Home > Opinion > Editorials

No room for undermining military’s duty to reject unlawful orders

Published: 27 Nov. 2025, 00:00

Park An-su, who served as martial law commander during the Dec. 3 incident last year, answers questions from lawmakers during a full session of the National Assembly’s special committee investigating allegations that the Yoon Suk Yeol administration attempted to stage a rebellion through the declaration of emergency martial law, on Feb. 21. [YONHAP]

The Defense Ministry confirmed on Nov. 26 that it had issued the first disciplinary action against personnel who boarded the so-called
martial law bus" during the Dec. 3 emergency declaration. Thirty-four Army staff members boarded the vehicle after receiving a call from Park An-su, the former Army chief of staff who had been named martial law commander. They were en route from the Gyeryongdae Army headquarters to Seoul but returned within 30 minutes after the martial law order was lifted. Among them, Brig. Gen. Kim Sang-hwan, head of the Army Legal Affairs Office, received a reprimand, and the remaining officers are still under investigation.

As inquiries and accountability efforts continue after the illegal declaration of martial law, unease within the military has been hard to ignore. The armed forces must now step out of the shadow of politics, regain public trust and refocus on their core mission of national defense. In this context, the government’s move to revise the Military Service Basic Act to allow service members to reject clearly unlawful orders carries some merit.

The ministry recently told the National Assembly’s defense committee that it seeks to limit the scope of military obedience to “lawful orders.” It aims to include explicit provisions allowing soldiers to refuse manifestly illegal commands, reinforce the obligation of commanders to comply with the Constitution and the law and strengthen constitutional education within the ranks. The effort aligns with the government’s broader plan to recognize the right of civil servants to refuse illegal orders.

But it is difficult for subordinates to determine on the spot whether an order is unlawful. Some have proposed creating advisory bodies to assist front line judgment, yet even legal experts like the Army’s chief legal officer had little choice but to follow orders under the current system. On a battlefield where conditions shift by the second, hesitation caused by efforts to assess legality could undermine the military’s essential function.

The lifeblood of the armed forces is the chain of command. Mechanisms are needed to screen out unlawful or unreasonable instructions, but the process must not weaken that chain. Minimizing ambiguity in the law is key. The scope and criteria for judging illegal orders must be clarified, and detailed manuals must be established to guide responses. Alternative command structures should also be institutionalized so leadership gaps do not arise if orders are rejected.

In a security environment like Korea’s, where threats are constant, the speed of military response is directly tied to national survival. An organization that accumulates individual judgments or disagreements during command transmission cannot function effectively in wartime. The Defense Ministry’s task force on “overcoming insurrection and preparing future defense reform” plans to hold a seminar on this issue. Legal revisions may be necessary in light of changing circumstances, but the military must avoid being drawn back into political controversy. It is not an ordinary administrative body. Only when it maintains a disciplined culture and the strongest possible readiness can it safeguard the lives and security of the people.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.