Countermeasures with Criminal Law against Terrorism

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of South Korea's current criminal law system and special laws in response to the rapidly changing domestic and international terrorist threat landscape, and to propose legislative and institutional improvements to address its shortcomings. Through an analysis of the current legal system, this study determines whether South Korea's current criminal law and related special laws adequately reflect the unique nature of terrorist crimes. We also compare and analyze the legislative precedents for counter-terrorism by examining and comparing cases from major countries overseas, drawing implications. Furthermore, we propose specific criminal legal response measures, including strengthening the legal basis for intelligence activities, expanding punishment for the preliminary and conspiracy stages, and strengthening inter-national cooperation systems. Method: To achieve its objectives, this study utilizes the following research methods. First, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted, including domestic and international terrorism-related laws, academic pa-pers, government publications, and reports from the United Nations (UN) and international organizations. Sec-ond, counter-terrorism laws in major countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, will be an-alyzed to compare each country's unique response strategies and legal control mechanisms. Third, we analyze actual domestic and inter-national terrorist incidents and related court cases to empirically identify the limita-tions of current legal applications. Fourth, we conduct a normative analysis of potential violations of fundamental rights in response to terror-ism, based on the fundamental principles of the Constitution and criminal law (the principle of warrants and due process). Results: The current criminal law system in South Korea has some limitations in regulating the transnational nature, organized nature, and prior covert nature of terrorist crimes. In particular, punishment provisions for the preparatory and conspiracy stages are inadequate. While the Anti-Terrorism Act provides authority for intelli-gence activities, the legal procedures and scope for compulsory measures are ambiguous, hindering the effec-tiveness of enforcement and raising concerns about human rights violations. Therefore, it is necessary to bench-mark overseas cases to suit the domestic situation. For improvement, strengthen the preventive function by spec-ifying and enacting provisions for punishment of preparatory acts of terrorism, clarify the judicial control (court approval) procedures for intelligence agencies' information collection activities to ensure legitimacy and trans-parency, and establish domestic laws to facilitate information sharing and cooperation with international organ-izations such as Interpol and the United Nations. Conclusion: This study confirmed that an effective criminal legal response to terrorist crimes lies in achieving a balance be-tween “ensuring public safety” and “guaranteeing fundamental rights.” Based on the findings, the following conclusions are offered. First, urgent legislative efforts are needed to specifically supplement criminal punishment provisions for terrorist preparation and conspiracy to ensure a preventive response. Second, judicial and democratic control mechanisms (such as the warrant system, National Assembly control, and the human rights protection officer system) commensurate with the expanded authority to gather information must be strengthened to ensure procedural legitimacy. Third, in addition to strengthening the domestic response system, we must continue to strengthen information sharing and law enforcement cooperation with the United Nations (UN) and key allies. Ultimately, criminal legal responses to terrorist crimes must be based on law and principles.