SEOUL — The impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol has entered its final stages. Since December 3, numerous issues have surfaced, but the fundamental question remains: Did he violate the Martial Law Act and the Constitution? If Yoon is found to have breached these laws, his impeachment will be upheld; if not, it will be dismissed. New Journalist believes that impeachment is a certainty. The following explains why President Yoon's removal from office is inevitable, offering a comprehensive analysis for a global audience.
Legal Violations in the Declaration of Martial Law
1. Failure to Announce Martial Law Publicly (Violation of Article 3 of the Martial Law Act) The Martial Law Act requires the president to publicly announce the reasons, type, implementation timeline, region, and commanding officer of the martial law declaration. However, Yoon failed to issue an official public document, leading to concerns over transparency and procedural legality.
2. Failure to Notify the National Assembly (Violation of Article 4 of the Martial Law Act and Article 77 of the Constitution) Under South Korean law, the president must immediately notify the National Assembly of a martial law declaration. Yoon neglected this requirement, and the Speaker of the National Assembly confirmed that no formal communication was made. The presidential office has not provided a rebuttal to this claim. Moreover, rather than notifying lawmakers, Yoon’s administration actively prevented members of the National Assembly from entering the legislative chamber, effectively obstructing their duties.
3. Bypassing the State Council’s Review (Violation of Article 2 of the Martial Law Act and Article 89 of the Constitution) The Constitution mandates that the declaration of martial law undergo deliberation in the State Council. Although a council meeting was held, reports indicate that procedural norms were ignored, with several ministers opposing the move. Crucial elements, such as the documentation of meeting minutes and official endorsements, were reportedly omitted and denied.
4. Lack of Justification for Martial Law (Violation of Article 2 of the Martial Law Act and Article 77 of the Constitution) The South Korean Constitution and the Martial Law Act stipulate that martial law can only be imposed during wartime, an armed conflict, or an extreme national crisis. No such conditions were met at the time of Yoon’s declaration. The government justified its decision by citing alleged civil unrest instigated by opposition parties, yet no large-scale riots, law enforcement collapse, or societal breakdown—key prerequisites for martial law—had occurred.
5. Unlawful Suppression of the National Assembly (Violation of Article 7 of the Martial Law Act and Article 77 of the Constitution) Despite legal protections ensuring that martial law cannot override legislative powers, the Martial Law Command issued an order suspending parliamentary activity. Reports indicate that military forces attempted to block access to the National Assembly, infringing on legislative autonomy and violating constitutional mandates. Special forces reportedly broke through the windows of the National Assembly building, attempting to cut off power and disrupt the vote on lifting martial law.
6. Illegal Proclamation Orders (Violation of Article 8 of the Martial Law Act) The Martial Law Act limits the scope of proclamation orders to military operations. However, the Martial Law Command extended its reach by restricting press freedom, banning political activities, and unlawfully limiting local government functions, further exceeding its authority.
7. Undermining the Military Chain of Command (Violation of Article 6 of the Martial Law Act) Under South Korean law, the Minister of National Defense oversees the martial law commander, with direct presidential command allowed only in nationwide martial law. Yoon reportedly bypassed the defense minister and issued direct military orders, effectively dismantling the established command structure.
8. Attempted Unlawful Arrests of Lawmakers (Violation of Article 13 of the Martial Law Act and Article 44 of the Constitution) The Constitution guarantees legislative immunity, prohibiting the arrest or detention of lawmakers without Assembly approval. Despite this, security forces attempted to detain key opposition figures, including Lee Jae-myung and Han Dong-hoon, raising concerns over the erosion of parliamentary democracy.
9. Unlawful Occupation of the National Election Commission (Violation of Article 114 of the Constitution) The National Election Commission, an independent constitutional body, was unlawfully occupied by martial law forces, with reports indicating that military personnel accessed electoral servers and interfered with the commission’s operations. Some officials have testified that military personnel attempted to detain election commissioners.
10. Potential Charges of Insurrection and Constitutional Subversion (Violation of Article 87 of the Criminal Code) South Korea’s Criminal Code defines insurrection as an attempt to overthrow the government through force. The military’s attempt to occupy key state institutions and suppress legislative functions has led legal scholars to debate whether Yoon’s actions constitute an insurrection aimed at undermining constitutional governance.
A Constitutional Crisis Unfolds
The declaration of martial law without legal justification and in violation of multiple constitutional provisions has triggered alarm among lawmakers, civil rights groups, and legal experts. Many view Yoon’s actions as more than procedural missteps—rather, they represent a direct challenge to South Korea’s democratic institutions and constitutional framework.
“This is not just a technical breach of law,” said a constitutional scholar at Seoul National University. “It’s an assault on the rule of law itself.”
Edward Wong, a New York Times writer, asked former U.S. Secretary Blinken, "President Yoon’s declaration of martial law closely resembles strategies used by authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Russia, and China. How do you assess this development, and what steps should be taken to manage tensions with the United States?" Wong rightly pointed out that it was the strategy used by the authoritarian who wanted to extend his regime.
Yoon has claimed that this martial law declaration was an "enlightenment order," but mounting evidence suggests that it was, in fact, a blatant attempt to extend his rule through authoritarian means.
즐겨찾기 추가
