Yoo Yongwon Warns Amendment Allowing Soldiers to Refuse Illegal Orders Could Undermine Command System

The Ministry of National Defense Also Expresses Support

Yoo Yongwon, a member of the National Defense Committee from the People Power Party, expressed concerns on the 25th regarding the ruling party and the Ministry of National Defense's push to amend the law to include a clause allowing soldiers to refuse illegal orders. He stated, "I am worried that this could undermine the core value of the military's command and order system."

Through a post on his social networking service (SNS) account on this day, Yoo said, "Article 25 of the current Basic Act on Military Service, which stipulates that soldiers must obey the official orders of their superiors while performing their duties, is the minimum principle that must be upheld for the military to function as a military," expressing his concerns.

President Yoon Sukyeol declared martial law on the night of the 3rd, and in the early morning of the 4th, martial law troops are attempting to enter the National Assembly main building. Photo by Kim Hyunmin

After the December 3 Martial Law, there have been calls within the ruling party to revise Article 25 of the Basic Act on Military Service to allow soldiers to refuse illegal orders. The Ministry of National Defense also reportedly suggested at the National Assembly National Defense Committee's legislative subcommittee held on this day that the clause be revised to: "A soldier must obey the official and legitimate orders of their superior while performing their duties. However, in cases where the order is clearly illegal, the soldier may refuse, and shall not suffer any personnel disadvantages for this reason."

Yoo pointed out, "The military is an organization where even a one-second delay can mean the difference between life and death, so obedience to orders is premised on unconditional and immediate execution. Although, on the surface, refusing illegal orders may seem reasonable, the real issue lies in the ambiguous standard of 'legitimacy,' which could fundamentally shake the military's command system."

He continued, "The proposed amendment places an excessive burden on soldiers by making them responsible for judging the legitimacy of their superiors' orders, which could weaken the immediacy of command. The moment a subordinate begins to question whether an order is legitimate, command is disrupted and operations are likely to be delayed. The battlefield is not a place for debate; unity and discipline are what determine survival."

Yoo also stated, "The term 'illegal order' is legally too ambiguous, which could undermine standards across the military, weaken the authority and responsibility of commanders, and cause serious confusion in unit operations. The reason the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice defines the standard for orders and obedience as 'lawful orders' is to avoid such ambiguity. In the U.S. military, the lawfulness of an order is not subjectively determined by subordinates, but is instead judged through subsequent legal procedures."

Yoo added, "If the goal is to prevent illegal or unjust orders, it is more appropriate to strengthen accountability for commanders who issue such orders. There are sufficiently realistic and effective measures, such as tougher punishment for those with command authority, enhancing post-incident supervision and audit systems, and reinforcing commander education. There is no need to unnecessarily shake the command and order system, which is the heart of the military, and put the entire military at risk."

Yoo concluded, "The military is the nation's last line of defense, and an army where soldiers debate the 'legitimacy' of orders on the battlefield can never win a war. Article 25 of the current Basic Act on Military Service is an essential safeguard to maintain the consistency of the command system and the immediacy of unit operations."

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