[Column] Can Korea advocate peace while selling weapons of war?

South Korea's booming defense industry is thriving amidst a global increase in military spending, driven by escalating conflicts and a shift toward national self-reliance as international alliances falter. However, a fundamental question looms: Can Korea genuinely advocate for peace while simultaneously exporting weapons of war?

“

Is it possible to talk about peace while selling arms?

This inquiry transcends mere ethics or morality, delving into legal obligations. South Korea, as a signatory to the UN Charter, is bound by Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force, including indirect support for its use. The International Court of Justice has previously held nations liable for arms exports contributing to illegal force. Furthermore, Korea ratified the Arms Trade Treaty in 2016, obligating compliance with its restrictions on arms exports in cases of breaches to international humanitarian law.

Recent international legal actions underscore the growing scrutiny of arms exports. In 2024, a Dutch court suspended licenses for F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel, citing probable violations of international humanitarian law and genocide conventions in Gaza. This marked the first domestic invocation of the Arms Trade Treaty. Similarly, the United Kingdom revoked 30 of its approximately 350 arms export licenses to Israel, announcing a review of Israel's commitment to international humanitarian law.

“

The Arms Trade Treaty, which restricts the export of weapons in the event of a breach of international humanitarian law, was signed by Korea in 2013 and ratified in 2016. This makes Korea a legal signatory that must comply with the treaty.

While it has not been definitively proven that weapons exported by Korea have been used in violation of international laws, probable cases exist. The article notes that hand grenades produced by Hanwha were discovered by an international human rights organization in 2016 under circumstances that raised concerns. The legal and ethical implications of these potential violations necessitate a thorough re-examination of Korea's role in the global arms trade.

“

Although the decision by the Dutch court stopped short of confirming the fact that an importing nation had breached international humanitarian law, it demonstrates that a probable breach can be enough to have weapons export licenses revoked.