Reconsidering political occupational therapy: implications of martial law on occupational justice in South Korea.

Introduction: The imposition of martial law on December 3, 2024, in South Korea has reignited critical discussions on the intersection of political systems and occupational justice. Authoritarian governance imposes significant restrictions and disruption of meaningful occupations and exacerbating inequities, particularly among marginalized communities. This study examines the implications of martial law through the lens of occupational justice and political occupational therapy. Additionally, the introduction engages with organizational communication theories, such as institutional discourse, public rhetoric, and crisis communication frameworks, to position occupational therapists as communicative agents of systemic change. By integrating historical events such as the Gwangju Uprising, the study aims to highlights systemic barriers to occupational engagement and the broader socio-political determinants of occupation. Methods: This study employs an exploratory review methodology to analyze the impact of martial law on occupational justice. Drawing from historical, political, and occupational therapy literature, the review synthesizes theoretical frameworks, policy analyses, and case studies to examine how authoritarian governance shapes occupational participation. The study also explores the role of occupational therapists in addressing socio-political determinants of occupation during periods of political crisis. Results: Findings indicate that martial law imposes systemic occupational disruptions, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, including political dissidents, low-income workers, and individuals with disabilities. Restrictions on movement, expression, and access to essential services limit occupational engagement, reinforcing structural inequalities. Historical comparisons with events such as the Gwangju Uprising demonstrate recurring patterns of occupational injustice under authoritarian regimes. The analysis suggests that occupational therapy, when positioned as an inherently political discipline, has the potential to advocate for occupational rights and mitigate the impact of governance-related disruptions. Conclusion: This study argues for a paradigm shift in occupational therapy, urging practitioners to transcend traditional clinical roles and engage in policy advocacy. Recognizing occupational justice as a fundamental human right, occupational therapists can play a critical role in addressing socio-political determinants of occupation. By advocating for policies that safeguard occupational engagement during crises, the profession can contribute to a more just and equitable society.