Constitutional Court Justices' Rulings on the Constitutionality of the National Security Law in September 2023. Yonhap News

Editorial Board Member · Class of '80, Korea Military AcademyOn December 1st, 32 members of the National Assembly jointly proposed a bill to abolish the National Security Law. The Assembly has once again brought up a long-standing, uncomfortable debate. For those who remember this law as having suppressed the human rights of a minority at one time, it may remain as a lingering shadow of a coercive era. However, this law should not be dismissed simply as a relic of the past. We must dispassionately examine its role in uncertain security situations and its current functions within the existing security reality. 

The Republic of Korea is the only country in the world currently under an armistice. Military tensions on the Korean Peninsula have never completely subsided. North Korea continues to maintain its closure, possession of weapons of mass destruction, formidable military power, and coercive strategies for regime maintenance, designating the Republic of Korea as an adversarial entity. For 32 members of the National Assembly to advocate for its abolition based solely on the dark history of the National Security Law, while disregarding an environment unfavorable to the preservation of a free system, is akin to arguing that umbrellas should be discarded in a snowstorm because they are inconvenient. 

The National Security Law was enacted in 1948, immediately after the "Yeosu-Suncheon 14th Regiment Mutiny." This law originated as a bulwark to suppress leftist armed rebellions in the early days of the nation's founding. With an amendment in 1949, the law was further strengthened, leading to large-scale arrests and disbandment of organizations. While an attempt was made to abolish it in 1953, it was maintained under the pressure of the Cold War. In 1980, the Fifth Republic strengthened the law again by absorbing the Anti-Communist Law, and it was perceived as a tool for suppressing the democratization movement. Just as strong light inevitably casts a shadow, the more the National Security Law functioned, the more people found it inconvenient. 

There are two types of entities that find the National Security Law inconvenient. One group consists of those who remember the wounds of past authorities using this law to suppress the democratization movement, and the other is forces seeking to undermine the Republic of Korea's liberal democratic system. Those involved in real threats such as organized espionage activities by North Korea, cyberattacks, manipulation of public opinion by North Korea and China, and activities by front organizations will feel direct inconvenience as the National Security Law restricts their actions. Simply by examining who finds the National Security Law inconvenient, one can be convinced of the necessity of this law.

The National Security Law underwent partial amendments on May 31, 1991, to maintain its national security function while implementing institutional adjustments to reduce the arbitrariness of its application. A partial amendment on April 14, 1992, strengthened the protection of procedural fundamental rights by reflecting the Constitutional Court's 'unconstitutional' ruling on provisions allowing for the extension of detention periods under Articles 7 and 10. 

Since 1998, debates over abolition, amendment, and retention have continued, making the National Security Law a point of contention between factions regarding security and human rights. Former President Kim Dae-jung, a victim of the National Security Law, adopted a stance that its abolition was difficult after his election. Even thereafter, discussions on abolition or amendment have continuously ensued due to the potential for misuse and human rights violations within the flow of the democratization era. While precise amendment discussions have been more prevalent than abolition, on December 1st, 32 members of the National Assembly once again presented a bill to abolish the National Security Law.

North Korea's strategy for South Korean communization has not changed at all. The Labor Party's charter still explicitly states the goal of subverting the Republic of Korea's system and achieving a unified communist Korea. Even during periods of inter-Korean dialogue and summit meetings, North Korea has designated the Republic of Korea as an "object of struggle" in its internal documents. The security threats posed by North Korea revealed over the past decade alone—including the formation of spy rings in various regions, indiscriminate cyberattacks, deceptive overseas activities, and instigation and incitement of domestic politics—show that efforts to create chaos in South Korea and achieve communization have been incessant. 

Abolitionists argue that laws such as the Criminal Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection can be used instead of the National Security Law. However, the crime of insurrection or foreign aggression under the Criminal Act cannot comprehensively regulate such specific threats. Because North Korea's operations are conducted with organization, purpose, and clandestine connections, the National Security Law is realistically the only legal framework capable of identifying and legally processing anti-state, seditious elements. 

To propose an abolition bill without a fully prepared blueprint and execution system for alternative legislation is equivalent to dismantling a security bulwark built over 77 years. Security does not tolerate vacuums. Even a few weeks of legal vacuum can allow external forces aiming for regime subversion to exploit the gap. 

The National Security Law is not a perfect law. Provisions susceptible to arbitrary interpretation, such as the "praise and incite" clause, must be more rigorously refined. The potential for human rights violations in investigative procedures must also be thoroughly controlled. However, eliminating necessary functions due to the possibility of misuse is like smashing a janggi (fermented soybean paste) jar because it has maggots. Once a nation's safety net is dismantled, it is difficult to restore, and future generations will bear the consequences. The abolition of various 'laws punishing historical distortion' that suppress human conscience and freedom of expression should take precedence over the abolition of the National Security Law. 

Until unification, the Republic of Korea must overcome high-risk security threats. It is a world where even goodness, justice, and truth can be degraded to evil if overwhelmed by the power of malevolent forces. Like all laws, the National Security Law is not perfect, but in its current state, it is the minimum defense line protecting liberal democracy. The abolition bill that undermines this defense line may be exhilarating as a political slogan for a specific party, but it is an extremely grave matter involving the nation's safety, survival, and the lives of its citizens. We, who believe in the system of liberal democracy, have a desperate mission and responsibility to prevent the abolition of the National Security Law. 

The National Security Law can be precisely amended but not tolerated for abolition. What we must protect is the freedom and safety of future generations. If grandchildren are beloved and precious, we must protect and establish the safety net for the world they will live in, rather than seeking fleeting, momentary affection and pride in them. Our primary safety net is the continued existence of the National Security Law. 

The history of national security thus far provides ample reasons for the necessity of the National Security Law. We resolutely oppose the abolition of the National Security Law because, at the moment we lower our last security shield due to parliamentary overreach, accumulated risks will instantly dismantle our free system. We are resolutely opposed to the abolition of the National Security Law.

Editor-in-Chief, The Hankyoreh