Anna Jiwon Park has been covering the politics at The Korea Times since the summer of 2024, when she joined the press pool for the Office of the President in Korea. Prior to that, she spent about five years reporting extensively on financial markets, regulatory authorities and the financial industry. She joined The Korea Times in 2019 after spending eight years as a broadcast journalist at Arirang TV, Korea’s leading global broadcaster, covering politics, defense and culture.
Korea-US fact sheet sets off new political clash in Seoul over ratification
A copy of the joint fact sheet outlining the latest Korea-U.S. negotiations on tariffs and security that was reviewed during a full session of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap
By Anna J. Park
Citing $350 bil. pledge, opposition claims accord requires Assembly vote
Political tensions are rising in Seoul over whether to ratify a recently released joint fact sheet, a summary of high-stakes Korea-U.S. negotiations that could reshape tariffs, military cooperation and the broader alliance between the two countries.
The Lee administration and ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) contend that the fact sheet is a memorandum of understanding (MOU), not a treaty, and therefore does not require parliamentary approval.
The main opposition People Power Party (PPP) argues that the document requires ratification, noting that it cites an estimated $350 billion in investments bound for the United States — a sum that amounts to roughly 10 million won, or $6,854, in financial burden per Korean constituent — and therefore meets the threshold of a treaty imposing significant fiscal obligations.
The DPK has dismissed the PPP’s call for ratification as political posturing and intends to move quickly on a special law aimed at supporting outbound investments and stabilizing export-oriented industries facing tariff-related challenges. Tariff reductions can be retroactively applied from Nov. 1 as long as the special law is submitted within this month.
Rep. Kim Young-bae, a DPK lawmaker serving in the Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, emphasized during a radio interview Monday that “this MOU is fundamentally different in nature from a treaty or a law.”
“It includes not only various economic provisions related to tariffs but also wide-ranging security commitments covering nuclear energy, nuclear-powered submarines, aviation, weapons procurement and energy. Thus it should be viewed as a government-to-government commitment,” the lawmaker said.
“Some elements within the MOU require ratification and others do not. Ratifying everything collectively would be inappropriate and would not serve our national interest going forward,” he added.
Yet PPP floor leader Song Eon-seog criticized the ruling party’s proposal to introduce a special act on it, saying it makes “even less sense to legislate the law based on an MOU that has no binding force.”
“Article 60, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution grants the National Assembly the authority to consent to treaties that impose significant financial burdens on the nation or the people,” Song said during a party leadership meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on Monday. “The constitutional ratification procedure must be respected, and the negotiation results must be transparently disclosed to the public.”
President Lee Jae Myung announces the final agreement on Korea-U.S. tariff and security negotiations during a press briefing at the presidential office in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap
Although opinions vary, experts interviewed by The Korea Times say that parliamentary ratification would provide a more stable path forward.
“Regardless of whether the agreement is labeled as an MOU, if its substance creates binding obligations, it should be considered a treaty under international law and therefore must receive parliamentary ratification,” Choi Won-mog, a trade law expert and professor at Ewha Womans University Law School, told The Korea Times.
Park Sang-byoung, professor at Inha University’s Graduate School of Policy Studies, said that whether ratification or a special law is appropriate depends on how follow-up procedures between Korea and the U.S. unfold. He noted that although the choice between administrative action or legislation would flow from that process, in broader terms, “securing parliamentary approval is the safer course.”
“Since the DPK currently holds a majority, there should be no major obstacles to obtaining parliamentary consent,” Park said. “Given the enormous scale of investment — and with major issues such as nuclear submarines and defense cost-sharing also at play — it would be cleaner to secure the Assembly’s approval.”
Responding to concerns that ratifying a nonbinding MOU could place obligations solely on Korea — especially as the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of the Donald Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs — Park argued that a special law would be equally binding. He added that the timing of the court’s ruling is uncertain, tariff policy is shaped by the broader global trading system, and Korea-U.S. trade and security matters are better settled through formal parliamentary approval.
“It also looks better to the U.S. if bipartisan parliamentary consent is secured,” the professor pointed out. “Even if problems arise in the U.S. later, we would then hold stronger negotiating leverage. We can’t give up the nuclear submarine issue. By confirming that both countries have agreed, we solidify the validity of commitments between the two presidents despite shifts in U.S. policy. And if the tariffs were to be invalidated, the National Assembly could simply take new measures at that time.”
Export-bound automobiles are lined up at Pyeongtaek Port in Gyeonggi Province, Friday. Yonhap
The presidential office said it will “consult and deliberate with the National Assembly” on whether ratification is required. During a Nov. 6 parliamentary audit, Kang Hoon-sik, the president’s chief of staff, said the government would coordinate with lawmakers on any path forward — whether ratification, new legislation or a special law — and would follow the Assembly’s decision.
At the same time, the government and ruling party are drafting a special act on U.S. investments, including the creation of a dedicated fund. The bill could be submitted to the Assembly as early as this week as part of a push to implement the fact sheet’s 15 percent tariff rate.