In 2025, a total of 20 million Koreans traveled overseas, the annual figure on record. When a flight touches down at a foreign airport, travelers from Seoul hurriedly turn on their mobile phones. The first text messages they receive are from the Korean Foreign Ministry. A series of messages convey travel advisories, disease and contraband information, and emergency contact numbers. This system was established more than 20 years ago — in 2005 — and connects overseas travelers to the authorities in the event of an emergency. As far as I know, only a handful of countries do this.

After immigration and customs, off they go. Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen and emergencies occur in a foreign country. Consuls are officials dispatched from Seoul and posted to the foreign country to come to your rescue in the event of crimes, accidents, injuries, lost passports and whatnot.

What is not clear, though, is how much assistance one can expect from a Korean overseas consul. As of February 2026, Korea has 46 consulates general and consulates all over the world. Where no independent consulate exists, the consular section within an embassy fulfills that duty. Notwithstanding the established digital and physical infrastructure, the exact scope of the consular service is not entirely clear. With the steady increase of overseas travelers, the lack of clarity has become a frequent point of contention.

The typical scenario is this. A Korean traveler reaches out to the Korean consulate general or consular section in the region after he or she falls victim to a locally perpetrated crime. A consul on duty responds in accordance with standard operating procedures. While information and guidance are provided, the ultimate responsibility for taking action rests with the traveler. Often, the request is diverted to the consular call center in Seoul. The distressed traveler often claims that the dialogue with the consul in charge was vague, and the advice was not commensurate with the gravity of the circumstances. The Foreign Ministry then responds that it has fulfilled its obligations.

Let me put it this way. The rule is clear in principle, but its application in a real-world context apparently yields unpredictable and uncertain results. There seems to be a disconnect between the letter of the law and its actual impact.

The Consular Assistance Act, the legislation enacted in 2019 covering this matter, stipulates, for instance: primary responsibility for resolving local issues lies with the individual, with consular services being subsidiary in nature (Article 10); the costs associated with consular assistance are the responsibility of the recipient, except in cases of demonstrated financial hardship or emergency evacuation (Article 19); the support in criminal cases is limited to offering information and guidance on police reporting, investigation proceedings, medical institutions, and lawyers and interpreters (Article 12).

So, under the country’s system, consular assistance is largely limited to information sharing and procedural guidance — a scope that some of the victims of crimes abroad could perceive as inadequate. Apparently, these statutory limitations do not seem to align with common public assumptions — “the government handles all the matters for me when something happens in a foreign land.”

Notably (and understandably), legal and interpretation services represent the most common grievances, often proving to be a delicate issue to navigate. The more grave the situation is, the stronger the demand for these specific services at the scene and immediately thereafter. And yet, overseas missions are not able to provide legal and interpretation services; they can only help the aggrieved national connect with local experts.

In other words, the service here is not about legal or interpretation services per se, but a liaison function to connect travelers with them. This is where a misunderstanding or miscommunication arises. Answers along those lines are legally correct but may feel off, given the psychological state and subjective perceptions of a traveler in a high-stress situation in a foreign country.

The Foreign Ministry website kindly explains what is provided and what is not. But few people visit the website before they leave for the airport. On top of that, expecting travelers to study official webpages during the exigencies of an emergency is divorced from reality. Is there a better way of disseminating relevant information more proactively?

Let’s see the common departure flow at Incheon Airport. Upon completing airline check-in, many travelers visit the service kiosks for international roaming, followed by a stop at the currency exchange and finally the travel insurance desks.

While these tasks can certainly be completed online, many still prefer the physical convenience of these airport-side services. Consular guidance materials can be made available at these physical touchpoints. A specialized service point may be set up at the airport by the Foreign Ministry.

Come to think of it, the government contacts me once I touch down at a foreign airport — when I leave, nobody reaches out to me. Something can be done about this. While people would hate to see any bottlenecks at the time-sensitive airport, a more streamlined solution is certainly feasible. Given the government's current proficiency in automated SMS alerts, it might find a better way to articulate the scope of consular services and assistance and define the boundaries.

Longer term, a more explicit and practical framework should be adopted regarding the mandate and scope of the country’s overseas tourist protection system. For instance, the Seoul-based call center may require augmented staffing to effectively manage legal and interpretation inquiries. Furthermore, consulates general in key locations could onboard dedicated (or perhaps full-time) legal and linguistic experts to respond to pressing inquiries for help.

These select consulates general can operate as "regional hubs" to cover incidents from the jurisdictions of nearby consulates general. Evidently, the current demand outstrips the operational capacity of a single call center in Seoul established 20 years ago.

Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.


khnews@heraldcorp.com