본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국, 호주, 한국의 난민정책 비교 연구: 정책추진체계와 지원프로그램을 중심으로

A Comparative Study on the Refugee Policy in the United States, Australia and South Korea: Focusing on Policy Implementing System and Support Programs

권경득|임동진|이광원
한국비교정부학회 (The Korean Association For Comparative Government)|2020.09|한국비교정부학보 (Korean Comparative Government Review)|제24권 제3호|pp. 1-37|DOI 10.18397/kcgr.2020.24.3.1

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

난민정책Refugee PolicySupport Program정책추진체계난민심사난민인정지원프로그램Refugee ScreeningRefugee ApprovalPolicy Implementation System
주제분류행정학

초록

(Purpose) The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze refugee policies in the United States, Australia, and South Korea and to present the implications for refugee policies in South Korea based on the comparative analysis. (Design/methodology/approach) In order to compare refugee policies in the three countries, (1) refugee status, (2) refugee-related laws and systems, (3) policy promotion organizations and operating systems, (4) policies and support programs were set as comparison criteria. (Findings) First, the US hosts an average of 60,000 refugees each year, Australia hosts 15,000 people, and Korea hosts 480 people. Second, the United States and Australia accept refugees separately from foreign and domestic refugees, while Korea accepts only domestic refugees. Third, looking at the refugee approval rate, the US is 42.6%, Australia is 15.7%, and Korea is 4.1%. Fourth, on average, the refugee screening process takes 20-33 months in the US, 6-12 months in Australia. and 8 months in Korea. Australia's fast-track refugee approval process system is increasing the speed and efficiency of refugee screening. Fifth, Australia has included the Refugee Act in the Integrated Immigration Act, so refugee and immigration policies are organically linked. On the other hand, the U.S. and South Korea have separate refugee and immigration laws, so refugee and immigration policies are not interconnected. Sixth, Australia and Korea are divided into refugees and humanitarian residents through refugee screening and are differentiated in terms of duration of stay and support services. Finally, despite considerable differences in the level and content of various refugee support services that support refugees, the three countries recognize refugees as their own citizens and provide various refugee support services equivalent to their own citizens. (Research implications or Originality) First, treatment improvement and support services for humanitarian residents are needed. Second, the advancement of refugee screening and approval procedures and the rate of refugee approval should be increased. Third, it is necessary to raise awareness that can resolve stereotypes and prejudices about refugees of Korean people. Fourth, it is necessary to strengthen the capacity of refugee screening officials, introduce fast-track procedures and set up an organization dedicated to refugee screening. Fifth, it is necessary to increase the social integration of refugees by closely linking refugee policy to immigration policy. Finally, it is necessary for the response to the refugee issue to be pursued in a reasonable, objective and long-term manner.

Abstract

(Purpose) The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze refugee policies in the United States, Australia, and South Korea and to present the implications for refugee policies in South Korea based on the comparative analysis. (Design/methodology/approach) In order to compare refugee policies in the three countries, (1) refugee status, (2) refugee-related laws and systems, (3) policy promotion organizations and operating systems, (4) policies and support programs were set as comparison criteria. (Findings) First, the US hosts an average of 60,000 refugees each year, Australia hosts 15,000 people, and Korea hosts 480 people. Second, the United States and Australia accept refugees separately from foreign and domestic refugees, while Korea accepts only domestic refugees. Third, looking at the refugee approval rate, the US is 42.6%, Australia is 15.7%, and Korea is 4.1%. Fourth, on average, the refugee screening process takes 20-33 months in the US, 6-12 months in Australia. and 8 months in Korea. Australia's fast-track refugee approval process system is increasing the speed and efficiency of refugee screening. Fifth, Australia has included the Refugee Act in the Integrated Immigration Act, so refugee and immigration policies are organically linked. On the other hand, the U.S. and South Korea have separate refugee and immigration laws, so refugee and immigration policies are not interconnected. Sixth, Australia and Korea are divided into refugees and humanitarian residents through refugee screening and are differentiated in terms of duration of stay and support services. Finally, despite considerable differences in the level and content of various refugee support services that support refugees, the three countries recognize refugees as their own citizens and provide various refugee support services equivalent to their own citizens. (Research implications or Originality) First, treatment improvement and support services for humanitarian residents are needed. Second, the advancement of refugee screening and approval procedures and the rate of refugee approval should be increased. Third, it is necessary to raise awareness that can resolve stereotypes and prejudices about refugees of Korean people. Fourth, it is necessary to strengthen the capacity of refugee screening officials, introduce fast-track procedures and set up an organization dedicated to refugee screening. Fifth, it is necessary to increase the social integration of refugees by closely linking refugee policy to immigration policy. Finally, it is necessary for the response to the refugee issue to be pursued in a reasonable, objective and long-term manner.

참고문헌 (78)

  1. 안성경, "난민의 지위와 인정 절차의 법제화에 대한 비판적 검토: 독일 난민법과 비교를 중심으로", 유럽헌법연구, (13), pp.127~150 (2013), 유럽헌법학회
  2. Andrew & Renate Kaldor Center for International Refugee Law, "Refugee Status Determination in Australia. Fastsheet", UNSW Sydney, ~ (2019)
  3. "Australia's Refugee Policy: an Overview" (2020)[URL]
  4. Asylum in the United States: How a Finely Tuned System of Checks and Balances Has Been Effectively Dismantled, "Cadman, D.", Center for Immigration Studies, ~ (2014)
  5. The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis : Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities, "Carrera, S.", CEPS, ~, pp.CEPS Essasy 20 (2015)
  6. Ex-post Legislative Evaluation of Refugee Law, "Choi, Yoo", Korea Legislative Research Institute Research, ~ (2017)
  7. 최유경, "미국 난민법 체계와 시사점 - 전문 비호심사관 제도의 확충을 위한 제언", 공법학연구, 18(4), pp.397~430 (2017), 한국비교공법학회[DOI]
  8. Daily Korea, "Last Year, There Were More Than 1.2 Million Refugee Applicants from EU Member States", Newspaper, ~ (2016)
  9. Department of Home Affairs, "Fact sheet - Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian programme", ~ (2018)
  10. "Humanitarian program" (2020)[URL]
  11. Fitzpatrick. J., "The International Dimension of U. S. Refugee Law", Berkeley Journal of International Law, 15(1), pp.1~26 (1997)
  12. Gibney, M. J., "The Ethics and Politics of Asylum : Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees" (2004), Cambridge University Press
  13. Griffith, E., "Problems of Interpretation in Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Proceedings Under the Immigration and Nationality Act", Loyala Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, 2(1), pp.255~309 (1996)
  14. 홍정화, "한국 난민정책의 한계와 대안 - 제주 예멘 난민 사례를 중심으로 -", Crisisonomy, 15(4), pp.47~62 (2019), (사)위기관리이론과실천[DOI]
  15. 임진희, "난민문제에 대한 중국의 인식과 관련 정책 연구:유럽 난민문제를 중심으로", 현대중국연구, 20(3), pp.115~152 (2018), 현대중국학회[DOI]
  16. Jang, Bok-hee, "Domestic implementation of international refugee law", Social Science Research, 19, pp.241~257 (2003)
  17. Jang, Eun-young, "US Refugee Approval Process and Settlement Assistance", Monthly Welfare Trend, 210, pp.28~34 (2016)
  18. Jeong, Dongjae, "An Analysis of the Conflict Patterns in Korean Society over the Refugee Treatment Problem: Focusing on the Yemeni Refugee Treatment Process in Jeju", Conference Papers of the Korean Society for Public Administration (2019)
  19. 정금심, "난민 인권 보호를 위한 난민법 개정 방향 연구 - 난민 심사 및 난민 처우를 중심으로 -", 법조, 67(3), pp.645~698 (2018), 법조협회[DOI]
  20. 강진구, "텍스트마이닝(Text Minning)을 통해 본 제주 예멘 난민 -네이버 뉴스 댓글을 중심으로", 다문화콘텐츠연구, (30), pp.103~135 (2019), 문화콘텐츠기술연구원[DOI]
  21. 강명원, "프랑스의 난민 심사절차에 관한 고찰 -신속절차제도(procédure accélérée)를 중심으로-", 유럽헌법연구, (29), pp.143~176 (2019), 유럽헌법학회[DOI]
  22. 김철민, "보스니아 난민 문제 현황과 난민 정책에 관한 연구", 동유럽발칸연구, 26, pp.409~436 (2011), 동유럽발칸연구소
  23. A Study on the Improvement Plan of the Refugee Screening System, "Kim, Dae-geun", Korea Criminal Policy Research Institute, ~ (2017)
  24. 김대근, "출입국항 난민지위신청 절차의 법해석적 지평과 대안", 고려법학, (93), pp.73~114 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
  25. Kim, Hee-jung, "A Review of the EU Common Refugee Policy and Implications for the Refugee Policy in Korea", Journal of the Korean Society for Immigration Policy Winter Conference (2019)
  26. 김화연, "협력적 난민지원 관리에 대한 시론적 연구: 미국 유타(Utah)주 솔트레이크시티(Salt Lake City)를 중심으로", 국정관리연구, 14(2), pp.1~35 (2019), 성균관대학교 국정전문대학원[DOI]
  27. Kim, Ki-tae, "The Social Security System for Refugee Claimants in the UK and its Issues", International Social Security Review, 8, pp.61~71 (2019)
  28. 김성진, "영국의 난민정책: 시리아난민 사례를 중심으로", 정치·정보연구, 19(2), pp.107~140 (2016), 한국정치정보학회[DOI]
  29. Kim, Ye-kyung, "Refugee Inflow Response Policies and Improvement Plans", Analysis of Current Issues by the National Assembly Legislative Research Office, 20 (2018)
  30. Immigration Policy in the United States and Implications for Asia-Pacific Countries, "Kim, Young-jun", National Security Strategy Research Institute Research, ~ (2018)
  31. 김영술, "독일의 난민 수용과정에서 나타난 정책 변화의 연구", 분쟁해결연구, 16(2), pp.99~134 (2018), 분쟁해결연구센터[DOI]
  32. King, J., "Factors Affecting Australia's Refugee Policy: The Case of the Kosovars", International Migration, 39(2), pp.73~92 (2002)
  34. Korea Immigration Service, "Refugee Approval Procedure Guidebook", ~
  35. 권한용, "난민문제에 대한 국제적 논의와 한국난민정책에 대한 시사점", 아주법학, 10(1), pp.213~249 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
  36. 권경득, "호주 이민정책(프로그램)의 실태분석 및 정책적 함의: 이민자, 난민 및 불법체류자 관리를 중심으로", 한국비교정부학보, 23(2), pp.35~65 (2019), 한국비교정부학회[DOI]
  37. 이병렬, "캐나다, 호주, 독일, 프랑스 난민정책의 특성에 대한 연구", 한국사회정책, 18(2), pp.33~68 (2011), 한국사회정책학회[DOI]
  38. How to Improve Refugee Recognition and Trial Procedures, "Lee, Hye-young", Judicial Policy Research Institute Research, ~ (2017)
  39. Lim, Dong-Jin, "A Study on the Use of Education Programs to Improve Awareness of Immigrants and Ways to Improve Them", Korean Immigration Policy Journal, 3(1), pp.1~26 (2020)
  40. 임지영, "2015년 이후 프랑스 난민정책과 여론", 한국프랑스학논집, 106, pp.185~204 (2019), 한국프랑스학회[DOI]
  41. Loescher, Gil, "Refugee Movements and International Securit", IISS Annual Conference Papers, ~ (1992)
  42. Ministry of Justice, "A Study on Improvement of Refugee Screening Expertise through Analysis of Refugee Screening Cases in Major Developed Countries" (2015), Ministry of Justice
  43. Mossaad, Nadwa, "Refugees and Asylees: 2015. Annual Flow Report" (2016), Homeland Security's Office of Immigration
  44. Mossaad, Nadwa, "Refugees and Asylees: 2018. Annual Flow Report" (2019), Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Statis
  45. "Refugee Support Services" (2020)[URL]
  46. Oh Byung-hoon, "Problems and Improvement Measures of Refugee Policy in Korea", Policy Development Research, 15(1), pp.69~95 (2015)
  47. Oh, Seungjin, "Significance and Problems of Refugee Law Enactment", International Law Society Journal, 57(2), pp.91~112 (2012)
  48. 박선욱, "난민보호에 관한 국제법의 국내적 이행 - 국내이행법률로서의 난민법에 관한 논의 -", 가천법학, 6(3), pp.21~46 (2013), 법학연구소
  49. Institutional Theory: Problems and Prospects, "Peters, B. Guy", Institute for Advanced Studies, ~, pp.IHS Political Science Series Working Paper 69 (2000)
  50. Phillips, J. P., "Boat Arrivals in Australia Since 1976", Background Notes Commonwealth of Australia, ~ (1976)
  51. Price, M., "Persecution Complex: Justifying Asylum Law's Preference for Persecuted People", Harvard International Law Journal, 47(2), pp.413~466 (2006)
  52. State of the Nation: Refugees and People Seeking Asylum in Australia, "Refugee Council of Australia", Refugee Council of Australia, ~, pp.Refugee Council of Australia Reports 1 (2017)
  53. 노동영, "난민법 개정방향과 강제송환금지원칙", 법과정책연구, 19(3), pp.471~496 (2019), 한국법정책학회[DOI]
  54. Sainz-Pardo, P., "The Contemporary Relevance of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees", The International Journal of Human Rights, 6(2), pp.23~34 (2002)
  55. Sawer, M., "Australia : The State of Democracy" (2009), Federation Press
  56. 석인선, "제주 예멘 난민사태와 인간안보: 사회통합방안을 중심으로", 민족연구, (74), pp.92~115 (2019), 사단법인 한국민족연구원[DOI]
  57. 심성은, "EU 난민정책의 회원국 국내법에 대한 영향: 프랑스 사례연구", 통합유럽연구, 10(2), pp.191~226 (2019), 유로메나연구소[DOI]
  58. A Study on the Direction and Policy Agenda of Korean Refugee Policy, "Shin, Ji-won", IOM Immigration Policy Research Institute Research, ~ (2012)
  59. Son, Byeong-deok, "Suggestions for Resolving Social Conflict through the Jeju Refugee Cr", Conference Papers of the Korean Society for Immigration Policy (2019)
  60. Song, Young-hoon, "The Implications and Future Challenges of Enacting the Refugee Law; Enactment of Refugee Law and Protection of Refugees' Rights: To Develop Settlement Support Programs beyond Legal Protection", Public Interest and Human Rights, 12, pp.189~212 (2012)
  61. 송영훈, "난민의 인권과 국가안보: 한국 난민법 개정의 쟁점을 중심으로", 담론201, 19(3), pp.55~82 (2016), 한국사회역사학회[DOI]
  62. Did the Refugee Crisis Contribute to the Recent Rise of Far-right Parties in Europe?, "Steinmayr, A.", DICE, 24~27, pp.15(4) (2017)
  65. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Annual Flow Report: Refugees and Asylees: 2017" (2019)
  66. "Figure at a Glance" (2017)[URL]
  67. Global Trends Forced displacement in 2018, "United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees", The UN Refugee Agency, ~ (2019)
  68. "Administration for Children and Family, U.S Department of Health & Human Services"[URL]
  69. "Department of Home Affairs, Australian Government"[URL]
  70. "Korea Immigration Service"[URL]
  71. "New South Wales Government"[URL]
  72. "New South Wales Government"[URL]
  73. "Roads to Refuge"[URL]
  75. "Southwest Key Programs"[URL]
  76. "The UN Refugee Agency, Korea"[URL]
  77. "International Rescue Committee"[URL]
  78. "U. S. Department of Homeland Security"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

호주 이민정책(프로그램)의 실태분석 및 정책적 함의: 이민자, 난민 및 불법체류자 관리를 중심으로권경득, 이광원, 이종익, 임동진한국비교정부학회 · 한국비교정부학보2019 · 제23권 제2호한국과 세계 난민 실태와 현황 비교연구원영숙이주다문화연구소 · 다문화사회와 교육연구2019 · 제3권 한국의 난민정책: 「난민법」 제정 전과 후를 중심으로손다선한국이민행정학회 · 한국이민행정학회보2024 · 제3권 제1호난민 정착지원 정책개발을 위한 북한이탈주민 정착지원 정책과의 비교 연구김수경, 김희주, 장주영국회입법조사처 · 입법과 정책2021 · 제13권 제1호한국 난민제도의 임시성과 불협성: 제도 현장을 중심으로박서연다문화사회정책연구소 · 현대사회와 다문화2025 · 제15권 제3호한국 난민정책의 문제점과 개선방안오병훈한국정책개발학회 · 정책개발연구2015 · 제15권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

정부간 관계와 지방감사: OECD 국가 지방감사기구 비교분석양지숙pp. 39-63지방정부의 국정참여제도에 대한 비교 분석: 영국, 프랑스, 일본을 중심으로하혜수, 김철회pp. 65-92Development Aid from the Donor’s Point of View: An Institutional Analysis of British Aid to Statistics최동훈, 진유강pp. 93-128Welfare Magnets and In-migration: Do Welfare Magnets Work in Korean Local Governments?조근식, 서정욱pp. 129-151Structural Relationship Analysis of Influential Factors on the Success of University Students’ Start-up: Application of System Dynamics Method조용란pp. 153-172
원문 보기