Constitutional Court Reconfirms the Need for National Security Law

The August 26 ruling of the Constitutional court, which upheld the constitutionality of Articles One and Five of Clause Seven of the National Security Law that ban the possession of books and pictures for the purpose of encouraging and praising the enemy, implies that the way the law is applied is what’s the matter, not the law itself.

As the ruling, although limited to its few clauses, is effectively an articulation of the court’s position on the National Security Law, it will affect the legislature.

Background—

The clause in question stands little chance of “over-interpretation” since the May 1991 revision of the National Security Law, the court concluded.

The revised Article 1 of Clause 7 has a new line reading, “With the knowledge that [acts] will endanger national security and democratic disorder.” The criteria for this conditional line are well established in its previous rulings, precedents, and legal theories, the court explained.

Therefore, once interpreted constitutionally and rationally, and once applied systemically, the chances of the law’s misuse are extremely slim. In the same context, the law itself is not abstract and does not breach the principles of legalism, the court said.

Since it punishes the encouragement and praise of the enemy with the knowledge that it will endanger liberal democracy or the sale and possession of enemy-benefiting books, pictures, and publications for that purpose, it does not breach such basic rights as freedom of conscience and idea and freedom of expression.

Since 1996, the court ruled four times in favor of the constitutionality of Clause 7. The latest ruling is a reconfirmation of its position that the National Security Law itself does not contain an unconstitutional aspect.

Perspective—

Currently, among politicians, a voice is growing louder in favor of the law’s repeal or complete revision, citing its abstract definition of what it is written to ban or punish and its outdated clauses.

The court’s ruling appears to throw weight behind the politicians who want leave the law to be intact or be partially revised. Its support for the continuance of the law is frequently stark in the ruling.

Refuting the theory that anti-national security acts can be punished under the already existing criminal code, the court said, “The National Security Law has its own raison d’etre, independently of the anti-subversion clauses of the criminal code.”

It is also noted that the court said in a press release following the ruling, “The legislature needs to reflect this court’s ruling and the public opinion in the future legislation process.”

This runs counter to the National Human Rights Commission, which proposed the repeal of the law to the government on August 24. It also runs in conflict with the positions taken by the ruling Uri Party and the opposition Democratic Labor Party.

It should be also noted that ruling was unanimous in its nine-justice panel. The ruling will add fuel to the debate over whether to repeal or revise the National Security Law.

Sang-Rok Lee myzodan@donga.com