South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in a midnight television address on 4 December 2024. He stated that this declaration was a necessary step to ‘protect the country from North Korea’s communist forces and eliminate anti-state elements’. According to footage broadcast by local media outlets, army troops stationed at the parliament building in the capital Seoul, with the support of opposition lawmakers and several treasury members, attempted to hold a session and gain access to the main building in an attempt to invalidate martial law.[1]
President Yoon Suk Yeol’s statement was criticised as illegal and unconstitutional by South Korean politicians. Criticism was not limited to the opposition; the President’s own party also reacted. The leader of the conservative People’s Power Party opposed this decision, describing Yoon’s action as ‘an act against democracy’.
These developments have the potential to lead to both deep political polarisation within the country and intense debates on democratic norms. It should be noted that the last time martial law was declared in South Korea was in 1979, after the assassination of Park Chung-hee, the long-time dictator of the time, during a coup d’état. Since the 1987 transition to parliamentary democracy, martial law has not been imposed in the country.
President Yoon’s declaration of martial law deepened domestic political polarisation and raised international concerns about South Korea’s democratic values. Criticisms that the declaration of martial law was used to characterise the opposition as ‘anti-state’ without providing concrete evidence undermined trust in Yoon’s leadership. While these developments were considered as a test of democratic norms in South Korea, the existence of civil and political resistance was interpreted as a promising sign of the strength of democratic institutions.
Following the President’s announcement, General Park An-su, the South Korean Chief of General Staff, was appointed as the martial law commander. In his first orders, Park announced a ban on parliamentary sessions and other political gatherings that could lead to social unrest. In addition, the military demanded that doctors, who had been on strike for months against plans to increase student quotas in medical faculties, return to their duties within 48 hours.[2]
Having lost its parliamentary majority, the Yoon government was unable to pass the laws it wanted and was limited to vetoing bills approved by the opposition. In the context of women’s rights violations in South Korea, Yoon’s anti-feminist and conservative public support also suffered a serious decline. While his approval ratings dropped to as low as 17 per cent, his presidential term was marred by many corruption scandals. For example, Yoon’s wife became the centre of criticism for allegedly accepting Dior bags. There were allegations that names linked to Yoon’s presidential team were involved in stock manipulation in the stock market.[3]
Deputies of the Democratic Party, which has a parliamentary majority, reached the National Assembly and voted to make a formal request to the President to lift martial law. According to the Constitution, martial law must be lifted upon the request of a parliamentary majority. According to the South Korean Constitution, martial law must be lifted upon the request of a parliamentary majority, and in this case, the majority of opposition MPs was effective in making a quick decision. Hours later, 190 of the 300 deputies in the National Assembly participated in the vote and all of them supported the lifting of martial law. This decision was supported by 18 deputies from President Yoon Suk Yeol’s party[4]
President Yoon, who appeared on television again in the morning after the vote, made the following statement:[5]
“‘The National Assembly has just requested the lifting of martial law and we have withdrawn the army units deployed for martial law operations. We will accept the decision of the National Assembly and lift martial law at the cabinet meeting.”
In addition, Yoon, who has had difficulty in advancing the government’s agenda with the opposition-controlled parliament since he took office in 2022, argued that he had no choice but to declare martial law. It should be emphasised that this decision was taken after the Democratic Party passed a declining budget bill in parliament and submitted impeachment motions against a state auditor and attorney general.[6]
Before the markets open on 4 December 2024, the statements made by economic and financial officials are noteworthy. They expressed their readiness to deploy a fund of 10 trillion won (approximately $7.06 billion) to stabilise the stock market at any time. This announcement had a significant impact on the market, causing the South Korean stock market index to close down by 1.44% on Wednesday 4 December 2024. However, losses exceeding 2% in the early hours of the day were partially recovered after opposition lawmakers initiated impeachment proceedings against the government.[7] However, given South Korea’s critical role in the global supply chain, it is necessary to monitor developments carefully.
Considering the lifting of martial law hours later and the parliamentary majority, a two-thirds majority is required by law for the impeachment to succeed in the 300-member National Assembly. With 200 votes, this support seems possible, given that the opposition parties hold the majority. After parliamentary approval, the nine-member Constitutional Court considers the case, and if six members of the court vote in favour of impeachment, the President is removed from office. The impeachment of the president in South Korea has occurred twice in history; Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 and Park Geun-hye in 2016.
Martial law may have a negative impact on the economy by increasing domestic political instability. Domestic unrest and growing public resentment towards the government could adversely affect consumer confidence. Economic growth may slow down, particularly in terms of investment and trade decisions, which may create uncertainty. This could lead to disruptions in relations with trading partners, especially in the Asian market. Moreover, such a political crisis could adversely affect South Korea’s external trade structure and supply chains. Prolonged instability could disrupt trade and production in the country. President Yoon’s announcement of martial law as a security measure against anti-state forces, disagreements with opposition parties, blocked budget approvals and the government’s inability to implement key economic policies create negative public perceptions of the effectiveness of the administration. In a weakened economy, such political moves will undermine investor and business confidence.
South Korea’s internal turmoil is not only at the local level. In particular, South Korea’s strong alliance relations with the United States could be affected by this crisis. Prolonged domestic instability could disrupt South Korea’s regional security cooperation and create uncertainties in critical areas such as military cooperation with the United States. As a strong ally in the Asia-Pacific region, the United States will assess the strategic implications of instability in South Korea. The possibility of further provocations by North Korea, taking advantage of the internal turmoil in South Korea, poses another regional danger. President Yoon tried to justify martial law by describing North Korea as a threat. However, such political rhetoric has historically created tension between the two Koreas.
Internationally, regional competitors, especially China and Japan, are carefully monitoring this internal turmoil in South Korea. Economically, China and Japan could be directly affected by disruptions in South Korea’s supply chains.
The declaration of martial law by South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has not only affected political dynamics at the national level, but also has important geopolitical implications on a regional and global scale. Yoon’s move by defining his political rivals and the opposition as ‘anti-state’ is considered as a significant intervention in terms of undermining democratic foundations. South Korea is considered to be one of the most developed democracies in Asia, and in this context, Yoon’s decision to impose martial law has led to the questioning of the democratic structure of the country and the legitimacy of the government.
It can be foreseen that such overly interventionist policies may not only cause domestic political crises, but also negatively affect South Korea’s democratic profile at the international level. The international repercussions of this development have become even more critical, especially considering the bilateral relations with the United States. The US is considered as an important actor in defence of democracy and human rights on a global scale. In this context, South Korea’s commitment to democratic standards plays a decisive role not only in domestic politics but also in regional security dynamics. Such a decision by Yoon may create a situation that questions the US commitment to democracy and human rights in the region. For Western powers, the healthy functioning of South Korea’s democratic structure is critical for stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Such interventionist steps by Yoon have the potential to threaten the country’s national security and jeopardise domestic stability. South Korea’s foreign policy framework is based on the defence of democratic values and the rule of law, but domestic political crises can undermine the effectiveness of this foreign policy framework and limit the country’s manoeuvrability in foreign affairs.
In conclusion, while Yoon’s declaration of martial law is historically reminiscent of Park Chung-hee’s authoritarian style of governance, the social, economic and international conditions of contemporary South Korea are different. In particular, democratic reforms and democratic institutionalisation in 1987 have made the country’s public opinion and civil society much more resilient to such interventions. Today, South Korea is recognised as a country with a strong democracy, an independent judiciary and freedom of the media.
[1] “South Korean president declares martial law to ‘eliminate anti-state elements’”, Anadolu Agency, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/south-korean-president-declares-martial-law-to-eliminate-anti-state-elements/3412264, (Date of Access: 04.12.2024).
[2] Ibid..
[3] “Why did South Korea’s president declare martial law-and what now?”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lgw1pw5zpo, (Date of Access: 04.12.2024).
[4] “Cabinet offers to resign collectively over martial law declaration”, Yonhap News Agency, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241204017600320, (Date of Access: 04.12.2024).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid..
[7] “Short-lived martial law leads to massive delays, disruptions in gov’t schedules”, Yonhap News Agency, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241204009000320, (Date of Access: 04.12.2024).
