Abstract
Over the last twelve years of its existence, the new Constitutional Court of Korea has shown itself to be an independent and active body. Its mandate, as construed from the Constitutional Court Act and Articles I 11- 113 of the Constitution, gives it expansive powers to provide a check on over-reaching governmental authority and to be a force forjudicial activism. However, the Court faced a great degree of skepticism as it began its existence. Much of this skepticism was justified, given the role of previous constitutional courts/committees in Korea as mere rubber stamps for governmental action. The judiciary in Korea has not traditionally taken on an activist role. Judges, though well trained and highly qualified, are civil servants. They follow a well-defined career path to rise through the ranks of a rigidly hierarchical system that contains at least sixteen promotional steps. This kind of hierarchical system does little to help cultivate ranks of independent and activist judges. Additionally, though opinions of the Supreme Court have certainly had great influence on the lower courts, the Korean legal system has not emphasized the principle of stare decisis. According to Article I of the Korean Civil Code the sources of law are (in order of preference): statutes, customary law and principles of law. Judicial decisions are not even mentioned. Yet despite the lack of a tradition of effective constitutional review in Korea, the new Constitutional Court has made great strides in establishing its own institutional identity and securing its legitimacy.