South Korea martial law crisis
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law for the first time in the country since 1980, citing the need to protect the nation from North Korea’s communist forces and to address what he described as “anti-state elements.”
Martial Law
- Martial law refers to the temporary imposition of military control over civilian authorities during times of crisis when regular civil governance is deemed insufficient.
- It often involves suspending normal civil rights and enforcing military law.
- While intended as a temporary measure, martial law can sometimes persist for extended periods.
- Article 77 of the Republic of Korea’s constitution contains provisions pertaining to the declaration of martial law in the country.
- Historical Context of Martial Law in South Korea: Martial law in South Korea has been historically tied to national crises and authoritarian rule.
- During the Korean War (1950-1953), martial law was imposed to maintain order.
- It was also used during the April Revolution (1960) and the May 16 Coup (1961), which led to significant political changes, including the authoritarian rule of Park Chung-hee.
- Notable Instances of Martial Law
- Gwangju Uprising (1980): Martial law was declared by General Chun Doo-hwan after Park Chung-hee’s assassination. The Gwangju Uprising, where citizens protested against Chun’s rule, was brutally suppressed, leading to hundreds of deaths. This event remains a dark chapter in South Korea’s history.
- Transition to Democracy (1987): Martial law played a role in the country’s eventual democratic transition, particularly during the June Democratic Uprising. South Korea moved towards direct presidential elections, reducing the reliance on martial law.
Concerns and Impact
- The imposition of martial law has raised concerns about its effect on South Korea’s democracy and civil liberties.
- While Yoon emphasized the need to address security threats, he provided limited details on how long the martial law would last or what specific measures would be taken.
- This situation has led to public and political scrutiny.
|
Martial Law in India:
- The concept of martial law in India is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. However, it is implied under Article 34 of the Indian Constitution, which allows for restrictions on fundamental rights when martial law is declared in any part of India.
- Article 34 provides the legal framework for imposing martial law by restricting fundamental rights during such circumstances.
- Martial law (under Article 34) and National Emergency (under Article 352) are distinct in both their scope and impact on governance.
- While National Emergency can have widespread effects on the country’s structure, Martial Law is a more localized measure focused primarily on maintaining law and order through military control.
Difference Between National Emergency and Martial Law
|
|
National Emergency
|
Martial Law
|
|
Concept:
|
Borrowed from the German Constitution
|
Borrowed from English Common Law.
|
|
Impact:
|
Affects Fundamental Rights, Centre-State relations, distribution of revenues, and legislative powers. May extend the tenure of Parliament.
|
Affects only Fundamental Rights (FRs).
|
|
Governance:
|
Government and ordinary courts continue to function.
|
Government and ordinary courts are suspended.
|
|
Grounds for Imposition:
|
Can be imposed on grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
|
Imposed to restore law and order due to any breakdown, not limited to specific causes.
|
|
Scope:
|
Can be declared nationwide or in any specific region.
|
Imposed only in specific areas of the country.
|
|
Constitutional Provisions:
|
Clearly defined with detailed provisions under Article 352.
|
Not explicitly mentioned, only implied in Article 34.
|
|
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies