학위논문 (석사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 국제대학원 국제학과(국제협력전공), 2021. 2. 한정훈.The refugee policy of a state has been studied as an outcome of its domestic
political decision. Existing research found two patterns in states refugee
acceptance: acceptance of refugees for its national economic interests or reluctance
of refugees for the fear of disruption of a states ethnic homogeneity. However, a
states refugee policy is not simply an output of domestic politics, but it is an
outcome of constant tensions with the principles and norms of the global refugee
regime. Considering its policy formation structure with its relations to the
international refugee regime, this research applies a modified model of Matland to
shed light on the effect of policy ambiguity. It compares the two countries refugee
policies in the period of each countrys refugee crisis by establishing a firm basis of
international refugee regime: South Korean refugee policy (2018-2020), as a case
of a policy failure, contrary to German refugee policy (2015-2016), a case of policy
success. South Korean policy failure is prompted by a cloud-like refugee status
determination process and their access to legal entitlements due to deliberate policy
ambiguity. This ambiguity largely appears in discord with the international refugee
regime in its definition and categorization in the refugee act. Three major elements
prompting policy ambiguity are found: large discretion to the implementation
authority, legal fragmentation and contradiction in domestic laws, and the lack of
available resources. Conversely, Germanys clock-like refugee status determination
process and their access to legal entitlements fully endorse the international refugee
regimes norms and principles. Moreover, it further crystallized and specified
potential ambiguity in the process of internalization in the domestic legal sphere
and amendment process. Finally, this researchs finding draws scholarly attention
to the necessity to address the effect of deliberate ambiguity on policy failure in the
South Korean refugee act by seeking German asylum act as a policy learning
model for lowering ambiguity via the legislative process.난민정책은 국내정치의 결과로 주로 연구되어 왔다. 기존연구에서는
난민정책의 두 가지 패턴을 확인했다. 먼저 일부 국가들은 경제적 측면을
고려하여 국익을 위해 난민을 수용하며 다른 국가들은 민족동질성 파괴를
우려하며 수용을 거부한다. 그러나 한 국가의 난민 정책이 단순히 해당
국가의 국내정치적 결과인 것만은 아니다. 난민정책은 국제 난민레짐의
규범 및 원칙과의 끊임없는 긴장의 산물이기도 하다. 따라서 본 연구는
국제레짐과의 연관성 속에서 정책형성구조를 고려하여 매틀랜드의 수정된
모델을 난민정책에 적용함으로써 모호성이 난민정책에 야기하는 영향을
조명한다. 국제난민체제를 기준으로 사회경제지수와 문화민족동질성은
유사하지만 정책모호성에서 차이를 보이는 한국 (2018~2020)의 실패와
독일 (2015~2016년)의 성공 사례를 비교한다. 한국의 실패는 의도적
정책모호성이 야기한 모호성이 난민지위결정과정과 지위 문제에서
비롯된다. 이러한 정책모호성은 난민법의 정의와 분류에서
국제난민체제와의 불협화음을 보인다. 정책모호성을 야기한 세 가지
요소로는 광범위한 재량권, 다른 국내법과의 충돌, 가용 자원의 부족이
확인되었다. 이와 반대로 독일은 시계처럼 명확하고 체계적인
난민지위결정과정과 지위체계를 운영하며 국제난민체제의 규범과 원칙을
준수했다. 뿐만 아니라, 혼란의 여지가 있는 조항들은 국내법제화 및 개정
과정에서 잠재적 모호성을 없애고 명확히 했다. 이러한 본 연구의 결과는
현재 한국 난민정책의 의도적 모호성이 난민 정책실패에 끼친 영향을
해소하기 위한 학계 주목의 필요성을 시사하며, 입법과정을 거쳐
모호성을 낮춰온 독일의 난민정책을 정책학습의 모델로 확인한다.CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION １
1.1 Research Background １
1.2 Research Objective ４
1.3 Structure of the Thesis ６
CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY ７
2.1 Research Question ７
2.2 Variables and Indicators ８
2.3 Research Method １３
CHAPTER III. REFUGEE POLICY SUCCESS AND FAILURE ２２
3.1 International Refugee Regime and the 1951 Convention ２２
3.2 Policy Success: German Asylum Policy ２３
3.3 Policy Failure: South Korean Refugee Policy ２６
3.4 Debates on the Cause of the South Korea's Policy Failure ２８
3.4.1 Rule of Law and Democracy ３１
3.4.2 Comparison of the Refugee Legislative Act Structure ３４
3.4.3 Point of Departure: Ambiguity in Refugee Policy ３７
CHAPTER IV. REFUGEE DEFINITION AND CATEGORIZATION ３９
4.1 Introduction of the Chapter ３９
4.2 Definition and Types of Refugees in the 1951 Convention ４０
4.3 South Korea: Localization and Its Spill-Over ４２
4.4 Germany: Full Acceptance and Systematic Categorization ４７
4.5 Sub-Conclusion ５２
CHAPTER V. REFUGEE RECOGNITION PROCEDURE ５５
5.1 Introduction of the Chapter ５５
5.2 Procedural Principles and Negative Decisions in the International Refugee Regime ５８
5.3 South Korea: Constant High Procedural Ambiguity and State Inaction ５９
5.4 Germany: Lowering Ambiguity via Legislative Reforms ６２
5.5 Comparison of Procedural Ambiguity ６３
5.5.1 Pre-Asylum Application Stage and Port of Entry Procedure ６３
5.5.2 Regular Procedure ６５
5.5.3 Negative Decision ７０
5.5.4 Appeal Procedure ７１
5.6 Sub-Conclusion ７３
CHAPTER VI. REFUGE'S LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS ７７
6.1 Introduction of the Chapter ７７
6.2 The Legal Entitlements in the 1951 Convention ７８
6.3 South Korea: Constant Ambiguity Restricts Access to Entitlements ８０
6.4 Germany: Lowering Ambiguity for Comprehensive Entitlements ８１
6.5 Comparison of Legal Entitlements by Category ８４
6.5.1 Refugee Status Applicants ８４
6.5.2 Protection Decision Beneficiaries ９３
6.6 Sub-Conclusion １０１
CHAPTER VII. CONCLUSION １０８
7.1 Conclusion １０８
7.3 Research Implication １１１
7.3 Discussion １１３
BIBLIOGRAPHY １１４
ABSTRACT IN KOREAN １２９Maste
