Abstract

This study aims to analyze the criticisms discussed in research literature following the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act and suggest directions for its revision. The current Anti-Terrorism Act defines the concept of terrorism while enumerating specific types of terrorist acts related to public safety, such as those involving aircraft, vessels, nuclear materials, etc. This legislation is a result aimed at resolving the ambiguity in the constitutive elements by reflecting diverse opinions in reality. However, regarding the necessity for legislation on newly emerging terrorist acts that are not enumerated, legislative authorities should exercise the utmost caution. Furthermore, concerning the criticism that the penalties for terrorist acts under the Anti-Terrorism Act are punishable as crimes under general criminal law, the current legislative approach is considered appropriate, taking into account the criticism that intensified penalties through special laws could excessively infringe on human rights. The current Anti-Terrorism Act defines terrorist organizations as those designated by the United Nations (UN). Defining terrorist organizations in our country independently could potentially provoke unnecessary domestic and international conflicts. Considering the ambiguity in the current provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, defining terrorist organizations as those designated by the UN is relatively objective and desirable. Given the persistent threat of terrorism in our country and its expanding nature, necessary 'tracking' of individuals posing a terrorist risk through information gathering and counterterrorism measures concerning entry/exit, financial transactions, and communication laws is inevitable. However, to prevent excessive infringement of basic rights beyond the principle of proportionality, there is a need for strict designation of individuals posing a terrorist risk. Additionally, procedures involving the designation of individuals posing a terrorist risk, information gathering, and tracking should involve a human rights protection perspective explicitly laid out in procedures. Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Act stipulates the establishment of a Counterterrorism Human Rights Ombudsman within the Counterterrorism Committee to prevent violations of citizens' fundamental rights due to counterterrorism activities of relevant agencies. Matters related to the qualifications, tenure, etc., of the Human Rights Ombudsman are to be stipulated by presidential decree. Given the nature of counterterrorism activities, for this Human Rights Ombudsman system to be effective, it is necessary to grant them substantive investigative powers to investigate human rights violations and the authority to issue orders to heads of relevant agencies. Adequate support in terms of manpower is also required to support these efforts. Article 18, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act specifies that, due to limitations in police capabilities and in cases requiring urgent support, the Chief of the Countermeasure Headquarters may request the Counterterrorism Special Forces under the Ministry of National Defense to carry out operations outside military facilities. This raises constitutional concerns similar to those under martial law. If future counterterrorism operations anticipate limitations in police capabilities despite enhancements in the weapons systems and training and reinforcement of police special forces, it may be necessary to eliminate these constitutional concerns through constitutional amendments.