외국인 보호 및 강제퇴거절차와 구제절차에 대한 공법적 고찰
A Public Law Analysis of Alien Protection, Expulsion and Remedial Measures
0
조회
0
다운로드
39
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
With the increase of alien activities within Korea, the matters of alien protection and expulsion have become a social problem. Expulsion, as stipulated in the Immigration Control Act, is a serious restriction that deprives the livlihood of those aliens who have entered the country voluntarily. Due to the extraordinary nature of aliens and the fact that gaining access to remedial measures is virtually impossible, no one with the exception of a few civic groups, have raised the issue at all. The purpose of this work is to examine from a public law perspective the procedural aspects of the Immigration Control Act concerning expulsion. In this regard, it is critical to study the implications of Article 12 of the Constitution which protects personal freedom. Generally, the warrant requirement of the Korean Constitution only applies to investigation procedures. Therefore arrest, detention, seizure and search in the process of expulsion are not considered to be unconstitutional, even if they are carried out without a court-issued warrant. However this does not mean that due process of law can be disregarded. In order for the expulsion procedure to become a substantive hearing, legislative changes should be introduced, including the separation of investigation procedures from legal proceedings, as well as the granting of neutral and independent powers to the judicial institution responsible for such cases. Although the Constitution is read as not applying the warrant requirement in administrative procedures, paragraph 6 of Article 12 plays a complementary role by guaranteeing post hoc judicial remedies for arrest cases. The legal concretization of such an approach outside the realm of criminal procedural law is the Habeas Corpus Act. Unfortunately the provisory clause of Article 2 of the Habeas Corpus Act excludes the most vital remedy for personal freedom with regard to those protected by the Immigration Control Act. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and therefore necessitates an amendment.
Abstract
With the increase of alien activities within Korea, the matters of alien protection and expulsion have become a social problem. Expulsion, as stipulated in the Immigration Control Act, is a serious restriction that deprives the livlihood of those aliens who have entered the country voluntarily. Due to the extraordinary nature of aliens and the fact that gaining access to remedial measures is virtually impossible, no one with the exception of a few civic groups, have raised the issue at all. The purpose of this work is to examine from a public law perspective the procedural aspects of the Immigration Control Act concerning expulsion. In this regard, it is critical to study the implications of Article 12 of the Constitution which protects personal freedom. Generally, the warrant requirement of the Korean Constitution only applies to investigation procedures. Therefore arrest, detention, seizure and search in the process of expulsion are not considered to be unconstitutional, even if they are carried out without a court-issued warrant. However this does not mean that due process of law can be disregarded. In order for the expulsion procedure to become a substantive hearing, legislative changes should be introduced, including the separation of investigation procedures from legal proceedings, as well as the granting of neutral and independent powers to the judicial institution responsible for such cases. Although the Constitution is read as not applying the warrant requirement in administrative procedures, paragraph 6 of Article 12 plays a complementary role by guaranteeing post hoc judicial remedies for arrest cases. The legal concretization of such an approach outside the realm of criminal procedural law is the Habeas Corpus Act. Unfortunately the provisory clause of Article 2 of the Habeas Corpus Act excludes the most vital remedy for personal freedom with regard to those protected by the Immigration Control Act. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and therefore necessitates an amendment.
참고문헌 (41)
- 계희열, "헌법학(중) 신정2판" (2007), 박영사
- 고준성, "미국의 출입국관리제도", 법무자료, 170 (1993), 법무부
- 김남진, "행정법 Ⅰ" (2008), 법문사
- 김남진, "행정법 Ⅱ" (2008), 법문사
- 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ 제14판" (2008), 박영사
- 김성수, "일반행정법 제4판" (2008), 법문사
- 김시철, "형사사법제도에 관한 우리나라와 미국의 헌법 등에 대한 비교법적 검토 -미국의 헌법이 우리 형사사법제도에 미친 영향 등을 중심으로-", 헌법논총, 15 (2004), 헌법재판소
- 김영조, "행정조사에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1998
- 김철수, "헌법학개론 제19전정신판" (2007), 박영사
- 류지태, "행정법신론 제12판" (2008), 신영사
- 박균성, "행정법(상) 제7판" (2008), 박영사
- 박균성, "행정상 인신구속에 대한 법적 통제, in: 공법학의 제문제 : 현제 김영훈박사 화갑기념" (1995), 법문사
- 박상순, "외국인의 강제퇴거제도에 관한 연구’", 법무연구, (26) (1999), 법무연수원
- 박윤흔, "최신행정법강의(상) 개정 29판" (2004), 박영사
- 배종대, "신형사소송법" (2008), 홍문사
- 문준조, "주요국가의 외국인 이주노동자의 지위와 규제에 관한 연구", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2007)
- 서주실, "수정헌법 제4조와 영장제의 예외", 미국헌법연구, (9) (1998), 미국헌법학회
- 성낙인, "헌법학 제7판" (2007), 법문사
- 신동운, "경찰관의 불심검문과 교통검문", 고시연구, 20(10) (1993), 고시연구사
- 윤명선, "적법절차의 원리", 경희법학, 26(1) (1992), 경희대학교
- 윤명선, "헌법학" (2000), 대명출판사
- 이규창, "외국인 추방과 인신의 보호- 우리나라 강제퇴거제도의 문제점을 중심으로 -", 국제법학회논총, 50(2), pp.157~179 (2005), 대한국제법학회
- 이희정, "미국이민법제에 관한 연구", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2007)
- 장영수, "기본권론" (2007), 홍문사
- 정정훈, "출입국관리법상 단속, 보호, 강제퇴거 절차상의 문제점과 개정방향", 반인권적 출입국관리법 개정안 마련을 위한 토론회 자료집, 인권단체 연석회의 (2005)
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2006), 박영사
- 정하중, "행정법총론 제3판" (2006), 법문사
- 조홍석, "정신병원에의 수용과 기본적 인권", 법학논고, 15 (1999), 경북대학교 법학연구소
- 최홍엽, "외국인 강제퇴거절차와 관련한 몇 가지 쟁점", 민주법학, (33), pp.355~386 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 출입국ㆍ외국인정책본부, "출입국관리정책론(Ⅰ)", 법무부 출입국ㆍ외국인정책본부, ~ (2008)
- 하명호, "행정상 인신구속과 구속적부심사제도의 도입에 관하여", 헌법논총, 16 (2005), 헌법재판소
- 홍정선, "행정법원론(상) 제16판" (2008)
- 홍준형, "행정법총론 제3판" (1997), 한울아카데미
- 허영, "헌법이론과 헌법 신판" (2007), 박영사
- 大谷正義, "人身の自由の法的保障" (2000), 晃洋書房
- 坂中英德, "出入國管理及び難民認定法 逐條解說" (1994), 日本加除出版
- 野中俊彦, "憲法Ⅰ(第4版)" (2007), 有斐閣
- 松井幸夫, "行政手續と令狀主義および默秘權 : 川崎民商事件, in: ジュリスト 別冊 155號 : 憲法判例百選Ⅱ(第4版)" (2000), 有斐閣
- Matthew S. Mulqueen, "Rethinking the role of the exclusionary rule in removal proceedings’", Saint John's Law Review, (Summer) (2008)
- Keidel, "Freiwillige Gerichtsbarkeit 15.Auflage" (2003), Verlag C.H.Beck
- v.Mangoldt, "Bonner Grundgesetz Kommentar Band 3 4.Auflage" (2001), Vertrag Franz Vahlen
