계엄법 개정법률안의 발의 현황과 평가

On December 3, 2024, former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s declaration of martial law marked the first application of the Martial Law Act under the current Constitution. This event revived the long-dormant legal regime of martial law, thrusting it back into the center of constitutional discourse. In response, the 22nd National Assembly introduced 63 amendment bills to the Martial Law Act in a short period—an unprecedented level of legislative attention in Korea’s lawmaking history. However, despite this quantitative surge, most of the proposed amendments fail to substantively address core constitutional issues such as the specific conditions for declaring martial law, procedural controls, and reasonable limits on the special powers of the martial law commander. Instead, they remain confined to technical revisions of individual provisions or declaratory clauses aimed at safeguarding parliamentary functions which pose little political controversy. In particular, the committee (alternative) bill passed by the Subcommittee on Legislative Review of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee on April 23, 2025, merely reflects minor adjustments to the draft prepared by the Ministry of National Defense, without incorporating meaningful constitutional reflection on the structural flaws of the martial law system. Martial law, by nature, is an emergency measure that may be exercised only within the minimal bounds necessary to restore constitutional order. Its practice, however, inevitably entails tensions and conflicts across the entire structure of state power. Therefore, amending the Martial Law Act is not simply a matter of legislative technique, but is fundamentally tied to the design of constitutional limits on state authority. This article conducts a comprehensive analysis of the amendment bills submitted thus far, critically evaluating their limitations. It also identifies key reform measures that must be enacted during the remaining “golden time” for amendment. This includes proposals such as clarifying the conditions for declaring martial law through historical and terminological analysis; strengthening internal executive procedures to prevent the arbitrary exercise of authority by the President and other officials in the declaration and termination of martial law; modifying democratic oversight over the martial law; and introducing legislative measures to minimize restrictions on fundamental rights during martial law, including curtailing the military court’s broad jurisdiction and establishing judicial oversight over the martial law commander’s special powers.