South Korea's Ministry of Unification has called for a shift toward a "peaceful two-state relationship" with North Korea in its 2024 Unification White Paper [1, 2].

This policy shift represents a significant departure from the long-standing goal of total peninsula unification. By institutionalizing a coexistence model, the administration seeks to reduce inter-Korean tensions and counter the "hostile two-state" stance previously adopted by Pyongyang [1, 2].

The document is the first White Paper issued under the administration of President Lee Jae-myung [1, 2]. It spans approximately 280 pages and is organized into seven chapters [1]. The report explicitly states the necessity of transitioning the nature of the relationship between the North and South to ensure stability on the peninsula [1, 2].

Legal experts and policymakers are now debating whether this shift conflicts with the South Korean constitution. The current constitutional framework emphasizes the pursuit of a democratic unified territory, and moving toward a two-state model may reignite disputes over the legality of such a transition [1, 2].

Minister Jeong Dong-young has repeatedly raised the necessity of this framework prior to its inclusion in the official report [1]. The Ministry of Unification said the goal is to establish a sustainable peace through the recognition of two separate entities [1, 2].

This move follows a period of heightened volatility. By formally acknowledging a two-state reality, the administration aims to create a pragmatic diplomatic baseline that avoids the immediate, often volatile, requirement of unification as a prerequisite for peace [1, 2].

“South Korea's Ministry of Unification has called for a shift toward a "peaceful two-state relationship" with North Korea”

The transition toward a 'peaceful two-state' policy suggests a pragmatic shift in Seoul's strategy, moving away from the ideal of immediate unification to avoid direct conflict. However, because the South Korean constitution explicitly envisions a unified state, this policy may create a legal paradox that requires either a constitutional amendment or a narrow legal interpretation to avoid being declared unconstitutional.