An analysis presented on Thursday suggests that the South Korean constitution may allow for a provisional state relationship with North Korea without abandoning the goal of reunification. This comes in response to claims that recognizing North Korea’s two-state policy would be unconstitutional.
At the 2026 Summer Academic Conference of the North Korean Studies Association held at Dongguk University in Seoul, researcher Ryu Ji-sung from the Korea Legislative Research Institute presented his findings. He analyzed the provisions affecting inter-Korean relations and reunification in North Korea’s recently amended constitution, which was revised in March through the Supreme People’s Assembly.
Ryu highlighted that North Korea’s newly added Article 2 (territorial clause) now uses the term Republic of Korea instead of South Korea, seemingly treating the two Koreas as separate states. He also noted that North Korea has explicitly limited its territory to areas north of the military demarcation line.
Ryu emphasized that it’s a positive sign that the territorial clause doesn’t exhibit overt hostility as initially feared. This suggests that North Korea hasn’t completely ruled out other possibilities in inter-Korean relations.
He added that while it’s challenging to definitively conclude that state-to-state relations necessarily mean abandoning reunification, it’s true that treating each other as foreign entities complicates the justification for reunification. This is particularly relevant in the event of a radical situation or regime collapse.
However, Ryu argued that the South Korean constitution allows for a broader interpretation of inter-Korean relations than commonly assumed.
He explained that Article 3 of the South Korean constitution defines the entire Korean Peninsula as the territory of the Republic of Korea, while Article 4 mandates peaceful reunification based on a free democratic order as a national obligation. While abandoning reunification or defining inter-Korean relations as permanently foreign could conflict with the constitution, Ryu believes that viewing the current situation as a provisional and transitional relationship in pursuit of reunification opens up new interpretative possibilities.
Ryu suggested that a provisional two-state relationship for peace and coexistence could be examined within constitutional limits, provided reunification remains the ultimate goal. This interpretation harmonizes the principles of pursuing reunification and peaceful approaches without seeing Articles 3 and 4 as conflicting. He also pointed to the example of East and West Germany, which recognized each other’s statehood while still aiming for reunification.
Ryu proposed that while North Korea has statehood under international law, it should not be considered a foreign entity in the context of inter-Korean relations, as it remains part of the whole of Korea. He believes this framework could facilitate a peaceful coexistence until normalization and reunification are achieved.
However, Ryu cautioned that it’s crucial to remember that East and West Germany lacked territorial clauses in their constitutions and had a stronger foundation for mutual recognition of statehood due to their federal traditions, advantages that the Koreas do not share.