Contextualizing Constitutional Impeachment in South Korea: An International Legal Perspective

 

South Korea’s constitutional impeachment system stands out in East Asia for its strong institutional checks on executive power. The Constitutional Court, an independent judicial body separate from the Supreme Court, is vested with exclusive authority to review the constitutionality of laws and to adjudicate on impeachments, including those against sitting presidents.

 

Under Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, if the President violates the Constitution or other laws in the performance of official duties, the National Assembly may pass a motion for impeachment, which must then be reviewed and finalized by the Constitutional Court. This dual-layered process reflects a hybrid model of parliamentary initiation and judicial adjudication, ensuring both democratic legitimacy and legal rigor.

 

From a comparative international law perspective, this model shares features with the German Federal Constitutional Court and differs from the U.S. model, where the Senate acts as the trial body. The Korean system is regarded as a constitutional safeguard to prevent abuse of presidential authority and to ensure fidelity to rule of law principles.

 

The decision in case 2024Hun-Na8 involves the second-ever constitutional ruling on presidential impeachment in Korea’s history, following the 2017 impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye. This makes the ruling a landmark decision not only domestically but also in the global conversation on constitutionalism and executive accountability.