Theory of Emergency State
Carl Schmitt's assertion that the one who determines the state of exception is the sovereign emphasizes that state power lies in decisive action during crises rather than in the rule of law during peacetime. This radical thought justifies the notion of the sovereign standing above the law, which inherently encompasses the potential for totalitarian power. In contrast, Hans Kelsen argues for a crisis of sovereignty through the emphasis on the self-sustainability and system of law. He counters that even states of emergency should be treated as part of the law, asserting that all acts of power must be justified through legal approval and procedure. The opposition between these two theories recurs in political reality and demonstrates how the state of exception functions as a mechanism of biopolitics targeting the lives of citizens.
Analysis of South Korean Society by Professor Park Gu-yong
Professor Park Guyong deeply analyzes the realities of Korean society through the theory of states of emergency. He particularly views the emergency martial law situation on December 3, 2024, as a conflict between revolution and counter-revolution, focusing on how state power declares exceptions and reorganizes the existing order. He warns that when citizens stop thinking, power can declare a state of emergency through the concept of "silence in the public sphere." In his writings, Professor Park emphasizes that "emergency" should be seen not as a crisis management tool but as an opportunity for restructuring power and shifting direction, critiquing the weakening of democratic thought in Korean society.
State of Emergency and Public Sphere
Professor Park views the situation of 'emergency' not merely as a simple crisis but as an important concept for exploring social direction. He cites Arendt's notion of the 'banality of evil,' arguing that when citizens do not question political circumstances, a legitimate yet unjust power emerges. This encourages us to reflect on the fundamental reasons that allow exceptions to power and seriously points out the phenomenon of 'the absence of a public sphere' in Korean society.
Warnings about modern Korean society
The Korean society has repeatedly experienced emergency policies due to the pandemic, terror, and prosecutorial power. The professor warns that this phenomenon has become institutionalized in the form of surveillance and control, as citizens grow accustomed to it. He emphasizes the need for vigilance regarding the 'normalization of the state of emergency' and 'decisions without justification' under the guise of public health and security, pointing out that this allows power to obtain procedural legitimacy while eliciting citizens' legitimate compliance.
Questions to Avoid Silence
In the end, Professor Park Gu-yong's theory of emergency raises important questions for us. What emergencies are we remaining silent about? Where is the public discourse? Whose decisions does power exist to support? Emphasizing the necessity of citizen reflection and public discourse within the tension between law and power, it presents elements that can transform this emergency from a mere crisis into a true test of democracy. Therefore, we must pose questions to confront emergencies, and these questions can be seen as the first step toward securing democracy and citizenship.
Post a Comment