What Is the ‘Uri Law Research Association’ Shaking Up the South Korean Judiciary? A Thorough Analysis of Its Influence and Conflict with Conservatives

Introduction: The Liberal Force Driving South Korea’s Judiciary
Have you ever heard of the “Uri Law Research Association (우리법연구회)”? This organization is a liberal legal group that has exerted significant influence on South Korea’s judiciary. In recent years, the appointment of judges affiliated with the Uri Law Research Association has become a major point of contention in high-profile cases, such as the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk-yeol and the trial of Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party. This article explains the founding background, ideology, and political connections of the Uri Law Research Association in an accessible way, while analyzing their multifaceted impact on Korean society.

1. What Is the Uri Law Research Association?
The Uri Law Research Association was a progressive, liberal legal organization in South Korea, established in 1989 and dissolved in 2018. The word “Uri (우리)” means “we” in Korean, reflecting their pursuit of fairness and justice for society as a whole. Its founding was influenced by the June 29 Declaration of 1987, which marked South Korea’s transition from military rule to democracy. The association was established to ensure judicial independence, uphold the rule of law, and protect citizens’ rights.
Originally, the Uri Law Research Association started in the mid-1970s as a small group within the Judicial Research and Training Institute, centered around senior professors. It began as study meetings combined with meals led by these professors. The group was organized by a mentor from Gwangju High School, a minority within the legal profession, and was mainly composed of legal professionals from the Honam region and those involved in activist circles. Over time, it developed into an academic gathering that increasingly influenced progressive politics.

2. The Ideology of the Uri Law Research Association: For Whom Is Justice?
Members of the Uri Law Research Association were deeply reflective about the judiciary’s use as a tool of government during past military regimes. They viewed the law not as an instrument of state power but as a means to protect citizens’ rights and achieve social justice. Through judicial reform, they sought to redefine the role of law.

• During the military regime, the National Security Act was abused to suppress leaders of the democratization movement and civil activists, labeling them as “anti-state forces.”
• In the 1980 Gwangju Democratization Movement, citizens faced violent suppression, resulting in many casualties.
• Under emergency decrees, even criticizing the government could lead to long prison sentences, and the judiciary routinely issued rulings aligned with the regime’s intentions.

Based on these historical examples, the Uri Law Research Association asserted that “the judiciary should function not to preserve state power but to protect citizens’ freedoms and rights.”

3. The Roh Moo-hyun Administration and the Uri Law Research Association: A Honeymoon and Backlash
The association’s influence peaked during the administration of President Roh Moo-hyun. President Roh himself was a member of the Uri Law Research Association, and under his government, members of the group occupied key judicial posts such as Minister of Justice and Chief Justice, accelerating judicial reform.
However, some members were outspoken regarding North Korea. Notably, founding member Lee Ki-baek praised North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, which provoked strong backlash from conservatives. This statement was criticized as “anti-state” in South Korean society and deepened conflicts with conservative forces.

4. Conflict with Conservatives: What Does Judicial Political Neutrality Mean?
Since the 1990s, the Uri Law Research Association has continued to wield significant influence in South Korea’s judiciary, but its progressive ideology has drawn harsh criticism from conservative circles.
Conservatives have accused judges affiliated with the association of over-politicizing the judiciary whenever they issue rulings in major cases.
Particularly, they pointed to the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun-hye and judicial decisions affecting large corporations. During the Moon Jae-in administration, legal professionals from the association were appointed to key positions in the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. Conservatives strongly reacted, arguing that “the judiciary is dominated by progressive forces and has lost fairness.”

5. Ongoing Controversies: President Yoon Suk-yeol’s Impeachment Trial and the Uri Law Research Association
Recently, the appointment and influence of legal professionals close to the Uri Law Research Association have been at issue in President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment trial and the election law violation trial of Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung.
In particular, the involvement of former association members as judges in the Constitutional Court for President Yoon’s impeachment trial has sparked debate. Specifically, Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyun-bae, Justice Lee Mi-seon, and Justice Jung Kye-sun are all former members of the Uri Law Research Association, raising questions about their political stance and impartiality in the trial.
Conservatives warn of “unfair rulings favoring progressive forces,” while progressives argue that these judges are “essential for protecting judicial independence.”

6. The Future of the Uri Law Research Association: Judicial Independence and Political Neutrality
Although the association’s influence has diminished compared to the past, it still occupies an important position within the judiciary and politics, remaining at the center of debates over “judicial independence” and “political neutrality” in South Korean society. Going forward, the ideology and influence of the Uri Law Research Association should continue to be closely observed for their impact on Korea’s legal system and politics.

To Our Readers: Share Your Opinion
What is your view on the influence of the Uri Law Research Association? How should the political neutrality of the judiciary be ensured? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.