Home > National > Social Affairs

Why is abolishing South Korea's National Security Act a point of ideological contention?

Published: 16 Dec. 2025, 07:00

LEE SOO-JUNG
[email protected]

Liberal activists call for the abolition of the National Security Act during a press conference at the National Assembly in western Seoul on Dec. 1. [NEWS1]

[EXPLAINER]

Earlier this month, 31 liberal lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and four minor parties introduced a bill to officially abolish the National Security Act, reigniting a political clash.

While the National Security Act appears politically neutral, with no explicit mention of particular ideological orientations, it has long served as an anti-espionage measure, blocking pro-Pyongyang influence on South Korean soil.

The liberal legislators argue that the law undermines individuals’ freedom of thought and their freedom to exchange views on inter-Korean relations. They likened the security act to “suppression” that violates the South Korean Constitution, which upholds democracy and peaceful unification.

The bill to abolish the National Security Act is under review by a subcommittee under the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Despite its 77 years of standing, the National Security Act is now facing an existential crisis in the name of universal human rights and a peaceful future on the Korean Peninsula.

Why are lawmakers trying to abolish the National Security Act?

Protesters burn a North Korean flag during a rally to keep the National Security Act in an undated file photo. [JOONGANG ILBO]

The National Security Act — legislated in 1948 — criminalizes “anti-state organization,” which is defined as a domestic or overseas group “fraudulently using the title of the South Korean government or aiming at a rebellion” with their own chain of command.

South Korea’s Constitution defines the national territory as the entire Korean Peninsula, rendering North Korea an illegitimate and anti-state organization. Accordingly, those who act on behalf of the North or in its favor are considered to have violated the National Security Act.

The liberal bloc argues that the National Security Act is a "by-product of the Cold War” that undermines the values of democracy, constitutional values and human rights.

Article 7 of the act penalizes those who "praise, incite or propagate" anti-state activities. However, a more detailed explanation of which actions constitute such behaviors is missing.

The 31 liberal lawmakers contended that the concepts of “praise” and “incite” are ambiguous. They also noted that acts cannot be punished unless their legal definitions are established under the principle of legality — or in other words, no act can be a crime without a law defining it so.

Specifically, they argued that the current Criminal Act and the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act can replace the National Security Act.

Indeed, the Criminal Act governs acts of espionage, helping the enemy and foreign aggression, including preparations, conspiracy and propaganda activities. Its punitive clause for spying allows courts to impose the death penalty, life imprisonment or imprisonment for seven years or longer — comparable to the National Security Act.

What is the ideological war behind the National Security Act?

Footage aired by local broadcaster MBC shows the moment when philosopher Song Du-yul meets ex-North Korean leader Kim Jong-il when regime founder Kim Il-sung died in 1994. [JOONGANG ILBO]

The law was enacted in the aftermath of the Yeosu and Suncheon incident of Oct. 19, 1948, led by soldiers who disobeyed an order to suppress a leftist uprising on Jeju Island.

On the evening of Oct. 19, 1948, soldiers stationed in South Jeolla’s Yeosu revolted under the leadership of senior sergeant Ji Chang-soo, who was aligned with the communist Workers' Party of South Korea, and killed some 150 right-leaning police officers and their families. In turn, the South Korean government launched a counterinsurgency operation and massacred thousands of civilians, some of whom were merely suspected of being leftists.

At the time, President Syngman Rhee prioritized the eradication of communism on South Korean soil. The newly enacted National Security Act was employed as a legal basis to suppress leftist activity.

Initially, the act was supposed to be temporary. Then-Justice Minister Gwon Seung-ryeol said that the National Security Act "is not legislation for peacetime but a measure for times of emergency; therefore, in such circumstances, even if there is some infringement on the protection of human rights, it must inevitably contribute to the founding of the state,” according to an archive run by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.

Some 13 years later, in 1961, then-President Park Chung Hee, who rose to power through a military coup, legislated a separate bill named the “Anti-Communist Act.” The law viewed communist activity as a threat to South Korea’s security.

The Anti-Communist Act saw communism-based organizations as anti-state groups and stipulated imprisonment of seven years or less for those who joined such groups.

In 1980, about a year after Park was assassinated, the Anti-Communist Act was absorbed into the National Security Act. The integration came after the legislature found that the two laws were similar with repetitive clauses. However, explicit mentions of “communism” were omitted.

Over the decades, the law has become associated with political persecution, especially of those considered friendly toward Pyongyang, leading to the suppression and even arrests of perceived dissenters of incumbent governments.

In one case, German-South Korean philosopher Song Du-yul was found guilty of visiting North Korea multiple times between 1991 and 1993 before his naturalization as a German citizen. In 2008, the Seoul High Court and Supreme Court ruled that his visits when he was a South Korean national constituted "defection" to join anti-state activities. The appellate court handed him a 30-month prison sentence, which was suspended for five years.

Four other individuals spent 14 years facing charges under the National Security Act. They were indicted in 2011 for distributing digital documents containing the North’s juche, or self-reliance, ideology. The Suwon District Court cleared them of charges in October, noting that simple possession of the materials was insufficient to establish that they had a motive to benefit North Korea.

What attempts have been made to change the law?

Protesters demand a complete abolition of the National Security Act during a rally held in 2005. [JOONGANG ILBO]

In line with liberal lawmakers’ arguments, human rights advocacy groups also demanded the scrapping of the National Security Act.

In 2004, the National Human Rights Commission advised the Ministry of Justice and the National Assembly to abolish the act, particularly regarding the seventh and 10th provisions, which criminalize failure to report violators to state authorities.

The state-run rights watchdog said the provisions could “curtail essential constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression and [individual] conscience relating to freedom of speech and of the press, intellectual freedom and expression in the arts.”

In 2021, Amnesty International recommended either a fundamental reform or a complete abolition of the act. In its statement published in 2010, the rights group accused the law of being a “form of censorship” and a "tool to silence dissent and to arbitrarily prosecute individuals […] exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association.”

The law has undergone several amendments to prevent misappropriation.

A 1987 revision guaranteed suspects’ rights to seek the court’s judgment on the legality of their arrest. It also upheld their rights to have their families notified if they are taken into custody.

Under another amendment in 1991, those who were unaware that their behavior might jeopardize South Korea’s democratic order before their actions became non-punishable. The amendment also required law enforcement officials to guarantee defendants' fundamental human rights.

Why is the issue still divisive?

Conservative People Power Party lawmakers participate in a seminar about the National Security Act at the National Assembly in western Seoul on Dec. 10. [NEWS1]

The National Security Act remains divisive to this day, with some liberal lawmakers pushing for its swift abolishment, while conservatives still vehemently defend it.

Ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol often used the term “anti-state forces” throughout his term. After his first mention in October 2022, he used the expression to support his imposition of martial law on Dec. 3 last year, adding that he would normalize the country by eradicating the “anti-state forces.”

To this day, hundreds of thousands of people believe the National Security Act is still necessary.

A public petition opposing the abolition had gained 162,894 signatures as of Monday. A civil rights group filed complaints against the 31 liberal lawmakers with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency earlier this month, alleging abuse of power and insurrection, and added that they should have called for stricter security measures as lawmakers.

On Dec. 8, conservative People Power Party (PPP) lawmakers condemned the liberals’ attempt to abolish the bill, saying it would give further ammunition to pro-North spies. The DP leadership has so far maintained that the bill isn't the party's official position.

During a seminar on the National Security Act at the National Assembly last Wednesday, PPP floor leader Song Eon-seog said society should consider who would benefit most if the act were abolished. He additionally noted a recent case in which a former labor union official was convicted.

National Intelligence Service officers walks out of the headquarters of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions in central Seoul after their raid for a National Security Act violation case in 2023. [NEWS1]

Seok Kwon-ho, a former director of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison by an appellate court earlier this year for receiving orders from Pyongyang to instigate anti-American sentiment. He also sent South Korean lawmakers’ phone numbers to the North Korean regime through encrypted correspondence between 2018 and 2022.

Song stressed that the National Security Act is "constitutional," as the Constitutional Court has sided with the seventh provision — the clause on praise and incitement of anti-state activities — eight times since 1991.

Yet, some legal experts seem to favor a more nuanced approach to minimize the risk of human rights violations while maintaining the act, given the special situation between the South and the North.

In a 2017 academic paper, Chae Seong-joon, a professor of public administration and law at Dankook University, said the National Security Act should be amended to foster better relations with Pyongyang and protect human rights.

“To a degree that does not harm the fundamental value of the National Security Act, there are reasons to improve the law to resolve unreasonable points that impede basic human rights and hinder improving inter-Korean relations,” Chae wrote.

BY LEE SOO-JUNG [[email protected]]