South Korea Debates Calling North Korea 'Joseon' for Peace and Respect

Hankyoreh reports on a significant academic conference, held with the support of the Ministry of Unification, that delved into the sensitive issue of how to refer to North Korea: 'Bukhan' (North Korea) or 'Joseon' (its official name, Choson). This discussion is not merely semantic; it touches upon the very foundation of inter-Korean relations and the long-term vision for peace on the peninsula.

“

The language that acknowledges and respects the other's reality, supported by institutional backing, can break the vicious cycle of confrontation and broaden the space for peaceful coexistence.

The core argument presented by proponents, like Professor Kim Sung-kyung, is that 'Bukhan' is a loaded term, imbued with decades of anti-communist ideology and hostility. Using the North's official name, 'Joseon,' is framed as a gesture of mutual respect, an acknowledgment of the other's reality, and a potential step towards resetting the relationship. This perspective aligns with a desire to break the cycle of confrontation and build a space for peaceful coexistence, a sentiment often echoed in progressive circles in South Korea.

“

'Bukhan' is a non-neutral term layered with hostility, threat, and aversion within the context of the National Security Act and anti-communist ideology since 1950.

However, the proposal is not without its detractors and complexities. Concerns were raised about potential conflicts with South Korea's constitution, which defines the ROK's territory as the entire Korean peninsula. Some interpret the use of 'Joseon' as implicitly accepting North Korea's narrative of two separate states, potentially undermining the goal of unification. The legal interpretation offered by lawyer Kwon Eun-min, suggesting that using an official name doesn't automatically equate to state recognition and that constitutional articles on territory can be seen as aspirational for a unified Korea, attempts to address these concerns.

“

The territorial provisions (Article 3) can be interpreted as a declaration defining the scope of territory for a unified Korea once peaceful unification is achieved.

The Ministry of Unification's stance, as articulated by Vice Minister Kim Nam-jung, reflects a cautious approach. While acknowledging the need for respectful language, the ministry emphasizes that any change would require careful consideration of constitutional order, the unique nature of inter-Korean relations, domestic laws, international practices, and, crucially, public consensus. This measured response highlights the delicate balancing act the South Korean government must perform, navigating between the desire for reconciliation and the need to maintain national security and constitutional integrity. The debate itself, however, signifies a willingness within certain academic and governmental circles to explore new paradigms for engaging with North Korea, moving beyond decades of entrenched animosity.

“

The government will not rush to adopt the official name of North Korea for its formal designation or address. The constitutional order, the specific nature of inter-Korean relations, domestic laws, international practices, and national consensus must be comprehensively considered.