성소수자의 난민인정요건 - 대법원 2017. 7. 11. 선고 2016두56080 판결의 비판적 검토 - = Refugee Status Claims Based on Sexual Orientation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the recent ruling, the Supreme Court has developed legal doctrines on refugee status claims based on sexual orientation for the first time. Issues such as the meaning of 'a membership of a particular social group', whether a group based on sexual orientation corresponds to a particular social group, whether the concealment of one's sexual orientation can constitute persecution, and whether specific past experiences of persecution are necessary for homosexuals to be recognized as refugees were addressed. The Supreme Court has opened the possibility for sexual minorities to be recognized as refugees by judging that groups based on sexual orientation can be particular social groups. However, the Supreme Court judged that concealing sexual orientation in any case regardless of the reason for concealing sexual orientation does not constitute persecution and in addition, the Supreme Court specified concrete past experience of persecution as a requirement so that the possibility for applications for refugees based on sexual orientation to be accepted was remarkably reduced. In light of the precedents of other countries on the concept of refugees and the guidelines of UNHCR and other countries, there seems to be no basis for a limited interpretation of the requirements for recognition of sexual minorities as refugees. In this respect, the legal doctrines of the target judgment should be reviewed again.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

대법원은 대상판결에서 성적 지향에 기초한 난민신청에 관한 법리를처음으로 전개하였다. 특정 사회집단의 의미, 성적 지향에 기초한 집단이특정 사회집단에 해당하는지, 성적 지향을 숨기는 것이 박해에 해당할 수있는지, 동성애자가 난민으로 인정받기 위해서는 과거의 구체적인 박해 경험이 필요한지 등의 쟁점이 다루어졌다. 대법원은 성적 지향에 기초한 집단이 특정 사회집단에 해당할 수 있다고 판단하여 성소수자의 난민인정 가능성을 열어 두었다. 그러나 성적 지향을 숨기게 된 이유가 무엇인지 불문하고 어느 경우에나 성적 지향을 숨기는 것은 박해에 해당하지 않는다고판단하였고, 거기에 더하여 과거의 구체적인 박해 경험을 요건으로 함으로써, 성적 지향에 기초한 난민신청이 받아들여질 가능성은 현격하게 낮아지게 되었다. 그러나 난민협약의 난민 개념에 관한 다른 나라의 판례, 유엔난민기구나 다른 나라의 지침 등에 비추어 보면, 성소수자의 난민인정요건을제한적으로 해석할 근거는 없는 것으로 보인다. 이 점에서 대상판결의 법리는 다시 검토될 필요가 있다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최송화, "한국 행정법학 50년의 성과와 21세기적 과제" 36 (36): 1995

2 정인섭, "난민의 개념과 인정절차" 경인문화사 2011

3 김태환, "난민법상 난민요건으로서 특정 사회집단 구성원에 관한 연구" 56 : 2013

4 유엔난민기구, "난민 지위의 인정기준 및 절차 편람과 지침"

5 "UNHCR intervention before the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v. X, Y and Z"

6 Nicole LaViolette, "UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’: a Critical Commentary" 22 (22): 2010

7 Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, "The Refugee in International Law" 2007

8 James C. Hathaway, "The Law of Refugee Status" 2014

9 Andreas Zimmermann, "The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol – A Commentary" 2011

10 UK Visas and Immigration, "Sexual identity issues in the asylum claim version 6.0" 2016

11 Vincent Chetail, "Research Handbook on International Law and Migration" Edward Elgar 2014

12 International Commission of Jurists, "Refugee Status Claims Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - A Practitioners'Guide"

13 Erika Feller, "Refugee Protection in International Law – UNHCR’s Global Consultation on International Protection" 2003

14 James C. Hathaway, "Queer cases make bad law" 44 : 2011

15 UNHCR, "International Commission of Jurists, Expert Roundtable on asylum claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression Brussels, 27 June 2014 - X, Y and Z: The “A, B, C”of Claims based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity?"

16 United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Guidance for Adjudicating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex(LGBTI) Refugee and Asylum Claims"

17 Kay Hailbronner, "EU Immigration and Asylum Law – A Commentary" 2016