Crash Landing on You: Korean Drama, The Dilemma of Law versus Morality

By Vyshnavi Moola 36 Minutes Read

Crash Landing on You is a hit South Korean Netflix Series which was released in December 2019. Soon after its release, it became the second highest-rated Korean Tv show in history. The show is set against the backdrop of the North-South hostilities and depicts a love story between two star-crossed lovers Ri Jeong-Hyoek, a North Korean Captain and Yoon Ser-ri, a South Korean businesswoman who meet due to a paragliding accident when Yoon Ser-ri lands in North Korea. Initially, he suspects that the woman may be a spy but is later convinced that she is not.

The North Korean law requires him to report the woman to the State Department, however he decides against it and chooses to protect her instead. How he manages to protect her and send her home safely forms the themeline of the story albeit with many twists and turns. There are many instances where the show takes a subtle dig at the authoritarian system of North Korea and the plight of its citizens. The predicament of some important characters in the show as to whether to follow the law or to trust their moral judgement has been explored through several nuance angles. The show sends a strong message that the universal human values, ideals and a sense of belongingness as basic humanity triumph over geographical and sovereign boundaries of the states.

The show explores the concept of social solidarity, as well as, the individual dilemma of every human as to whether to adhere to the law of the land or to his conflicting humanitarian consciousness. It also points out perhaps law and justice happen to be different domains altogether, and at times one might stand as a complete contradiction of another.

Concept of Social Solidarity

Social Solidarity or cohesion, according to Duguit, is the principal requirements of the existence of social life. Solidarity is nothing more or less than the fact of interdependence uniting the members of human society, and particularly the members of a social group by reason of the community of needs and the division of labour.[1] Social interdependence is not merely a theory but an important fact of life.

According to Rabindranath Tagore,

“the idea of the Nation is one of the most powerful anaesthetics that man has invented. Under the influence of its fumes, the whole people can carry out its systematic programme of the most virulent self-seeking without being in the least aware of its moral perversion—in fact feeling dangerously resentful if it is pointed out.”

He says that

“for the sake of humanity we must stand up and give warning to all, that this nationalism is a cruel epidemic of evil that is sweeping over the human world of the present age, and eating into its moral vitality.”

He opines that the idea of ‘Nation’ has thriven long upon mutilated humanity. He says that “humans, the fairest creations of God, came out of the National manufactory in huge numbers as war-making and money-making puppets, ludicrously vain of their pitiful perfection of mechanism. Human society grew more and more into a marionette show of politicians, soldiers, manufacturers and bureaucrats, pulled by wire arrangements of wonderful efficiency”.[2] As is evident, Duguit and Rabindranath Tagore were critiques of the concepts of nationalism or sovereignty and gave precedence to the ideas of a shared sense of humanity and brotherhood.

Sharing the same theme line, the show conveys a strong message of social solidarity. It depicts that the differences between North and South Korean’ way of life and culture were not insurmountable. It showed that it was possible for a person to form strong emotional bonds even with people belonging to those nations with whom one’s country has a long history of hostility. It portrayed that the ideas of strict borders, or sovereignty and nationalism are trivial when compared to the common values of humanity and social solidarity. The show projects and acknowledges the principle of world unity, the avatar of India’s cherished principle of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam‘—the world is one family. Stressing upon the point that no matter the differences in one’s nationality, culture, race, gender, caste, creed, and other factors, there is always room for celebration for common humanity and perhaps it just takes a little bit of courage and effort to find a common ground and share a sense of belongingness. The show reminds us to respect and accept the differences as well as to be civil and humane to one another. It suggests that the power of humanity is omnipotent and that it is much nobler and greater than the power of nationalism and sovereignty.

Law versus Morality Dilemma

According to sociologist Simmer, when it comes to the observance of rules, there is a kind of reciprocity between the government and the citizens. He says that “the government intimates the citizens the set of rules that it expects them to follow and in return it assures them that if they abide by these rules, these will be the only ones applicable to their conduct”. The problem stems when the government ruptures this bond of reciprocity because then, there is hardly any strong foundation left on which to base the citizen’s duty to observe the rules. The citizen’s dilemma becomes more difficult when there is no total failure of the system in specific but a slow and drastic deterioration in legality such as occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. When the principal object of the government becomes to use the law to frighten the citizens into obedience and helplessness but not to govern their conduct[3], it forces the citizens to rethink their obedience to the system.

That is precisely what happened with the characters in the Korean drama. The characters were citizens of an authoritarian regime where the law was inconsistent, partial, harsh and there was a sense of constant fear in the minds of the citizens. There were several instances where some characters experienced a constant dilemma between law and morality. More often than not, they followed their moral judgements because they had little faith in their legal system. Some of the instances have been discussed herein. For instance, Ri Jeong-Hyoek (the hero) was conflicted as to whether to report Yoon Ser-ri (the heroine) as the law required him to do or to save and protect her as per his moral judgement and eventually he decided to protect her because he was unsure if the authorities would keep her safe if he reported her. A similar dilemma was experienced by Ms. Dan Seo (fiancé of Ri Jeong Hyoek), who being a citizen of North Korea, had a responsibility to report any fugitive to the State authorities, but she chooses to do what was morally right according to her. She offered  refuge to the con-man Seung-un in her spare apartment in spite of realizing that her move could put herself and her family into danger but still choosing to protect him.

A similar instance is when Yoon-Se-ri, who had legal obligation to report the entry of an illegal immigrant to the State authorities, rather opted to offer protection to Ri Jeong-Hyoek at her home when he planned to illegally cross the border and reach South Korea. The show’s portrayal of this dilemma in each character’s story arc forms the background of the whole tense environment.

It highlights the fact that perhaps the certification of something as legally valid is not conclusive of its moral demand for obedience. As H.L.A Hart said, however great the authority of the system may be, its demands must be subject to moral scrutiny.[4] It can be sufficiently believed as a fact that morality is an inherent part of human existence. Morals play a crucial role in governing human behaviour and society as a whole and when law and morality are treated as separate entities or when the law does not reflect the morals of the society, it creates a problem as is depicted in the series. Fuller comments on the same line that law does not function in vacuum and that it cannot be static, dead or indifferent to the moral, social and cultural standards of the society. Therefore, the author argues that for a legal system to be truly just, law and morality should go hand-in-hand as Fuller had suggested.

Can there be Just Legal Systems?

According to Fuller, there is no ‘just‘ legal system in the world because law is always failing but always striving. He states that all the legal systems are a work-in-progress towards justice. However, Hart contends that there is no necessity that a legal system must always work towards justice. He states that some legal systems work towards injustice too and that there are different ways to govern a society either through good or the bad.[5] Kohler asserts that all laws are relative and conditioned by the civilization in which they arise. But the idea of law has to follow the universal idea of human civilization, and the meaning of civilization is the social development of human powers towards their highest possible unfolding.[6]

One finds agreement with Hart when acknowledging the fact that there are unjust legal systems in the world yet cannot forego the contention of Fuller that all the legal systems in the world should strive towards justice. Law, as a matter of fact, must always act as an enabler for humans to achieve their highest potential and development as suggested by Kohler and this can only be possible through a ‘just legal system’. What is being suggested is the idea of having a ‘just legal system’ in every nation of the world without exception.

A ‘just legal system’ is a system where law and morality operate in harmony and also, one which strives towards justice. The author suggests that certain minimum standards are to be achieved for a nation’s legal system to qualify as a just legal system. The guarantee and enforcement of all the rights enshrined under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[7] should be a minimum standard that every state is expected to achieve. Why Human Rights? For Human Rights promise freedom, equality and dignity as well as a life free from want and fear. For every individual is entitled to certain basic rights by virtue of being a human and they are the inalienable entitlements of all people, at all times, and in all places—people of every colour, from every race and ethnic group; whether or not they are disabled; citizens or migrants; no matter their sex, their class, their caste, their creed, their age or sexual orientation.[8] They provide a foundation for a just and decent future for all, and have given people everywhere a powerful tool in the fight against oppression, impunity and affronts to human dignity.[9]

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the Member States of the United Nations pledge to achieve the promotion of universal respect for and observance of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. However, it is disheartening to note that even after 72 years since the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly, not all countries have achieved the universal standard of adherence to and respect for human rights. There are so many Member States of the United Nations that are still silent spectators or in some cases, perpetrators of mass human rights violations.

Citizens of authoritarian regimes like North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo[10] etc. often experience so much trauma owing to the atrocities committed and perpetuated by their respective states. They are victims of gross Human Rights violations with hardly any recourse. They often risk their lives in an attempt to flee the oppression in search of a better and dignified future. The infamous refugee crisis of Syria is known to the whole world: a catastrophe orchestrated by the March 2011 violent government crackdown on public demonstrations in support of a group of teenagers who were arrested for anti-government graffiti in the southern town of Daraa. As violence increased, families began to flee. Within two months, the first refugee camps opened in Turkey–by March 2013, more than 1 million people had fled Syria. Today, 12 million Syrians are displaced from their homes and more than a million Syrian children have been born in exile.[11]

Another classic example is the authoritarian regime of Maduro in Venezuela which had forced many Venezuelans to migrate to the neighbouring countries. A survey in 1998 showed that less than 1 percent of the population trusted Venezuela’s judiciary. Time and again over the past decade, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice has supported the government’s wishes. In 2009, it ruled that the Chavez government could again seek to change the constitution to abolish presidential term limits. In 2011, it deflected a ruling against the government by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, saying it violated Venezuelan sovereignty. The result is a government in which the administration of justice is not only politicized, but also extremely inefficient. And this decline in the rule of law is a principle contributor to Venezuela’s most acute problems: an unabated crime wave, prison violence, ever-worsening economic dysfunction and the government’s harassment of the political opposition.[12] As a result, people still continue to flee from Venezuela to escape violence, insecurity and threats as well as lack of food, medicine and essential services. With over 4 million Venezuelans now living abroad, the vast majority in countries within Latin America and the Caribbean, this is the largest exodus in the region’s recent history as per the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]

These are only some of the examples of the inhuman treatment meted out by the states to its own citizens. These call for an urgent decisive action from the world community to rethink their priorities and to ensure that every human being is guaranteed a life of dignity, equality and freedom to truly realize the goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the United Nations Charter.

The Idea of a Universal Just Legal System

While there is always a debate around a choice to decide what kind of a legal system should work towards justice or not, it is in the interest of the whole of humanity if the one opted for, strives for the good. The author suggests that a just legal system in every nation is not impossible but it would require supervision and intervention of a Supra-National institution, which has binding force over the states. Such an institution can offer a solution to the increasing curtailment of judicial independence and impartiality in increasingly authoritative regimes in the world. The Supra-National institution could have a Constitution or a document that would forms its foundation and whose sole objective would be the collective good and prosperity of humanity. It should strive towards creating a world where there is peaceful co-existence of people. It should ensure that every individual is guaranteed all the basic human rights—most importantly 4 rights: right to life(covers right to food, water, sanitation and shelter and can be given expansive interpretation), right to quality education, right to gender equality and right to quality healthcare. The job of this institution should be to ensure that every state in the world has a legal system that works towards justice and that the aforementioned 4 rights are guaranteed by the states to all the people residing in their countries.

I am aware of the limitations of this proposal and that this could come across as too optimistic an approach. To begin with, the states would be reluctant to give up their sovereignty, especially the weaker, developing nations due to the apprehension over the threat of colonialism again. Hypothetically, if the states agree to such a system for the collective good, another problem would be that of bias—who would form a part of such an institution and what will be the guarantee of impartiality of treatment or the equal treatment of all the states. Suppose, a person of authority commits a breach of the rules or ideals of this Supra National Institution, what would the punishment be and what would be the adjudicating body? Will it be the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court or will another judicial body have to be established? There are too many questions to be answered and issues to be resolved.

However, we already have such an institution in place with all essential framework though without much binding power. The United Nations can serve as this institution with some reforms. The first step can be the recognition and acceptance of the United Nations as a Supra-National Institution by all the states. Once the United Nations is recognized as a supra-national institution, certain documents adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council could be given certain binding powers. More importantly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter are to made enforceable instruments and every member state should be required to ensure that there are no human rights violations in their states. Every state can be required to submit annual report to the United Nations about the status of Human Rights violations in their country, conducted by an independent commission or authority. Independent officials and commissions of the United Nations could be sent on discrete visits to check the ground status of the country.

Chapter VII[14] of the United Nations Charter can also be induced to operationalize over instances of ‘imminent threat to human rights or violation of human rights’ as a ground for action—to ensure there is an effective recourse if any state fails to protect Human Rights. Supposing such an amendment or interpretation is carried out, the United Nations Security Council would be empowered under Article 39[15] of the Charter to determine whether an ‘imminent threat to human rights or violation of human rights’ exists, and if it does, to determine the kind of measures that shall be taken to deal with the same. Article 40[16] would provide an option to the Security Council to call upon the concerned parties to discuss provisional measures to prevent the aggravation of the situation. Further, Article 41[17] would authorise the Security Council to use soft power against the parties to protect the human rights of the victims. In case the Security Council considers the measures under Article 41 to be inadequate to prevent or curb the human rights violations, it can resort to using military power against the concerned party/parties under Article 42[18]. On similar lines, Article 43[19] and Article 44[20] of the Charter empowers the Security Council to conclude agreements with its Member States or Non-Member States respectively, to provide it with the armed forces, facilities and other assistance needed to safeguard the respect for and observance of Human Rights. Articles 45-47[21] further lay down the process for the use of hard power by the Security Council and Articles 48[22] and 49[23] lay down the obligations of the Member States in case of a threat to human rights or a violation of human rights in the world. In a nutshell, the amendment/interpretation would give extensive powers to the Security Council to prevent or curb human rights violations and this would be a step in the right direction. One may argue that this chapter could be misused by the Security Council to violate the sovereignty of the states. However this problem can be solved through a precise and unambiguous definition of ‘imminent threat to or violation of human rights’ which would leave no room for ambiguous interpretation that could lead to potential abuse of the powers.

Further, a minimum criteria for ‘human rights violations’ should have to be met for the Security Council to be eligible to carry out the enforcement measures under Chapter VII. This criteria should be established by the consensus of the Member States of the United Nations so that this proves to be a powerful tool albeit with reasonable restrictions to effectively prevent and end mass human rights violations.

UN can play a more proactive role towards establishing a World Parliament and a Supra-national institution which would have binding legacy over nation states. Thus if the world leaders be willing, they can definitely play a pro-active role in transforming the United Nations into a Supra-National institution to achieve the goal of a ‘universal just legal system’.

If such a world order could ever be achieved, the characters of the story, just like the unfortunate people caught in the midst of a conflict driven region of the world, perhaps would be spared of the dilemma of choosing nationality over humanity.

[1] Prof. B. Hyderyali (Professor of Law at National Law University Odisha), Sociological Perceptions of Law, Advanced Jurisprudence, e-Pathshala, MHRD Project, Govt. of India, Pg.9, Source Link, (Accessed on May 13, 2020;11:05am).
[2] Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism, MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED, 1917, Source Link, (Accessed on May 15, 2020; 8:45pm).
[3] Srinivas Atreya, Hart-Fuller Debate, Jurisprudence, Source Link, (Accessed on May 13, 2020; 9:00am)
[4] Ibid at pg. no.11.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Id. at 1, pg.no.10.
[7] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations,  Source Link, (Accessed on May 14, 2020; 13:06hrs).
[8] Ibid, at pg. no.6.
[9] Id. at 6, pg. no.7.
[10] The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2019,  Source Link, (Accessed on May 15, 2020; 12:30pm).
[11] Syria Refugee Crisis Explained, UNHCR, February 24, 2020, Source Link, (Accessed on May 15, 2020;14:00hrs).
[12] David Smilde, Venezuela’s Other Crisis: A Justice System Dismantled From Within, Tuesday, February 10, 2015, Source Link (Accessed on May 15, 2020; 14:44hrs).
[13] Venezuela Situation, UNHCR,  Source Link, (Accessed on May 15, 2020; 11:30am).
[14] Chapter VII: Action With Respect To Threats To The Peace, Breaches Of The Peace, And Acts Of Aggression, United Nations Charter, Source Link, (Accessed on May 17, 2020; 7:40pm).
[15] Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
[16] Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
[17] Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
[18] Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
[19] Article 43: All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and the general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
[20] Article 44: When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member’s armed forces.
[21] Article 45: In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46: Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47: There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee’s responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
[22] Article 48: The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
[23] Article 49: The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Vyshnavi Moola

I am an optimist, a liberal, an ambitious and a determined individual. I am a martial artist and I am passionate about health, fitness, sports and performing arts. I aspire to be a pioneer of global change. I believe that public policy is an extremely important tool for effective social intervention and plays an important role in the growth and development of a country. My goal is to work with the United Nations at the highest level and help solve the world’s major problems.