A critical review of the interpretation of the requirements for the declaration of ‘state of emergency for martial law’ in the reasoning of the Constitutional Court of Korea’s impeachment judgment in 2025

The Constitutional Court’s decision to impeach President Yoon Seok-yeol in 2025 is significant in that it demonstrates the Republic of Korea faced a constitutional crisis due to the unconstitutional declaration of a state of emergency for martial law by the president, yet the normal constitutional adjudication system functioned to uphold the Constitution. Despite the historical significance of this decision by the Constitutional Court, it is necessary to critically review the specific argumentative process of the 2025 presidential impeachment decision. When examining the legality of the state of emergency declaration on December 3rd, the Constitutional Court judged whether it met the constitutional requirements for declaring a state of emergency for martial law as outlined in Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, ultimately concluding that it did not satisfy the substantive requirements established in the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. However, there is an issue in this argumentative process related to the broadening interpretation of Article 77, Paragraph 1, which expanded the requirements for declaring a state of emergency. When interpreting the ‘state of war, emergencies, and other equivalent extraordinary circumstances’ stipulated in Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it must be interpreted strictly, considering the essential nature of martial law, its exceptionality and last resort character, its origin and history, and the purpose of constitutionalization of martial law. Therefore, a state of emergency should fundamentally be interpreted to mean that a situation of war has objectively occurred. Similarly, the terms ‘emergency’ and ‘other equivalent extraordinary circumstances’ should also be interpreted fundamentally as referring to a situation of war. If various types of national emergencies unrelated to war are interpreted as being widely includable, there is a risk of abuse of the power to declare martial law. And the substantial requirements for the declaration of martial law under Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution must fundamentally presume the occurrence of a wartime situation. Furthermore, it should be interpreted that martial law can only be declared in exceptional cases where a serious crisis situation occurs during wartime, necessitating the deployment of military forces. Therefore, in the decision on the impeachment of the president in 2025, the process of determining whether Yoon Seok-yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3 meets the substantive requirements for declaring martial law should be as follows: The substantive requirements for declaring martial law under the Constitution fundamentally pertain to a national emergency, such as armed rebellion equivalent to war, with a degree of urgency that necessitates the mobilization of forces, fulfills the purpose requirements for declaring martial law, and can be exercised as a last resort only when unavoidable. It should have been concluded that the actions of the respondent subject to judgment did not meet these objective situational requirements for the declaration of martial law from the beginning and were unconstitutional.