Understanding martial law: Definition, implications, historical context

Since the uproar in South Korea due to the sudden implementation of martial law, many are now wondering: What is martial law? And what are its ramifications?

Martial law is a legal framework that allows military authorities to take control of civilian governance, typically during times of crisis, such as war, natural disasters, or civil unrest.

Under martial law, the military is granted broad powers to maintain order and enforce laws, often at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections.

 - Why would martial law be used? -

 

Sometimes, things get so out of control that normal government and police cannot maintain order. For example:

• Massive riots: Too many people are causing chaos, and police cannot stop it.
• Natural disasters: A hurricane or earthquake might destroy everything, and the local government becomes helpless.
• War or invasion: If the country is under attack, the military might need to take charge.

The idea is that the military has more people, better resources, and stricter rules to control the situation quickly.

 - How does martial law fix these situations? - 

When the military is in charge:

They can enforce strict rules: For example, no one is allowed outside after a certain time (curfews) to stop riots or looting.

They can bring resources: Soldiers can deliver food, medical aid, and supplies faster during disasters.

They can restore order: Military forces are trained to deal with big, chaotic situations in a way the police might not be able to.

 - Does the military not fundamentally exist to protect and oversee its country? -

The military is always part of the government, but under normal circumstances, it takes orders from civilian leaders like the president or prime minister and stays in the background. The military's job is usually focused on things like defending the country from external threats, not managing everyday life.

During martial law, the military does not just protect the country, it is now making and enforcing the rules directly, often bypassing normal government systems. Civilian governments and courts may even be temporarily suspended or lose power.

 - Historical context -

Martial law has been employed in various countries throughout history, often under dire circumstances. Some notable examples include:

Philippines (1972): President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, citing threats of insurgency. This led to significant human rights abuses, including arrests without warrants and the suppression of dissent.

Poland (1981): The Polish government imposed martial law in response to the Solidarity movement, which sought greater political freedom. The military cracked down on protests, leading to widespread arrests and a curtailment of civil rights.

US (1941): Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared martial law in Hawaii, allowing the military to control the islands and suppress potential threats.

South Korea (Dec. 3-4, 2024): South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared "emergency martial law" during a televised briefing, citing the need to address what he describes as the opposition's control over parliament and its sympathies towards North Korea.

---

Read more: South Korean President implements emergency martial law

---

 - Can stricter military action coexist with a functioning civilian government? -

 

Governments can involve the military in a crisis without fully declaring martial law. This approach is often used to maintain civilian control while still benefiting from the military's resources and organization. For example:

• Deployment for support: The government can call in the military to assist with specific tasks, like controlling crowds, distributing supplies, or maintaining order during disasters. The military operates under civilian leadership, and normal laws still apply.
• Temporary emergency powers: The government can grant itself emergency powers, which might involve giving the military more authority temporarily. However, civilian courts and the rest of the government still function.
• Joint command: The military might work alongside police and other agencies to address the crisis. For example, soldiers might back up the police but take orders from civilian officials.

Examples of this approach:

• US: The military is sometimes deployed to help with natural disasters (like hurricanes) or large protests, but it operates under civilian control.
• India: During severe riots or unrest, the government might deploy the army to assist police without declaring martial law.

 - Different authorities, different priorities -

 

Martial law and government control during a crisis often have different priorities, and they can often clash. 

Martial law: Stability first

• The main focus is on restoring order and maintaining control, even if it means suspending some individual freedoms.
• Actions are often strict and fast, with less concern for public debate or input.
• Citizens might face restrictions (curfews, limits on gatherings) to stop chaos or violence.

Government control: Citizens first

• Civilian governments usually try to balance stability with protecting individual rights and following democratic rules.
• They involve courts, lawmakers, and public input, even during emergencies, to ensure actions are fair and legal.
• It might take longer to respond to a crisis because they avoid overstepping citizens' rights or democratic principles.

There is a big trade-off when comparing the two authorities: Martial law can feel harsh because it sacrifices freedoms for quick action, meanwhile government control can feel slow or ineffective during emergencies but protects democratic values and rights.

In a perfect world, governments try to avoid martial law and find ways to involve the military without abandoning civilian priorities, balancing stability with citizens' needs.

 - What citizen freedoms are lost in martial law? - 

1. Freedom of Movement
   • What happens: Curfews might be imposed, or people could be restricted from traveling or leaving their homes without permission.
   • Why: To control unrest or ensure safety in dangerous areas.
2. Freedom of assembly
   • What happens: Public gatherings, protests, and large meetings might be banned.
   • Why: To prevent riots, demonstrations, or the spread of chaos.
3. Freedom of speech
   • What happens: Speaking out against the government or military might be censored or punished.
   • Why: To stop the spread of rumors or dissent that could worsen the crisis.
4. Right to privacy
   • What happens: Authorities might monitor communications (like phone calls, emails, or social media) or search homes without warrants.
   • Why?: To find and stop threats quickly.
5. Right to a fair trial
   • What happens: Courts might be replaced by military tribunals, where trials are faster but less fair, and punishments are harsher.
   • Why: To deal with suspected criminals or troublemakers without delay.
6. Protection from arrest or detention without cause
   • What happens: People can be arrested and detained without evidence or formal charges.
   • Why: To remove potential threats during the crisis.
7. Freedom of the press
   • What happens: Media might be censored, and journalists may not be allowed to report freely.
   • Why: To control the narrative and prevent panic or rebellion.

What this means for citizens

Under martial law, the military's need to control the situation often outweighs individual freedoms. While the goal is to restore order, this can feel oppressive, and is why martial law is controversial and only used as a last resort in most countries.

 

 - Can martial law lead to a coup d'état? -

 

While martial law is supposed to be temporary, the military can refuse to step back once the crisis is over and lead to a loss of democracy, turning into a dictatorship. That is why many countries are very cautious about declaring martial law in the first place.

During martial law, the military gains a lot of control over the country. If some military leaders decide they like this power, they might refuse to give it back to the civilian government, leading to a military coup.

Additionally, there is an increased likelihood of a coup when the civilian government may already be struggling or unpopular. This can make it easier for the military to step in permanently, claiming they can "fix things better."

To add insult to injury, if people lose trust in their leaders, but see the military as strong and organized, they might even support a coup.

Real-world examples

Thailand (2014): The military declared martial law during political unrest and then staged a coup, taking over the government.

Pakistan (several times): Martial law has often led to military coups where generals stayed in power for years.