Is government permission for reporting from conflict zones justified?

Photographer Jang Jin-young went to Ukraine in 2022 to document the realities of war. His decision brought a criminal penalty. On Aug. 12, a court fined him 5 million won and rejected his request to refer the passport law to the Constitutional Court.

South Korea’s passport law generally bans visits to areas deemed dangerous because of war. Even journalists and people traveling for reporting must obtain special permission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The court said Jang had not applied for that authorization and ruled that the public costs of a possible injury in a conflict zone outweighed the interest in guaranteeing reporting freedom.

That reasoning is difficult to accept, the commentary argues, because it leaves out a central fact. For roughly a month after the war began, the ministry effectively did not approve visits for reporting. The travel ban took effect immediately, but the exceptional passport-use procedure was neither announced nor accepting applications. Jang was therefore punished for failing to follow a process that did not exist in practice, according to the column.

The writer also disputes the court’s assessment of risk. CNN sent a 75-person reporting team during the early stage of the war, while British media organizations deployed more than 50 journalists. Many foreign correspondents continue to report from the Ukrainian battlefield. The column asks whether Ukraine is somehow dangerous only for South Korean journalists.

“

Reporting from conflict zones is an important role of the press.

International standards take a different approach, it says. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers stated in 2016 that authorities should not unjustifiably restrict journalists’ free movement or access to conflict areas. Measures that make access to information difficult or arbitrarily limit it can amount to indirect censorship.

The South Korean court rejected that view. It said the prior restriction on travel for journalistic activity did not constitute prior censorship because the permit examined the visit, not the content of the reporting. The court also cited the difficulty of distinguishing journalists from ordinary people in an era of active YouTubers and social media users.

The consequences extend beyond Jang’s case. According to the column, only 23 journalists received ministry approval to report from countries under travel bans during the nine years from 2013. The number ranged from four to eight a year, with five years recording no approvals. The International Federation of Journalists said South Korea was the only country in the world operating a permit system for reporting from conflict zones. Jang and his lawyer now plan to challenge the constitutionality of Article 17 of the passport law.

“

South Korea is the only country in the world that operates a permit system for reporting from conflict zones.