KJCKorea
Journal Central

This study critically examines the structural limitations that have hindered the National Education Commission (NEC) of the Republic of Korea from fulfilling its founding mission of securing policy consistency and political neutrality in national education governance. Although the NEC was established in 2022 with high expectations for long-term educational planning and cross-partisan consensus, it has faced growing criticism for its weakened authority, politicized membership, and administrative inefficacy as of 2025. Based on legal analysis, institutional review, and governance theory, this study identifies five core structural challenges: an ambiguous legal status subordinate to the executive branch, politically biased committee composition, functional overlap and conflict with the Ministry of Education, ineffective public participation mechanisms, and a lack of internal policy expertise and budgetary independence. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a set of five integrated reform strategies: (1) re-establishing the NEC’s legal foundation as a constitutionally protected or National Assembly-affiliated independent body; (2) restructuring the committee’s composition through cross-nomination and enhanced representativeness; (3) institutionalizing policy linkages and functional division with the Ministry of Education; (4) formalizing public deliberation and participatory decision-making procedures; and (5) strengthening internal capacity through independent budgeting and in-house policy research infrastructure. This study argues that the NEC’s sustainability as an educational governance institution depends not only on technical institutional design but also on broader reforms in political culture and administrative coordination. Ultimately, rebuilding trust in the NEC requires a fundamental shift toward collaborative, inclusive, and transparent policy-making for the future of education in Korea.

Amid the rapid expansion of the spyware trade market and the growing concern over human rights violations such as unlawful surveillance, the international regulatory landscape is undergoing notable changes. This study analyzes the current dynamics of the spyware market and classifies emerging regulatory trends into distinct typologies in order to propose a set of rational control measures. While engagement with the evolving global regulatory framework is necessary, it is imperative that individual states first establish robust domestic capabilities. Market regulation cannot progress in isolation but must evolve in parallel with multilateral discourse. The current regulatory regime is characterized by a complex mix of enhanced export control measures and direct sanctions against specific companies and individuals. In the long term, the international community must ultimately adopt a strategy aimed at the formalization and legalization of the spyware market. Such an approach would help prevent the abusive use of spyware technologies by sovereign actors. To this end, individual states should institutionalize internal systems that clearly define the authority and oversight over the use of spyware, ensure that domestic entities refrain from transactions with companies known to have engaged in misuse, and regulate outbound transactions with foreign states implicated in human rights abuses. At the international level, there is a pressing need to establish a dedicated treaty body tasked with the development of common standards for contracting parties, enforcement of reporting obligations, provision of technical and institutional support to promote treaty implementation, and centralized management of information related to spyware technologies and their global trade.

While the liberal debate on immigration regulation primarily focuses on individual freedom and rights and economic efficiency, the reality of accepting foreign immigrants is complicated by a variety of factors, including socioeconomic burdens, cultural conflicts, and security concerns. The liberal debate on immigration regulation revolves around the conflict between national sovereignty and universal moral obligations. While liberal nationalists emphasize the right to control borders and maintain social cohesion, liberal globalists advocate for greater freedom of movement and often view the accidental occurrence of being born in a wealthy country as a source of injustice. These debates address practical issues such as the contributions and challenges immigrants pose, the burden on the welfare state, the demands of the labor market, and the moral obligation to address poverty and human rights violations. Liberalism prioritizes individual freedom and rights, and thus takes the following stance on immigration: many liberals oppose immigration control policies. This is because free trade and an open economy are believed to guarantee individuals’ freedom of economic activity and ultimately increase economic efficiency. The freedom to move and work across borders is considered an extension of basic economic freedom. Liberal egalitarians argue that individuals’ birthplace is merely a coincidence and that they have the right to equal opportunities regardless of their country of origin. Therefore, they tend to view the right to migrate as a fundamental human right. In liberalism, the state is viewed as a means of protecting individual freedom and rights, and should not excessively interfere with individual values ​​or freedom of movement. Contrary to this liberal ideal, the reality of accepting immigrants faces various challenges and conflicts. Among the arguments against accepting immigrants, there is the argument that “the welfare of our country’s marginalized groups should take priority.” There are also concerns that an influx of immigrants could lead to job losses or lower wages for local residents. As seen in other countries, including Europe, there are vague concerns about social unrest and increased crime rates due to the influx of immigrants, which can lead to anti-immigrant sentiment. The influx of immigrants often leads to conflicts stemming from cultural differences, or immigrants themselves face difficulties integrating into society due to language barriers, prejudice, and discrimination. The perception that multiculturalism policies have failed is also a real problem. Political leaders sometimes advocate hardline anti-immigration policies, but in reality, they often adjust immigration policies pragmatically to meet economic needs, such as securing essential workers for industries. This demonstrates the disconnect between ideology and reality. Policymakers often face difficult ethical choices, balancing morally valuable objectives, such as a state’s right to exclude, with their moral obligations to potential immigrants. In conclusion, while the liberal stance on immigration regulation emphasizes universal human rights and economic freedom, the actual process of accepting immigrants constantly clashes with complex, realistic issues such as national sentiment, economic impact, and social integration.