Il Young Jeong
Senior Research Fellow_Institute of Social Science_Sogang University
The South Korean government is pushing to move the Civilian Control Line (CCL) northward and ease regulations governing military facilities in border areas. In this regard, the Ministry of National Defense has announced plans to “actively pursue the lifting and easing of restrictions on protected areas in order to enhance the rights and interests of the public and revitalize local communities, while maintaining a robust military readiness posture.”
From the perspective of easing tensions in border areas and addressing the inconveniences faced by local residents as the government pursues a policy of peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula, measures to ease military facility regulations are certainly welcome. However, concerns have also been raised that the government’s measures may focus too heavily on regional development at the expense of preserving the historical and cultural heritage and ecological environment of the border areas.
What Does the Ministry of National Defense’s Deregulation Plan Entail?
On June 17, the Ministry of National Defense announced a package of measures aimed at easing regulations governing military facilities. According to data released by the ministry, military facility protection zones currently cover approximately 8,240 km² of South Korea’s territory, accounting for 8.2 percent of the country’s total land area. Of this, protection zones in border areas account for 48.6 percent.
Let us take a closer look at the key elements of the latest deregulation measures.
First, the government plans to adjust the Civilian Control Line (CCL) to an average distance of approximately 6 kilometers from the Military Demarcation Line (MDL). As a result, control protection zones covering an area roughly 90 times the size of Yeouido will be downgraded to restricted protection zones. More specifically, the government plans to adjust the CCL in stages beginning in 2027, while reinforcing alternative security measures such as relocating civilian control checkpoints and installing additional boundary fences and CCTV cameras.
Second, the ministry announced that it would optimize restricted protection zones south of the MDL and lift restrictions on an area roughly 150 times the size of Yeouido. In this regard, the Ministry of National Defense issued a public notice on July 22 announcing the initial release of 8,627,856 square meters from restricted protection zones in parts of Goseong County and Sokcho City in Gangwon Province, Pyeongtaek and Goyang cities in Gyeonggi Province, and Yongsan District in Seoul. It also announced the release of 695,080 square meters in the Jochiwon-eup area of Sejong City from flight safety zones, while reclassifying 17,356 square meters in Siheung City, Gyeonggi Province, from a control protection zone to a restricted protection zone.
Finally, the ministry announced that it would first remove 23 military obstacles deemed unnecessary and, in consultation with local governments, undertake improvements to obstacles that are to remain in place. It also plans to establish a new access management system for the Civilian Control Line that will simplify and standardize entry procedures through internet- and mobile app-based applications, while minimizing the time required for identity verification and access authorization through simplified authentication.
Why Is Easing Restrictions on Military Facilities in Border Areas a Problem?
Border areas are places that have borne the full burden of the suffering caused by Korea’s division. Residents of these areas have endured a range of hardships, including damage to their livelihoods resulting from inter-Korean tensions, the impacts of military facilities and activities, and economic losses caused by overlapping regulatory restrictions. In particular, border areas have been subject to extensive regulation and control for as long as the country has remained divided. According to a study by Minjo Kang (2025), as many as 15 laws and regulations govern border areas, including the Act on Protection of Military Bases and Installations.
In the spirit of addressing the suffering endured by residents of border areas as a consequence of national division, the government’s latest measures are certainly welcome. However, efforts to ease military facility regulations in these areas must go hand in hand with discussions on how to preserve the historical and cultural heritage and ecological environment that the border regions contain. This is precisely why the Special Act on Support for Border Areas, enacted to support communities along the inter-Korean border, emphasizes the need to strike a balance between the “sustainable development of border areas left underdeveloped by the division of North and South Korea” and the “systematic preservation and management of the natural environment.”
There is, however, growing concern that the government’s recent push to ease military facility regulations may be overly focused on regional development while neglecting the need to discuss the preservation of historical and cultural heritage and the ecological environment. The lifting of military restrictions in border areas must not lead to a regression in which their historical and cultural heritage and natural ecosystems are damaged or irreversibly degraded.
Rethinking the Value of Preserving Historical and Cultural Heritage and the Natural Environment
Border areas are living sites of history, where the wounds of national division have yet to heal, and ecological treasures that have flourished over those very scars. What, then, are we seeking to do by lifting military facility restrictions in these areas? Are we simply viewing the border regions as yet another opportunity for development?
The development of border areas can have genuine value only when it is discussed from a perspective that goes beyond the narrow logic of regional development and takes into account the preservation of their history, culture, and natural environment. The many foreign tourists who now visit villages along the Civilian Control Line (CCL) presumably do so to experience the historical and ecological value of these places.
A view of the Hantangang UNESCO Global Geopark (Cheorwon Lava Plateau) from the Soi Mountain Observatory in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, South Korea.© Il Young Jeong
In this regard, Germany’s experience in preserving its former border region offers an instructive example. Before reunification, the border between East and West Germany was similarly controlled as a military zone, and after reunification, there was strong pressure to develop the former border areas. Yet civil society, led by environmental organizations, established the Grünes Band (Green Belt), an ecological and peace conservation corridor that preserved the former border as a place for protecting nature and remembering the history of Germany’s division.
Under the Special Act on Support for Border Areas, the South Korean government—through the Ministry of the Interior and Safety—is responsible for establishing a Comprehensive Development Plan for Border Areas. Mayors and provincial governors in border-area local governments are then required to formulate annual project plans in accordance with the comprehensive plan and submit them to the Minister of the Interior and Safety. However, the 20-year plan established in 2011 no longer adequately reflects the current state of inter-Korean relations or the realities facing border communities. As a result, the absurd practice continues year after year: local governments formulate annual project plans based on a comprehensive plan that has, in effect, become little more than a formality.
Lifting military facility restrictions in border areas should entail a much broader social dialogue than simply removing regulatory barriers. The government should engage with civil society to discuss what values we must preserve in these regions and how their true historical, cultural, and ecological value can be protected while pursuing regional development. It should also begin the process of developing a new Comprehensive Development Plan for Border Areas, incorporating the views of local governments, residents, and relevant civil society organizations.
Comments
Post a Comment