윤석열은 탄핵당했다. 그런데 한국은 여전히 숙제를 안고 있다.
윤석열과 지지자들은 헌재 파면 결과를 수용하지 않을 것이다.부정선거 음모론을 믿는 사람들의 문제가 남아있다.
또한 한국은 이제 헌법의 문제점들을 고쳐야 하고, 대통령 권한을 축소시키는 과제를 안고 있다.
헌법재판소는 윤석열의 계엄령이 헌법에 명시된 조건을 충족시키지 못했기 때문에 파면한다고 결정.
헌법재판소 판결로, 윤석열은 더이상 대통령이 아니고, 60일 이내에 조기 대통령 선거를 실시해야 한다.
yoon is out, but South Korea’s crisis is not over
published at 22:47
22:47
Jean Mackenzie
Seoul correspondent
Now we have a verdict, the immediate question is: will Yoon and his supporters accept it?
Yoon and his lawyers have fought the courts at every step, accusing the legal system of being broken. His fanatically loyal supporters have claimed the courts are biased.
If they refuse to accept today’s impeachment, South Korea’s political crisis could get messier.
Even if Yoon does concede, Korea is now worryingly divided, and heading towards an undoubtedly fraught election.
Thanks to unfounded conspiracy theories, more than a quarter of people believe that the previous election was rigged
and no longer trust the voting system.
Some people will tell you today’s verdict shows that South Korea’s democracy and its institutions have triumphed.
But there are others who are still concerned, who think his martial law declaration exposed flaws in the system.
3 December has fundamentally changed South Korea. Martial law is no longer something hidden away in its dark dictatorial past. It is a real threat; a tool that can be brandished by zealous politicians.
There are now serious calls to change South Korea’s constitution – to strengthen its institutions and limit the powers of the president, to protect against this happening again.
For now, how Yoon responds could determine how quickly South Korea can recover.
2.
What does South Korea’s impeachment verdict mean?
published at 23:19
23:19
Jean Mackenzie
Seoul correspondent
You’d be forgiven for thinking South Korea’s president had already been impeached. In December he was temporarily removed from office, after parliament voted him out.
He was stripped of his power, but was still president in name. It was up to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to confirm his impeachment and permanently remove him, which it has just done.
Over the past few months, a panel of judges heard evidence from those involved that night – from military commanders, intelligence officers and politicians, to President Yoon himself.
The question the court had to answer was: did Yoon violate the constitution when he declared martial law? The constitution states that martial law should only be used during wartime or other comparable emergencies, and that members of parliament must be given the opportunity to vote on it.
During the trial, the president downplayed his intentions on the night of martial law, claiming he merely wanted to warn South Koreans about the dangers of the opposition party. He said he dispatched troops to keep the peace.
But according to others, Yoon ordered the army to drag lawmakers out of parliament to stop them from voting down his decree.
Today’s ruling makes it official: Mr Yoon is no longer South Korea’s president. A snap election will be held within 60 days to elect his replacement.
