The politics of interpretation in the DMZ: reconciling UNC authority and ROK sovereignty under the armistice regime

This paper examines the legal confrontation between the United Nations Command and the Republic of Korea over authority in the Demilitarised Zone through treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Drawing on incidents from 2025 to 2026, it argues that the dispute reflects a structural deadlock between the legacy armistice regime and contemporary demands for administrative governance. The UNC’s text-centred approach, prioritising the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, conflicts with the ROK’s teleological interpretation, which invokes the treaty’s object and purpose to justify administrative autonomy. This politics of interpretation imposes strategic costs on the ROK-U.S. alliance, including erosion of mutual trust and operational coherence ahead of the wartime operational control transfer. To resolve this impasse, the paper proposes functional delegation through differentiated control and permission procedures based on military relevance and armistice-management risk, institutionalised through the Korea-U.S. Integrated Defense Dialogue.