South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of emergency martial law faced a significant challenge as the National Assembly unanimously voted to overturn the measure. The move has sparked intense debate over constitutional powers and political freedoms in the nation.
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has declared emergency martial law, accusing the opposition of treason and collusion with North Korea.
— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 3, 2024
Under the sweeping measures, violators can be arrested without warrants, and habeas corpus has been suspended.
Lawmakers have been… pic.twitter.com/jqrWqZIgTJ
Under South Korea’s constitution, the president holds the authority to declare martial law during extraordinary circumstances. This power grants the executive significant control over freedoms such as speech, press, assembly, and association.
However, the president is required to inform the National Assembly, which retains the right to vote on the measure. If a majority opposes martial law, the constitution mandates that the president must comply.
President Yoon’s declaration is now under scrutiny as the legislature seeks to revoke his decision, a process that also involves deliberation by the president’s cabinet. It remains uncertain whether Yoon will comply with the Assembly’s ruling or what stance the cabinet will take in this unfolding political crisis.
Even members of Yoon’s own ruling People Power Party, including party leader Han Dong-hoon, have called for the president to lift martial law. Han’s statement reflects the growing unease within the political establishment over the sweeping measures.
Journalist Yejin Gim, based in New York City, provided context on South Korea’s legal procedures regarding martial law, emphasizing its historical significance and legal framework:
I'm a South Korean journalist based in New York City. This is a thread about what's happening in South Korea right now after the president declared emergency martial law.
— Yejin Gim 김예진 (@yejinjgim) December 3, 2024
“Under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the president has the authority to declare martial law and prescribes its scope, rights, procedures, and duties of the martial law commander through the Martial Law Act. The first martial law was declared on October 21, 1948.”
President Yoon cited actions by the opposition Democratic Party, which holds a parliamentary majority, as justification for the declaration. The opposition had proposed impeaching top prosecutors and rejecting a government budget proposal, actions Yoon labeled as “anti-state behavior aimed at inciting rebellion.”
Yoon further described the opposition’s actions as having “paralyzed state affairs and turned the National Assembly into a den of criminals.” He defended martial law as a necessary measure to combat “shameless pro-North anti-state forces” and ensure national stability for future generations.
Local media reports indicate heightened tensions, with the parliament’s speaker attempting to convene a session amidst restricted access to the assembly building. Broadcaster YTN reported that lawmakers were blocked from entering, further intensifying the standoff.
Under the emergency measures, individuals can be arrested without warrants, and habeas corpus protections have been suspended, prompting concerns about potential overreach and threats to civil liberties.
This ongoing situation underscores the delicate balance between executive authority and legislative oversight in South Korea’s democratic system. As lawmakers and the cabinet continue to deliberate, the resolution of this crisis will likely have significant implications for the nation’s political stability and constitutional integrity.