[Seoul Yonhap News]South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense spokesman Jung Ha-gyu said at a regular briefing on the 9th that the military action taken in response to North Korea’s drone intrusion last month was an exercise of the right of self-defense recognized by the United Nations Charter. , expressed the recognition that it cannot be restricted by the armistice agreement of the Korean War.
Joint air defense drill by South Korean forces in anticipation of provocation by North Korean drones on Dec. 29, 2010 (provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff) = (Yonhap News) <
In response to North Korea’s drone intrusion, the South Korean military sent two drones to the North Korean side of the Military Demarcation Line as a countermeasure, and two manned reconnaissance aircraft to the no-fly zone agreed upon in the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement. and flew to near the border.
“The North Korean drone’s violation of the Military Demarcation Line is a provocative act that clearly violates the armistice agreement, the inter-Korean basic agreement, and the inter-Korean military agreement,” Chung said. “This is a response that corresponds to North Korea’s military provocation, and it is a level of self-defense,” he said. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack against a member state of the United Nations.
Regarding the indication that whether or not the South Korean military’s countermeasures violated the Armistice Agreement will be determined by the results of an investigation by the UN Command, he said, “I believe an investigation will be conducted by the UN Command, but it is recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter. “The UN Charter cannot be restricted by the Armistice Agreement because the Armistice Agreement is subordinate to it,” he said.
In November 2000, when North Korea bombarded Yeonpyeong Island, the United Nations Command issued a special investigative report stating that the North Korean shelling was an act of hostility and the use of force against South Korea, and could not be justified by the right of self-defense. . On the other hand, the ROK Marine Corps’ response fire was justifiable in order to exercise the right of self-defense, and it did not violate the provisions and spirit of the Armistice Agreement.