Home > Opinion > Columns

From Charles I to Korea, the illusion of righteous power

Published: 24 Feb. 2026, 00:02

Chang Se-jeong

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

On Jan. 30, 1649, England’s King Charles I was executed by beheading. After royalist forces loyal to the king lost two civil wars to the parliament’s army, a special tribunal convicted him of treason for tyranny and for provoking war against his own people.

Even in his final speech, Charles defended the doctrine of the divine right of kings, insisting that the royal authority granted by God stood above Parliament and the people. Declaring himself a martyr for the nation, he became the first Western monarch to be publicly executed rather than assassinated.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol (top right) listens as Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon delivers the verdict in his first trial on charges of leading an insurrection at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on Feb. 19. The court sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment. At bottom right is former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun. [SCREEN CAPTURE FROM THE SEOUL CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT]

Eleven years later, his son Charles II ascended the throne and overturned his father's treason verdict. Oliver Cromwell, who had led the execution, was posthumously condemned and his remains desecrated. Yet the restoration did not revive absolute monarchy for long: Charles II’s successor, James II, a Catholic monarch, was forced into exile in 1688 amid conflict with the Protestant parliament. The following year, the Bill of Rights established parliamentary sovereignty and curtailed royal power, marking a decisive shift in the balance between ruler and legislature.

This dramatic episode in British history resurfaced recently in Korea during the first trial of former President Yoon Suk Yeol on charges of leading an insurrection. Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon devoted an unusually-long 17 pages of a 1,133-page ruling to the historical origins of the crime of insurrection.

The court reviewed a wide range of legal traditions, including Roman law, Germanic law and canon law, as well as criminal codes from Prussia, imperial Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, France and the United States. The extensive analysis reflected the court’s effort to build public understanding in a case that has deeply divided opinions.

The trial addressed an unprecedented situation in which a sitting president declared emergency martial law and was later prosecuted on insurrection charges. Constitutional scholars have been divided over whether such a declaration could legally constitute rebellion, adding to the weight of the court’s decision.

The ruling appears to have drawn inspiration from the conflict between Charles I and Parliament. It noted that even in an era when treason was widely understood as a crime against the monarch, the execution of Charles I helped establish the principle that a ruler could commit treason against the state by violating the sovereignty of Parliament, which represents the people.

Historically, Charles I attempted to dissolve Parliament by force amid disputes over religion and taxation. The Korean court found parallels in the deployment of armed troops to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission during the Dec. 3, 2024, martial law declaration. It concluded that the action met the legal elements of insurrection under Article 87 of the Criminal Act, which requires both the intent to disrupt the constitutional order and the use of force.

While acknowledging that declaring martial law falls within presidential authority, the court ruled that the Dec. 3 measure constituted an insurrection accompanied by violence and sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment. The ruling has drawn criticism from both conservative and progressive camps, suggesting it is difficult to characterize the decision as politically one-sided.

Citizens watch a live TV broadcast of the first trial verdict for former President Yoon Suk Yeol at Seoul Station on Feb. 19. Yoon was indicted on charges of leading an insurrection in connection with the Dec. 3, 2024, martial law declaration. [YONHAP]

Yoon has defended his actions as an attempt to alert the public to what he described as a national emergency caused by legislative dominance by the opposition. The court rejected that argument. Judge Ji wrote that one cannot steal a candle simply because one intends to read the Bible, emphasizing that even a legitimate objective cannot justify unlawful means.

A day after the sentencing, Yoon issued a statement apologizing for causing public disappointment and hardship. However, the statement stopped short of acknowledging responsibility for invoking illegal emergency powers instead of pursuing lawful solutions. His continued claim that martial law was a necessary act of national salvation recalls Charles I’s self-portrayal as a martyr.

The historic comparison underscores a familiar lesson. Power justified by conviction alone can become detached from constitutional limits. The danger lies not only in the decision itself but in the refusal to recognize its consequences.

Calls within Yoon’s political camp for his political return reflect what critics describe as a lingering illusion. In constitutional democracies, legitimacy rests not on intent or belief but on adherence to law. History shows that when leaders mistake personal conviction for public mandate, the cost is borne by institutions and citizens alike.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.