정신전력 관련 법령의 제·개정 근거 및 토대 정립: 군인복무기본법 및 정훈문화활동훈령 제·개정 방안

Abstract

Although policies related to military spirit have been identified as a national priority, progress has been limited despite a heightened emphasis. Specifically, the legal framework—critical for the budget, manpower, and authority that form the foundation of policy—remains largely unchanged since the early 2000s when the Instruction of Political Training and Culture Activity was issued. In fact, a detailed analysis of the Basic Law on Military Service enacted in 2016 reveals that the legal basis for military spirit has weakened compared to the earlier Military Service Regulations. To ensure that the goal of strengthening military spirit is more than just a slogan, it is essential to establish a legal foundation through the enactment and amendment of laws that account for historical and contemporary realities. This study serves as a normative examination, tracing the historical development of military spirit and drawing conclusions through a reasoned analysis of both historical context and the current state of laws and regulations. It specifically examines texts related to military spirit education, such as the Basic Text on Military Spirit Education from the 1950s onward, the Political Training Manual, the Instruction of Political Training and Culture Activity, and the Basic Law on Military Service. The study proposes a model for updating and revising laws and regulations by identifying gaps and inconsistencies within the current framework. To enhance clarity and the binding nature of the concept of military spirit, it is necessary to enact and amend laws related to it, ensuring that military spirit education obligations are legally enforceable. In particular, the immediate need is to amend both the Basic Law on Military Service (along with its enforcement ordinance) and the Instruction of Political Training and Culture Activity, which form the cornerstone of military spirit and its education. An analysis of the Basic Law on Military Service reveals that the ROK military’s core framework has not fully established the status of military spirit as it has transitioned from the original Military Service Regulations. The ROK military currently defines its code through ideology, mission, and a soldier’s mindset, with the latter being a subset of military spirit. Therefore, it would be prudent to formally incorporate a conceptual definition of military spirit within the legal provisions following ideology and mission. The study further found that a new “duty to foster and strengthen military spirit” is necessary. Like other required education programs within the military (e.g., for sexual violence prevention, personality development, human rights, and child abuse prevention), military spirit education would benefit from being legally mandated and structured within the Basic Law on Military Service and its Enforcement Decree, regardless of changes in administration. With respect to the Instruction of Political Training and Culture Activity, it is critical to clarify the status and purpose of military spirit by formally defining it and its educational obligations. Additionally, the scope of political training activity should extend beyond military spirit education, and content related to mental education should be revisited. Ultimately, if amendments to the Basic Law on Military Service are made, mandatory provisions for military spirit education should also be included. In a democratic nation, the military operates under objective civilian control, which fundamentally requires both political neutrality within the military and the preservation of military expertise. For military spirit and its educational programs to remain consistent and resilient against changes in government, it is necessary to empower these concepts through laws that reflect the public will. Addressing the revision of these laws from a public perspective would thus ensure alignment with democratic values. Therefore, the first step toward meaningful innovation in military spirit should be grounded in a systematic reorganization of the long-overlooked legal and regulatory framework.