Adopted under Syngman Rhee's authoritarian rule, the law provides for the imprisonment of anyone expressing sympathy for North Korea; it leaves ample room to charge people of conspiracy. The Constitutional Court is examining 11 petitions submitted by individuals and district courts.
Seoul (AsiaNews) – The Korean Peninsula is the one place in the world where the Cold War never ended. In South Korea, despite the end of the authoritarian rule long ago and the democratisation of its political institutions, elements of the old military dictatorship survive.
Interestingly, South Korea’s Constitutional Court in Seoul is trying to remedy this, giving fresh impetus to the process of revising a national security law adopted in 1948 under the country’s first president, dictator Syngman Rhee.
The law was one of the first to come into force in a country torn from the start by tensions between the US-backed anti-communist regime and a plethora of left-wing groups that instigated unrest in the south.
In this context, the National Security Act was meant as a blunt instrument to quash anti-government activities.
Not only did it impose severe punishments (life imprisonment and the death penalty) for actions undermining national security and social stability, but it also sent to prison individuals who collaborated with or simply sympathised with such groups.
As a result, civil liberties and human rights have been subjected to restrictions in South Korea – anyone supporting for North Korea or communism could end up in prison for many years.
Consequences could also be felt in politics. In 2014, the Unified Progressive Party, a small left-wing group, was banned after one of its elected officials was accused by South Korean intelligence of conspiring to overthrow the government in favour of North Korea.
Now, for the first time, the Constitutional Court is holding public hearings to assess the law’s constitutionality, beginning with 11 petitions filed by individuals and district courts calling for its revision.
According to the petitioners, the law restricts freedom of speech and conscience and is so vague in its wording that it lends itself to arbitrary use. For South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the law is unconstitutional.
For the NHRC, “There's a noticeable gap between South and North Korea in terms of economic and military power compared to 1948 when the National Security Act was enacted”.
“Even in cases of South Koreans praising or encouraging North Korea, it poses little risk to our society now that the level of understanding toward the reality in North Korea is much higher."
The current challenges are not the first. Since 1991 the law has come before the Constitutional Court seven times and each time it was ruled constitutional without an open hearing.