Introduction: Democracy Under Pressure
On 3 December 2024, South Korea experienced one of the most dramatic constitutional crises in its post‑Cold War history when then – President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in an effort to assert control over a deeply divided political system. The surprise announcement, justified by Yoon as necessary to confront “anti-state forces,” instantly polarized the country and ignited a political confrontation that would span years – culminating in impeachment, removal from office, prosecution, and a life sentence for Yoon himself.
Origins of the Crisis: Political Fragmentation and Constitutional Strain
A Fractured Legislature
South Korea’s political landscape in 2024 was highly fragmented. With the Democratic Party (DPK) controlling the National Assembly and a conservative presidency under Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP), legislative gridlock became chronic. This divide deepened as budgetary disputes, policy clashes, and mutual distrust intensified. Yoon framed his critics as “anti-state forces” and accused opposition parties of colluding with alleged North Korean sympathizers.
Accusations and Justifications
In his televised declaration, Yoon argued that parliamentary obstructionism and alleged compromises to national security justified extreme measures. Declaring martial law meant suspending political activities, restricting the press, and empowering security forces to detain opponents. While Yoon justified the move as defending constitutional order, critics immediately labeled it an unconstitutional attempt to subvert democratic processes.
The Martial Law Declaration
December 3, 2024
At approximately 22:27 KST on December 3, 2024, Yoon announced martial law across South Korea. The move was both sudden and sweeping: legislators, political party operations, assemblies, and media faced severe restrictions. Martial law commanders were appointed, and military and police forces were mobilized.
National Assembly Pushback
Rather than acquiescing, legislators convened in an emergency session. All 190 members present voted unanimously to rescind martial law. The scene turned dramatic: troops and armored units were reported outside the National Assembly, but lawmakers entered the building and voted to lift the decree by early morning on 4 December 2024.
This action underscored the resilience of South Korea’s democratic legislature and marked a historic moment: the parliamentary overturning of a presidential martial law order. The crisis exposed the delicate balance of civilian oversight and constitutional limits on presidential power.
Immediate Aftermath: Impeachment and Political Fallout
Impeachment Begins
Less than two weeks later, on 14 December 2024, the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon Suk Yeol, suspending his presidential powers while legal proceedings began.
This act of impeachment reflected the severity with which lawmakers viewed the martial law declaration. Critics argued that Yoon’s decree had crossed constitutional lines and threatened the very foundations of democratic governance.
Political Instability
The impeachment triggered political chaos. Acting presidents came and went amid rapid shifts in leadership. Prime Minister Han Duck‑soo briefly served as acting president but was also impeached in late December, underscoring the depths of institutional instability.
During this period, mass protests erupted. Some demonstrations supported the legislature’s stance, while others—particularly far-right and pro-Yoon factions—demanded judicial restraint and condemned moves to detain Yoon. In January 2025, pro-Yoon supporters even staged a riot at the Seoul Western District Court, attacking the building in protest of an arrest warrant for Yoon.
The Legal Aftermath: Investigations and Trials (2025–2026)
Arrests and Special Counsel Investigations
Following his impeachment and suspension, Yoon faced criminal investigations on multiple charges. A special counsel investigation was established in mid‑2025 to examine possible wrongdoing related to the martial law attempt, including alleged insurrection and mutiny.
In July 2025, Yoon was arrested and charged amid growing public scrutiny and legal pressure. He became the first South Korean head of state to face criminal detention in modern history.
Convictions and Sentencing
In January 2026, Yoon was convicted in a related case and sentenced to five years in prison for obstruction and abuse of power. However, the most consequential verdict came on 19 February 2026, when the Seoul Central District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for rebellion by imposing martial law and effectively attempting a coup.
Senior military and police officials implicated in the martial law implementation also received heavy sentences – for example, ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong‑hyun was given a 30-year sentence for his central role.
Despite prosecutors seeking the death penalty, the court opted for life imprisonment, citing South Korea’s symbolic moratorium on capital punishment.
Public Response and Civic Impact
Polarized Opinions
The martial law crisis proved deeply divisive. For many South Koreans, Yoon’s actions were seen as a dangerous power grab, a threat to post‑1980 democratic norms, and a regression to authoritarian governance. Others – especially among the conservative base – defended him, asserting that legislative obstruction justified extraordinary executive measures.
This polarization manifested in both peaceful protests and violent confrontations, including courtroom riots and confrontations between opposition and pro-Yoon groups.
Commemoration and “Dark Tours”
By December 2025, the National Assembly began commemorating the martial law crisis with what were described as “dark tours” – events that highlighted the locations and experiences connected to the crisis. These tours, guided by parliamentary leaders, aimed to educate citizens on the perils of authoritarian impulses and reaffirm democratic values.
Nobel Peace Prize Nomination
In February 2026 – an extraordinary development – some civic groups nominated ordinary South Korean citizens for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their role in resisting the martial law attempt and defending democratic order.
Broader Implications: Democracy, Institutions, and Future Challenges
Strengthening Institutional Checks and Balances
The crisis highlighted the strength of South Korea’s constitutional framework and the protections afforded to legislative authority. The ability of lawmakers to override martial law within hours illustrated a robust system of checks and balances that resisted authoritarian overreach – even at great political risk.
South Korea’s legal institutions, including the judiciary and constitutional court, played decisive roles in adjudicating competing claims of power. Their actions reaffirmed the rule of law and helped stabilize governance after the peak of the crisis.
Political and Social Repercussions
However, the martial law crisis also revealed deep fissures within South Korean society. Trust in executive leadership and political institutions deteriorated among many citizens, contributing to heightened partisan tension. The saga underscored the fragility of democratic cohesion in contexts where political actors pursue maximalist strategies.
The Knowledge Base 
Leave a comment