On the 16th, a constitutional complaint was filed claiming that the Military Service Act provision requiring only men among our citizens to fulfill military duty is unconstitutional. Although the Constitutional Court had previously ruled the provision constitutional three times, there was a dissenting opinion stating it was unconstitutional in one of those cases.
On that day, a person surnamed Jeong (24) filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, stating that there is a change in social reality that warrants a judgment that Article 3, Clause 1 of the Military Service Act is unconstitutional. Jeong is set to enlist in the military this November. The clause he argues is unconstitutional stipulates that 'male citizens of Korea must faithfully fulfill their military duty as specified by the Constitution and the Military Service Act.' This imposes military duty solely on men. Furthermore, the provision states that 'women can only serve in active or reserve duty through voluntary enlistment.'
In the constitutional complaint, Jeong noted that in the current situation where securing military personnel is becoming difficult due to declining birth rates, imposing military duty on women could provide a solution. He said, 'The decline in birth rates is serious and is not a problem that can be solved in the short term, so expanding military duty to cover the entire population could be a rational alternative.'
Jeong also mentioned the need to diversify military personnel due to changes in the nature of modern warfare. He stated, 'Modern warfare is changing from traditional combat-focused approaches to complex forms that utilize advanced technology and information,' adding that 'the required capabilities for personnel in the military need to change to include experts in advanced technology, and a restructuring of the personnel system is necessary for building a technology-intensive elite army.' He emphasized that 'utilizing diverse talent, regardless of gender, could enhance military efficiency.'
Furthermore, Jeong argued that imposing military duty on both men and women could serve as a means of social integration. He mentioned, 'The unequal burden of military duty is a structural factor that exacerbates gender conflict, leading not only to issues with military service periods but also to career interruptions, income loss, and limitations on social opportunities.' He continued, 'By imposing some form of military duty on women or establishing a system to practically compensate for the disadvantages faced by men fulfilling their military duty, we can alleviate the prominent gender conflict in Korean society and promote social integration.'
This constitutional complaint is being represented by Jeong Min-kyu, a lawyer at the law firm Byeongcheon.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has ruled constitutional on Article 3, Clause 1 of the Military Service Act in 2010, 2014, and 2023. The court noted, 'Generally, men and women as groups possess different physical capabilities,' and that the supplementary service (in which women can serve) and the wartime labor reserve could potentially be rapidly incorporated into the nation's emergency forces. Furthermore, 'Comparatively, among the 70 or so countries with conscription, very few impose military duty on women (e.g., Israel).'
However, in the 2010 ruling, Justices Lee Gong-hyun and Mok Young-jun expressed dissenting opinions claiming it was unconstitutional. They stated, 'The Military Service Act allows only men to serve in all roles, including public service personnel unrelated to physical strength, without a rational reason, discriminating against both genders.' They added, 'As there are no institutional measures to alleviate such unreasonable discrimination, it is an unconstitutional provision that infringes on men's right to equality.'