalyst for constitutional change.
After popular protests had led to the end of military dictatorship, the Sixth Republic emerged in South Korea in 1987. Its founding document was a familiar one – the 1948 Constitution was amended for the ninth time, finally bringing about democracy. The changes concentrated on four key areas, namely democratization, normalization of the relationship between the president and the legislature, and constitutional adjudication.
An important part of the 1987 revision was the reset of the balance between president and parliament. In the pre-1987 constitution, the president had the right to proclaim states of emergency which went beyond today's martial law provisions, as they contained the power to limit all constitutional rights. Additionally, the president had the right to disband the national assembly. Consequently, whilst there is some analytical value in pointing out that South Korea's history is "scarred by martial law", President Yoon's powers are not comparable to those of his predecessors.
Today's Article 77 provides for two types of martial law, emergency martial law (비상계염) and precautionary martial law (경비계염). More details are contained in secondary legislation, the Martial Law Act. Based on Article 3 of the Martial Law Act, Yoon made an announcement on national television and declared a Martial Law Commander, Army Gen. Park An-su, who in turn issued a decree detailing the martial law provisions. The far-reaching text banned political activity including "the activities of the National Assembly", public assembly, and declared control over media and publications.
As outlined above, the reversal of the decree followed some hours later. The reversal was in turn based on Article 77 Paragraph 5 of the constitution, according to which "When the National Assembly requests the lifting of martial law with the concurrent vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly, the President shall comply."
Despite the successful overturn of the martial law, the situation has highlighted challenges within South Korea's constitutional order. Firstly, the prohibition of National Assembly activities within General Park An-su's decree stands in contradiction with Article 77 Paragraph 5, which gives the Assembly to overturn martial law. Even if the decree is subsequently declared unconstitutional, it might still be worth legally specifying that National Assembly activities cannot be unduly suppressed by martial law.
Secondly, debates about a more general reform of the executive structure might be revived. Former President Moon (2017-2022) attempted to transform the non-renewable five-year term into a once-renewable four-year one, but this reform did not occur – partially because of a widespread preference for a move towards a mixed presidential-parliamentary system which would give the National Assembly greater powers. As of now, the Prime Minister in South Korea has the task of " assists the President", making his role relatively weak.
The crisis therefore has a decisively constitutional aspect to it. This article has used it as an opportunity to present ongoing challenges, such as the President's extensive emergency powers, and the position of the country's executive branch more generally. However, in the aftermath of the declaration, questions continue to emerge that might be applicable if a similar case were to reoccur in the future. Could a president be allowed to re-declare martial law shortly after ending it? President Yoon has been impeached – but do his actions qualify as treason?
Despite what has been outlined above, this was in essence a political crisis, brought about by a misuse of powers. The constitution was upheld –not because of particularly well-suited constitutional design, but rather because of the courage of members of the National Assembly and protestors.
Yoon's sudden declaration of martial law comes amidst a time of heightened tension in East Asia. South Korea has had to balance the country's close political and military alliance with the United States with its commercial dependence on its largest trading partner, China, a feat proving more difficult with the worsening Sino-American relationship. Complicating this balancing act is South Korea's perpetual need to remain vigilant of threats and incursions by its nuclear-armed and unpredictable neighbor, North Korea.
Recent developments have increased anxiety for South Korean leadership. North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-Un, in a major break from decades of policy, announced in January of 2024 that his country would no longer pursue a peaceful reunification of the peninsula and that North Korea should prepare to forcefully subjugate the South if need be. In a speech that month, Kim Jong-Un went as far as to demand a change to the DPRK's constitution, dropping the clause that commits the regime to Korean unification and identifying the Republic of Korea as North Korea's "primary foe". North Korea has also pursued closer relations with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, signing a mutual defense agreement, and providing Russia with substantial amounts of military equipment and combat troops to assist Russia in its invasion of Ukraine in exchange for military and economic assistance.
Amidst this uncertainty, President Yoon has aligned himself closely with American President Joe Biden and deepened the US-ROK relationship. In August of 2023, President Yoon, President Biden, and then-Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida signed a trilateral agreement at Camp David to strengthen defense cooperation, consultation, and intelligence sharing between the three countries. South Korea hosted this year's " Summit for Democracy", as part of a democracy promotion project of Biden, and has indirectly bolstered American efforts to resupply Ukraine by providing munitions to free up American stockpiles for delivery to Ukraine.
Yet, the seemingly ironclad security relationship between South Korea and the United States has an uncertain future. Currently, the two countries are signatories to a mutual defense treaty and South Korea is protected by 30,000 American troops of United States Forces Korea (USFK) stationed on the peninsula and the American nuclear umbrella. Incoming President Donald Trump has complained that South Korea is a " money machine" that does not pay sufficiently for the stationing of USFK and previously threatened to withdraw American troops if Seoul did not pay up. Trump's pledged tariff on all American imports could also weaken the export-dependent Korean economy.
Domestically, Yoon's foreign policy has prompted criticism from the opposition, mainly from the Democratic Party and its leader, Lee Jae-Myung. Lee has argued that Yoon threatens to destabilize relations with China, North Korea, and Russia by being too confrontational and has called for a more even-handed approach. The Democratic Party also opposes Yoon's efforts to forge closer ties with Japan and the US. President Yoon's coup attempt could undermine the viability of his foreign policy agenda to a domestic audience.
President Yoon's attempt at a power grab will do little to ease South Korea's geopolitical uncertainty. This coup attempt and its aftermath will likely create domestic political turmoil and recriminations that South Korean political leaders will have to sort through, considering the country's traumatic past under military dictators. Moreover, even though the martial law declaration fell through, the image of South Korea as a stable and prosperous East Asian liberal democracy will likely be damaged and Seoul might appear as a less predictable and secure actor in the region. Already, the coup attempt has spooked investors, causing a fall in the value of the Korean won and stock market; should the crisis continue, South Korea's stellar economic reputation could be further damaged. The irony of this whole affair may be that, far from securing South Korea as promised, President Yoon may have undermined his country's standing.
As this article is being written, the situation continues to develop. Yoon has been impeached and whilst he has accepted the outcome, he remains defiant in defense of his actions. Despite the short-lived nature of the crisis, it is likely to dominate South Korean domestic, constitutional, and foreign affairs for the foreseeable future.