Seoul — The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) has urged South Korea’s National Assembly to reconsider a proposed Civil Code Amendment Bill (Bill No. 2215932), warning that it would expand administrative powers over religious organizations in ways the group says could violate constitutional protections and international human rights commitments.
The WEA outlined its concerns in a detailed two-page statement released on 1 June 2026, signed by Rev. Adv. Botrus Mansour, Secretary General of the World Evangelical Alliance, and Godfrey Yogarajah, WEA’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom.
In its analysis, the WEA said the bill—introduced in January 2026—would give administrative authorities “broad powers to investigate, suspend, and dissolve religious organizations” and to “transfer their assets to the national treasury,” based on criteria that are not defined in the legislation.
The alliance highlighted standards using terms such as “political involvement” and “violation of the separation of church and state.” The WEA argued that the “breadth and imprecision” of these provisions raise “serious questions under South Korea’s own Constitution and its international human rights obligations.”
Godfrey Yogarajah said freedom of religion or belief is not a privilege granted by the state. “When nations bound by international covenants begin treating the regulation of faith communities as a matter of administrative convenience, they undermine the very pluralism that makes democracy possible.”
The WEA said it respects South Korea’s “long and distinguished record as a democratic nation committed to the rule of law, human rights, and the flourishing of civil society,” but expressed “deep concern” about the bill under parliamentary deliberation. The statement warned that the bill appears to clash with South Korea’s constitutional order. Yogarajah added that “every democratic nation, regardless of its dominant religious tradition, has a solemn obligation to uphold FORB not just in name, but in the substance of its laws and institutions.”
The WEA cited Article 20, saying it guarantees freedom of religion and that “church and state are to be separated.” It also cited Article 16, which—according to the WEA—protects citizens from intrusion into their residences and requires judicial warrants for searches or seizures.
The Evangelical statement said the bill’s provisions for “compulsory administrative inspections of religious premises, conducted without judicial warrant” appear “directly at odds” with those constitutional protections, adding:
“A constitutional challenge, should the Bill be enacted, would appear inevitable.”
A central focus of the WEA statement was what it described as a conceptual problem with the bill’s justification. The WEA said the sponsors invoke “separation of church and state” to justify state authority to audit, suspend, and dissolve religious groups, but that the alliance believes this reverses the doctrine’s meaning.
The statement says:
“This inverts the principle entirely. In every democratic constitutional tradition, including South Korea’s own, the separation of church and state is a protection of religion from the state — not a licence for the state to supervise, discipline, or extinguish religious communities.”
“Legislation that claims to enforce this separation while conferring unlimited administrative control over religious life does not implement the principle; it abolishes it.”
The WEA also pointed to South Korea’s status as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The statement said Article 18 guarantees freedom of religion or belief, including the right to manifest faith in worship and community life, and cited the UN Human Rights Committee’s view that restrictions on religion must be “narrowly prescribed by law, necessary, and strictly proportionate to a legitimate aim.”
The WEA argued the bill fails the ICCPR requirement that restrictions be formulated with sufficient precision to be foreseeable. It said vague language such as “political involvement” and “violation of the separation of church and state” is undefined and could encompass routine religious activities, including:
- pastoral statements on public ethics
- civic engagement by congregations
- advocacy on matters of conscience
The statement warned: “The inevitable result is a chilling effect.” It said religious bodies would be “compelled to self-censor” and withdraw from legitimate civic life “for fear of administrative action, regardless of whether such action is ever taken.”
The WEA said the bill gives authorities power to conduct compulsory inspections, summon religious leaders for questioning, revoke legal status, and seize congregational property—raising “serious and well-founded questions,” especially “in the absence of robust judicial oversight and clearly defined due process protections.”
Evangelicals also raised concerns about ICCPR Article 22, which protects freedom of association. It said religious bodies are associations “in the fullest legal sense,” and that the UN Human Rights Committee has held that dissolution requires “compelling justification,” “independent judicial process,” and “strict proportionality.”
The statement says: “An administrative dissolution power exercised on vague political grounds, without judicial determination, falls well short of this standard.”
The WEA said it recognizes governments have a legitimate interest in preventing abuse of corporate structures for “criminal, financial, or anti-social purposes.” However, it argued that existing legal systems already address wrongdoing. “Such accountability is most appropriately and effectively pursued through existing mechanisms of criminal law, electoral regulation, and civil oversight, frameworks that offer defined standards, judicial supervision, and the protection of due process.”
The statement also argued that where remedies already exist, new broad administrative discretion fails the necessity test under ICCPR Article 18(3). It said:
“New powers are not justified simply because a problem exists; they are justified only when existing tools are demonstrably insufficient.”
In an appeal to South Korean institutions, the WEA asked lawmakers to:
- “give careful and thorough consideration” to constitutional and international human rights dimensions
- explore whether objectives could be met with “more narrowly tailored measures,” subject to “independent judicial review and transparent due process protections”
It also encouraged the government to engage in “open and inclusive dialogue” with religious communities, including “the mainstream Korean Christian bodies” that have raised constitutional concerns.
The World Evangelical Alliance requested that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and relevant intergovernmental bodies engage constructively with Korean authorities, saying it should occur “in a spirit of dialogue and shared commitment to international norms.”
The WEA concluded by emphasizing respect for Korean sovereignty and the democratic process, saying it hopes the outcome will reaffirm South Korea’s “proud tradition of protecting freedom of religion or belief for all its citizens and for all communities of faith.”
Read the complete statement below:
Stay Connected