[Editorial] Legal groundwork

It may sound out of tune with the current inter-Korean situation to emphasize the need for legal study in preparation for the reunification of the South and the North. After six rounds of talks, the two sides have yet to bridge gaps over conditions for reopening a joint industrial complex that was suspended in April amid mounting tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Discarding the last remaining symbol of inter-Korean cooperation, which Seoul seems ready to risk if Pyongyang continues to reject safeguards to prevent another closure, would completely halt cross-border exchanges.

But a recent court ruling here, which set a legal precedent with far-reaching implications on the divided peninsula, has drawn attention to the question of how to deal with a possible flood of litigation between residents in the South and the North following reunification. The Supreme Court last week ruled that North Korean children of a South Korean citizen have the right to inherit their deceased father’s fortune. The verdict, the first of its kind, is likely to open the floodgates for similar lawsuits.

With private contacts having increased by circumventing the borderline confrontation, there have already been legal disputes between South and North Korean people over family relationships, inheritance and property. South Korea now has a not-so-sophisticated law to handle such cases. It provides legal protection for a second marriage of spouses separated since the 1945 division of the peninsula, which was cemented by the 1950-53 Korean War, and keeps restrictions on transmissions of inherited money to the North. But this restrictive provision could be legally challenged under the South Korean Constitution, which defines North Korea as part of South Korean territory, essentially guaranteeing all North Koreans be treated as South Korean citizens.

The reunification of the peninsula would bring about a wide range of complex legal issues between residents from the capitalist South and the communist North. The government of a unified Korea would have to decide on ways to dispose of land nationalized by the North Korean regime. There might be controversy over whether to return them to original land owners and their descendants or keep them under state management in return for proper compensation. The matter could be made more complicated by claims laid by South Korean citizens who had possessed plots in the North before coming to the South.

Reunification would not automatically open the way to develop or utilize the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas. The work should also be preceded by the settlement of land ownership. The problem might rise to the surface more immediately if and when momentum builds up toward President Park Geun-hye’s vision of creating an international park inside the DMZ to turn the heavily-fortified area into a place of “peace and trust.”

It took more than two decades for unified Germany to sort out confusions surrounding land ownership. The time-consuming process hampered social integration and the work to rebuild the economy in what was East Germany. It might take more time for a unified Korea to settle these problems, as North Korea burnt all cadastral books in 1946 when it implemented its land reform.

Land ownership is just one of the areas that needs sophisticated legal and institutional preparation for the post-unification era ― such as the basic law, civil code, judicial system and labor. So far, related studies have been conducted in an inefficient ― and in some cases, contradictory ― way as it is undertaken separately by various government agencies including the Unification Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the Ministry of Government Legislation. An interministerial system should be established to enable the unification-related research to be made in a comprehensive and integrated manner.