"Mandatory Military Service for Men Only" Unanimously Upheld by Constitutional Court... Court Says "No Violation of Equality Rights"

Third Constitutional Ruling

The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that the provision in the Military Service Act imposing military service obligations on men is "not discrimination based on gender." This decision marks the third time the court has upheld the constitutionality of this provision.

[Photo by Asia Economy DB]

On the 2nd, the Constitutional Court announced that all justices unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act in a constitutional complaint case filed by five men who are currently fulfilling, scheduled to fulfill, or have been sentenced to imprisonment for failing to fulfill their military service obligations. Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act states, "Male citizens of the Republic of Korea shall faithfully perform their military service obligations. Females may serve only in active duty and reserve forces on a voluntary basis."

They argued that "compulsory military service imposed on men based on gender constitutes discrimination and infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution," and filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in 2021. Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that "All citizens are equal before the law, and no one shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex."

During the review process, they claimed that "the Military Service Act only considers groups living collectively in military units and receiving military training," and argued that "supplementary service personnel who do not live collectively in military units or wartime labor service personnel who have no mandatory service period should not be subject to consideration of physical characteristics." This was interpreted as implying that women could also serve as supplementary or wartime labor service personnel.

However, the Constitutional Court judged that "physical strength required for handling or operating weapons is more suitable for men."

It further explained, "While women may be more suitable for combat when assessed individually, it is practically difficult to create a testing system that quantifies and objectifies individual physical abilities for comparison."

Regarding the military service obligations of supplementary service, the court stated, "Supplementary service or wartime labor service outside active duty are reserve forces that can be immediately mobilized as combat power in a national emergency and are subject to troop mobilization or labor conscription," and explained, "It cannot be said that supplementary or wartime labor service personnel do not require certain physical abilities or conditions as military manpower even if they do not serve as soldiers during peacetime."

The Constitutional Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of provisions imposing military service obligations on men twice. In 2010, the decision was made with a 6 to 2 vote, and in 2014, it was a unanimous ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.