Shortly after the conclusion of the Korean War in 1953, the Buddhist monastic community in South Korea was beset by an internal schism concerning celibacy that turned into a power struggle for control of the Korean sangha. Aside from the temples themselves, the secular courts were the primary battleground in this dispute over monastic marriages and celibacy. The legal case at the heart of the “purification movement” (chŏnghwa undong) offers insight into the monastic community’s attempts to navigate the legal landscape of post-war South Korea. The secular courts had no legal basis under the post-1948 Constitution for deciding whether celibacy was required in order to maintain one’s status as a Buddhist monk. The cases focussed instead on the legality of revising the Chogye Order’s own Constitution (chonghŏn), or more specifically the meeting or gathering in which these changes were authorized. This chapter looks at the intersection of Buddhism and constitutional law in Korea as revealed in these historical events.

This chapter discusses the Cambodian Constitution’s recognition of both Mahanikay and Thommayuth sects, arguing that the reseparation of the sangha was the outcome of a political compromise made in the country’s peace-building process, which has since been overtaken in secular politics. Cambodia’s 1993 Constitution not only symbolized the purported transition to democracy but also the return of Buddhism to the status of state religion. The traditional separation between Mahanikay and Thommayuth sects replaced the unified sangha structure in place since the end of the Khmer Rouge. This new status quo maintains constitutional recognition through the inclusion of the Supreme Patriarch of each sect as members of the Throne Council. However, the novel position of Great Supreme Patriarch brought into question this division. This chapter will suggest that the division should be understood as a political compromise made by the ruling Cambodian People’s Party to the cosignatories of the Paris Peace Accords, and that it leaves an ambiguous new de facto situation within the Buddhist hierarchy. The chapter highlights how the constitutional recognition of Buddhist authority in contemporary Cambodia has been structured by a confluence of party-political and peace-making considerations.

This chapter explores the Vietnamese state’s constitutional framework for governing Buddhism. The framework includes: (1) principles in the big-C Constitution (the formal, written Constitution of 2013); (2) small-c constitutional rules, including broader legislation enacted to implement the formal Constitution, particularly the 2016 Law on Religions and Belief; and (3) the Buddhist constitution, a body of governing law of the Buddhist community, particularly the Charter of the Buddhist Sangha of Vietnam. To some extent, the Vietnamese case illustrates unique features compared to other Buddhist contexts, mainly due to Vietnamese socialism. However, the Vietnamese case also reveals commonalities with the other cases analyzed in this volume.