Halle Lindsey Wallis
Introduction
On December 3, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol—in an impromptu, late-evening oration broadcasted live on television—declared martial law after nearly five decades of absence, vowing to dismantle “anti-state” forces he asserted were orchestrating insurrection while accusing the principal opposition parties of aligning with the nation’s adversary, North Korea. Arguably, what unfolded next was a relentless descent into profound chaos.
What is Martial Law? – A Brief Overview
It is imperative to preface that the concept of “martial law” is devoid of a consistent, standardized definition, having been historically employed to represent a broad array of military activities, duties, and operational roles. Essentially, under martial law, military authority temporarily supersedes civilian governance, often during times of warfare, rebellion, or significant natural calamities. Fundamentally, the imposition of martial law is “warranted” when civilian authority has disintegrated and ceased to function, is utterly absent, or has become ineffective. Such an enactment furnishes the military commander (of a given jurisdiction) with supreme, unrestricted legislative and executive authority—empowering unilateral lawmaking and enforcement. In this context, it is the military that assumes exclusive responsibility for the enforcement of the law, thereby supplanting the function traditionally fulfilled by local police forces. Furthermore, martial law abrogates the existing legal order, alongside the cessation of civil authority and the disruption of the regular administration of justice.
South Korea’s History of Martial Law
Many view South Korea as a paragon of democratic stability and peace in Asia. Nonetheless, this commendable status has been hard-earned and does not uniformly reflect the historical realities of the nation. South Korea endured sixteen instances of martial law within the country’s first four decades, a period marked by the pervasive and formidable dominance of dictatorial governance. It has been enacted during wartime—notably throughout the Korean War—yet it has also been wielded by authorities seeking to retain and consolidate their grip on power amidst widespread civil unrest. South Korea’s Constitution stipulates that the president possesses the authority to proclaim martial law when “required to cope with a military necessity or to maintain the public safety and order by mobilization of the military forces in time of war, armed conflict, or similar national emergency.”
On August 15, 1948, President Syngman Rhee of South Korea—a staunch anti-communist—invoked martial law, following a military insurrection orchestrated by communist forces against the government’s military apparatus. Rhee, during his prolonged presidential tenure that spanned over a decade, reinstated martial law in 1952. On June 25, 1950, the Korean War ignited as North Korean forces launched an invasion of South Korea, seeking to reunify the fractured peninsula. To suppress anti-government protest(s) during the Korean War, South Korea’s leadership enacted martial law, empowering the military to intervene. In 1960, public outrage over electoral corruption ignited the April Revolution. As opposition grew fiercer and his political position eroded, Rhee once again resorted to martial law in 1960. Ultimately, the indomitable surge of nationwide unrest compelled Rhee to relinquish his position and resign. Subsequently, on August 13, 1960, the National Assembly conferred the presidency of South Korea upon Yun Bo-seon.
On May 16, 1961, Park Chung-hee—a South Korean military officer—executed the nation’s first successful coup, overthrowing President Yun Bo-seon, who had been removed from power amidst a backdrop of martial law often wielded by Park to suppress dissent. On October 26, 1979, Park was assassinated. Choi Kyu-hah, his successor, was overthrown by Chun Doo-hwan, “the most vilified former military dictator,” whose eight-year rule became synonymous with harsh repression and brutality. Chun’s nationwide declaration of martial law triggered the 1980 Gwangju Uprising, a laudable student-led movement for democracy that erupted the day after. Chun, in retaliation, launched a violent crackdown, ordering the military to suppress and quash the protest with force. By the time the violence subsided, official estimates put the death toll at approximately two hundred, though many contend that the true number of fatalities is much higher. Manifestly, the uprising marked a pivotal moment in South Korea’s transition away from authoritarian rule. Although South Korea did not officially transition to democracy until 1987, the shockwaves from the violence in Gwangju served as a powerful catalyst for change, cementing Chun’s position as the nation’s last dictator.
President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Declaration
President Yoon Suk Yeol’s decree, issued “in a nation with a strong contemporary tradition of free speech,” banned all political activities, including any protest, rally, or action by a political party. Moreover—with the government unreservedly monopolizing the media—the mandate paradoxically prohibited “denying free democracy or attempting a subversion,” and “manipulating public opinion.” This decision was undeniably detrimental and erroneous, with many branding it “illegal and unconstitutional.” Even the leader of Yoon’s conservative party, the People’s Power Party, forcefully condemned his decision, characterizing it as “the wrong move.” Meanwhile, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the liberal Democratic Party, urged his party’s MPs to gather in parliament to reject the declaration. On December 4, 2024, South Korea’s National Assembly decisively rejected the measure, deeming the martial law declaration unconstitutional and invalid.
What Now?
Although martial law was rescinded after just one day, President Yoon Suk Yeol continues to face intense scrutiny and criticism. “Even if martial law is lifted, he cannot avoid treason charges. It was evident to the nation that President Yoon could no longer run the country normally. He should step down,” emphasized Park Chan-dae, a prominent Democratic Party member of parliament. “South Korea as a nation dodged a bullet, but President Yoon may have shot himself in the foot,” remarked Danny Russel, Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute in the United States. Russel’s observation is certainly far from baseless, as the Democratic Party promptly acted to push for Yoon’s impeachment.
To succeed, the relatively straightforward impeachment process in South Korea requires a distinct majority—at least two hundred votes—from the three-hundred-member National Assembly. Once impeachment is sanctioned, the Constitutional Court—a nine-member panel that oversees South Korea’s governmental branches—presides over the trial. If six justices of the Constitutional Court vote to sustain the impeachment, the president is removed from office. President Yoon Suk Yeol successfully evaded impeachment on Saturday, December 7, 2024, for his short-lived martial law declaration—yet his party, the People Power Party (PPP), has pledged to demand his resignation and seek his “orderly early exit.” Owing to the deliberate abstention of most ruling party legislators, the parliamentary vote failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority to revoke his presidential power. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik lamented the decision as “very regrettable,” criticizing it as an utter embarrassment to the nation’s democracy.
Conclusion
Following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s ephemeral martial law declaration, South Korea has found itself at a pivotal juncture, navigating the aftermath of this unprecedented decision. The immediate revocation of the declaration has done little to quell its political and legal fallout, fueling ongoing scrutiny of Yoon’s leadership. The event—serving as a stark reminder of the delicate balance required to preserve democratic integrity in the face of internal crises—underscores the resilience of South Korea’s democratic framework while exposing vulnerabilities to executive overreach.
Comments