Seoul – A brewing dispute over investment commitments from the United States is now entangled with a debate over whether South Korea’s National Assembly should formally ratify a deal struck between the two administrations. The sudden push for ratification, spearheaded by the opposition People Power Party, comes amid ongoing pressure from President Donald Trump regarding potential tariffs.
Opposition Calls for National Assembly Vote
The move raises questions about the future of U.S.-Korea economic relations and the level of legislative oversight in international agreements.
- The People Power Party is arguing that the agreement requires National Assembly ratification due to its potential financial implications.
- The government maintains that the deal, structured as a memorandum of understanding (MOU), does not necessitate ratification.
- The debate centers on Article 60, Paragraph 1 of the South Korean Constitution, which mandates ratification for treaties imposing significant financial burdens.
- Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jeong-kwan compared ratification to unfairly restricting Korea’s negotiating position.
- The U.S. has not pursued a similar ratification process domestically.
During a plenary meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on January 28th, members of the People Power Party directly questioned Foreign Minister Cho Hyun regarding the need for National Assembly approval. Representative Song Eon-seok pointed to statements made by President Trump, noting his inquiries as to why the Korean legislature hadn’t already approved the agreement. Representative Kim Ki-hyun echoed this sentiment, asking why a ratification bill hadn’t even been submitted for consideration.
The core of the opposition’s argument rests on Article 60, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that treaties with substantial financial implications for the nation or its people require National Assembly ratification. However, the government contends that this particular agreement doesn’t fall under that category.
Officials assert that the negotiations between Korea and the United States were conducted as a memorandum of understanding (MOU)—an agreement between administrations—rather than a treaty under international law. Article 25 of the ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Strategic Investment between the Governments of the United States and the Republic of Korea,’ signed in November of last year, explicitly states that the MOU is an “administrative agreement” and “does not create legally binding rights and obligations.”
A Self-Imposed Restriction?
Critics argue that seeking National Assembly ratification for an MOU already agreed upon by both administrations would be a self-imposed restriction, limiting Korea’s negotiating flexibility. They also point out that the United States has not initiated any ratification process on its end.
In November of last year, Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jeong-kwan articulated this concern on CBS Radio, stating that ratification would be akin to a boxer entering the ring with one hand tied, while the opponent remains unrestricted. “There are many issues, including project selection, but ratifying it is the same as a boxer getting into the ring and the other side (the United States) is free, but only we are tied,” he said.
Initiating the National Assembly ratification process could also slow down negotiations and introduce complications, particularly given the United States’ existing dissatisfaction with the pace of processing the Special Act related to U.S. investment. The ratification process itself involves multiple steps: submission of a ratification motion, standing committee review and public hearings, review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, plenary session voting, and finally, presidential ratification and promulgation. This process may also necessitate financial impact analyses, funding measures, and revisions to domestic laws.
Foreign Minister Cho, on January 28th, characterized the agreement as a “political agreement” rather than a treaty, emphasizing that any financial burdens could be addressed through the National Assembly’s approval and budgetary oversight under existing special laws. He also noted that it is standard diplomatic practice not to consider domestic procedural requirements regarding the form of agreements reached between nations.
The government has been careful to distance President Trump’s recent comments about potential tariff increases from the debate over National Assembly ratification. Kim Yong-beom, head of the Blue House’s policy office, stated that there was no disagreement between Korea and the United States regarding the necessity of National Assembly consent. He added that no country had ratified the agreement, and the issue wasn’t a disagreement over ratification itself.
