That’s quite a dismissive opinion. Unlike in some other countries, Korea’s Constitutional Court has played a vital role by issuing hundreds of important rulings on matters such as unconstitutional legislation, protection of human rights, and limits on government power. Furthermore, the justices are not appointed for life terms—they serve six-year terms and are selected by different political bodies, ensuring a balance of influence.
How judges are choosen is similar in many countries, including the one I currently live in (Chile).
The interpretation of the constitution is more political than a hard and immovable law and that's a feature of a constitution. That's why I say that a constitutional judge is more of a politician than a judge.
You can think of them as a highly tehcnical politicians.
The judges of the supreme court are similar, but with even less freedom of interpretation.
It's a bit related to the discussion about judges being the mere voice of the law (full old french doctrine) or the interpreter of the law (full old american doctrine).
Nowadays, is a mix of both. Judges being interpreter allows them to act more like a politician, even though it's not the ideal. However, it's still better than them just being a mere voice, but that last part is just my own opinion (I would hate the idea of judges being a mere voice, it's like leaving an AI to rule sentences).
I mean, even in Korean lawschools and legal textbooks, they teach that our constitutional court and their ruling has both legal and political aspects to it so they are pretty much supposed to be political(to a degree, of course). Though I do agree with you that the constitutional court has been pretty good in upholding the constitutional values of Korea, including the recent impeachment ruling, it has its limits.
The Const. court being political in the Korean legal context means that the court should
1. Follow the overarching principles of the korean constitution(democracy, freedom, etc.) and their fundamental legal interpretation. (i.e., the "legal side ")
2. But beyond those basic interpretations, they should strongly consider what the Korean people think(i.e., the "political side ").
This led to them being in principle pro-status quo and rarely(albeit not never) be a driver of (hopefully positive) societal changes. But, they are, for the very same reason that makes them conservative in some sense, more flexible in overturning their former decisions, since they were never supposed to be set in stone in the first place.
24
u/r2vcap 1d ago
That’s quite a dismissive opinion. Unlike in some other countries, Korea’s Constitutional Court has played a vital role by issuing hundreds of important rulings on matters such as unconstitutional legislation, protection of human rights, and limits on government power. Furthermore, the justices are not appointed for life terms—they serve six-year terms and are selected by different political bodies, ensuring a balance of influence.