4 deleted 14 characters in body
source | link

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims its sovereignty over entire Korean peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the "Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" KoreaDPRK is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims its sovereignty over entire Korean peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the "Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims its sovereignty over entire Korean peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the "Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the DPRK is not going to keep its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.
3 unified the references according to @CGCampbell's comment
source | link

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea hasits sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsulapeninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean peopleall Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern"Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea has sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims its sovereignty over entire Korean peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims its sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the "Southern" Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.
2 added a relevant link
source | link

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsulaKorea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea has sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. AdoptingMost likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution requireswould require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens, and we. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that. Most likely, this would require conducting a National referendum on this matter: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea has sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution requires convincing the majority of the citizens, and we could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that. Most likely, this would require conducting a National referendum on this matter.

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

  1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
  2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

  1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
    • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea has sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsula;
    • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
  2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
  3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
  4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
  5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.
1
source | link