South Korea’s National Assembly has passed a sweeping amendment to its martial law statutes, aimed at preventing the recurrence of last year’s constitutional crisis. The legislation, approved on Thursday, bars the military and police from entering the National Assembly without the explicit consent of its speaker and prohibits any interference with lawmakers’ physical access to the chamber.
This reform follows the controversial declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol on December 3, 2024, a move that stunned the country and triggered its most severe constitutional crisis since democratization in the late 1980s. That night, uniformed troops and armored vehicles blocked access to the Assembly in central Seoul, forcing lawmakers to scale walls in an effort to reach the floor and nullify Yoon’s martial law decree.
At around 9:30 p.m. on December 3, South Koreans watched in disbelief as live television broadcasts and social media feeds showed soldiers setting up barricades around the National Assembly. Dressed in full tactical gear, elite paratroopers from the 707th Special Mission Battalion were deployed, ostensibly to “ensure order.” Within minutes, the capital was swarming with military vehicles, helicopters circled overhead, and public transport routes near key government buildings were suspended.
The presidential office claimed the extraordinary measures were necessary to counter “anti-state elements” within the government and military—individuals allegedly sympathetic to North Korea. No specific names or evidence were provided. Civil rights lawyers, media organizations, and even members of the ruling People Power Party expressed confusion and alarm.
The situation escalated rapidly. Parliament was in session to discuss a no-confidence motion against several ministers linked to corruption scandals. With access blocked and the speaker under house arrest by military police, opposition and ruling-party lawmakers alike joined forces to physically break into the Assembly compound. Video footage of legislators climbing over fences, aided by protesters and security staff, went viral across the globe.
Within hours, a rump session was held. By 1:00 a.m., the Assembly had declared Yoon’s martial law order illegal and moved to impeach him. By the end of that week, South Korea’s Constitutional Court had unanimously endorsed the impeachment, calling the martial law decree a “reckless and premeditated assault on constitutional democracy.”
The December upheaval led to the rapid downfall of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Accused of staging an unconstitutional power grab, Yoon was stripped of presidential immunity, arrested, and indicted for insurrection, abuse of power, and conspiracy to subvert the Constitution. His trial began in May and continues under heavy security in Seoul Central District Court. Former National Security Advisor Kim Tae-hyo and Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup were also arrested and charged with collusion.
Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP), once dominant in the National Assembly, splintered under the weight of internal dissent and public outrage. With its leadership discredited and rank-and-file legislators defecting or distancing themselves, the party lost massive ground in the June 2025 snap presidential election. The opposition’s progressive candidate, Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party, won in a landslide, promising to restore institutional checks and reestablish civilian supremacy over the military.
In the days following his inauguration, President Lee formed a bipartisan truth commission to investigate the December crisis. Its preliminary report, released last week, stated that “certain elements within the military were prepared to act on unlawful executive orders” and that “systemic weaknesses allowed a dangerous lapse in democratic control.” The commission urged urgent legislative reforms to clarify the limits of martial law and reinforce the role of parliament as a bulwark against authoritarian overreach.
The legislation passed on Thursday is the first major legal response to that recommendation. Its provisions are unambiguous:
-
The military and police are now explicitly barred from entering National Assembly grounds or interfering in its operations without the consent of the Assembly Speaker.
-
Any order to restrict the movement of elected lawmakers during an emergency must be subject to immediate judicial review.
-
Executive martial law declarations must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly within 24 hours, failing which they become void.
-
Any deployment of troops in the capital for non-training purposes must be logged with the Assembly and reviewed by an independent oversight panel within 72 hours.
Democratic Party lawmakers, who introduced the bill, called it “the final nail in the coffin of unconstitutional militarism.”
“December 3 was a mirror into our past—the darkest days when tanks rolled in to silence this house,” said Assemblyman Park Yong-jin, referencing the military coups of 1961 and 1980. “This legislation is a promise that no president, regardless of popularity or power, can again bend the military to his will against the people.”
Speaker Woo Sang-ho, who personally led lawmakers into the Assembly during the crisis, called Thursday’s vote “a rebirth of parliamentary dignity.”
At a press conference marking 30 days in office, President Lee Jae-myung struck a conciliatory tone, stating that his administration’s priority was “healing and resilience.” He emphasized the need for accountability but warned against vengeance, declaring that “the courts, not politics, will decide Yoon’s fate.”
Lee also signaled a policy shift in inter-Korean relations, announcing plans to reopen diplomatic channels with Pyongyang. “We cannot remain hostages to confrontation. Peace on the peninsula is not weakness; it is strategy,” he said. The approach is a sharp departure from Yoon’s hardline policy, which emphasized military deterrence and cut all communication lines with North Korea after a spate of provocations in 2023.
Reaction to Lee’s olive branch has been mixed. While some civic groups and academics welcomed the move, conservative commentators accused him of being naive. The PPP, now relegated to the opposition, boycotted Thursday’s vote on the prime minister’s confirmation and denounced Lee’s North Korea outreach as “capitulation.”
Though Yoon has been ousted and his loyalists sidelined, South Korea remains sharply divided. Opinion polls conducted in late June show that while over 70% of South Koreans supported Yoon’s impeachment, only 52% approve of President Lee’s handling of national security. The PPP continues to hold a sizable bloc in the Assembly and retains control of several provincial governments.
Political analyst Kim Hye-jin from Ewha Womans University argues that “Lee faces a long uphill climb in rebuilding consensus,” noting that “the PPP may be fractured, but the ideological base that Yoon tapped into—anti-communism, conservative nationalism, and distrust of the progressive elite—remains strong.”
Even as Lee attempts to pivot toward economic recovery and youth employment, the shadow of the December crisis looms large. Civic groups are calling for deeper vetting of military leadership and education reform to reinforce democratic values among officers. Meanwhile, the National Intelligence Service has been ordered to release internal documents related to the pre-martial law planning, fueling rumors that elements of the intelligence community were complicit in Yoon’s decision.
International observers have closely followed South Korea’s unfolding crisis and its legal aftermath. The U.S. State Department issued a statement praising the constitutional resilience shown by Korean lawmakers and welcomed the new legislative guardrails. Japan’s Foreign Ministry also expressed relief, noting that “Korean stability is vital to East Asian security.”
North Korea, for its part, reacted with derision. A statement from the DPRK’s Foreign Ministry accused South Korea of staging “political theater” and warned that Lee’s peace gestures were “delusional.” Nonetheless, Seoul’s Unification Ministry confirmed that it had sent a formal communication to Pyongyang proposing a resumption of humanitarian aid talks.
China and Russia, both of whom had stayed silent during the height of the crisis, have cautiously re-engaged with Seoul since Lee’s election. Analysts suggest Beijing is watching closely, particularly given its own concerns about military loyalty and internal dissent.
While the legal reforms passed Thursday mark a crucial moment in South Korea’s democratic evolution, they are not a final solution. Trust in institutions—particularly the presidency and the military—has been shaken. Rebuilding that trust will require years of consistent transparency, civic engagement, and vigilance.
President Lee, buoyed by the moral clarity of the December backlash, must now navigate the choppy waters of realpolitik: economic stagnation, generational divides, and an unpredictable neighbor to the north.
