Jang Young-soo's Views on Overseas Adoption and Sedition: A 'Centrist's' Perspective

Jang Young-soo, a standing member of South Korea's 3rd Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), asserts his self-perception as a centrist, challenging the public's characterization of him as a "prominent conservative and right-wing legal scholar." He explained that his legal judgments, based on seeking truth, have led to him being labeled progressive when opposing the 2004 impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun, and conservative when supporting the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party in 2013. He contends that external evaluations often align with their own preferences rather than his consistent pursuit of factual legal determination.

“

I always consider myself to be in the center.

Appointed in April and beginning his duties in June, Jang is set to chair the newly established Subcommittee 3, which will handle cases related to collective detention facilities and overseas adoptions. His tenure on the TRC is notable, potentially making him the longest-serving commissioner if he completes his current two-year term, which could extend his total service to six years. This includes two full terms as a non-standing member and his current role as a standing member.

During his time on the 2nd TRC, Jang was indeed considered relatively moderate. While he often voiced independent opinions, distinct from other conservative-appointed members, on cases like the 1980 emergency martial law at Hanshin University and military deaths, he ultimately sided with the conservative bloc on sensitive decisions concerning the Jindo and Yeongcheon incidents, and the Baegnakjeong case.

“

Whether it was sedition has not been confirmed.

Jang's remarks regarding the 12.12 military coup have been particularly contentious. He has stated that whether it constituted "sedition remains unconfirmed," despite acknowledging its unconstitutional and illegal nature due to a lack of legal requirements. He argues that the Constitutional Court's impeachment decision did not definitively establish the sedition aspect, which he considers crucial for determining the "significant illegality" of the emergency martial law. This stance has drawn criticism, especially given that the impeachment prosecution team excluded "sedition" as a ground for impeachment, and the Constitutional Court's ruling focused on the abuse of emergency powers rather than a sedition trial.

“

The core of the significant illegality of the emergency martial law is whether it was sedition, and the decision was made without judging this.