본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유럽인권재판소 ‘판단의 여지’(Margin of Appreciation) 독트린에 대한 비판적 고찰: 소수자 인권 보장과 지역인권재판소의 역할을 중심으로

A Critical Analysis of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence: Rights of Social Minorities and the Role of a Regional Human Rights Court

신윤진
한국인권학회 (Korean Association of Human Rights Studies)|2023.12|인권연구 (Journal of Human Rights Studies)|제6권 제2호|pp. 1-70|DOI 10.22976/JHRS.2023.6.2.1

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

비례의 원칙유럽인권재판소소수자 인권보편성과 특수성the Principle of Proportionalitythe European Court of Human Rights판단의 여지 독트린인권심사기준the Margin of Appreciation DoctrineRights of Social MinoritiesUniversality and ParticularityStandards of Human Rights Review

초록

유럽인권재판소는 당사국의 유럽인권협약 위반 여부를 심사함에 있 어 ‘판단의 여지’(Margin of Appreciation) 독트린을 통해 당사국 정부 가 협약의 해석과 적용에 대하여 넓은 판단여지를 가진다는 이유로 문제된 차별행위나 권리제한조치가 정당하다고 보는 판결을 다수의 사안에서 내려오고 있다. 유럽인권재판소는 사생활의 자유, 사상・양 심・종교의 자유, 표현의 자유, 집회・결사의 자유 등 국제적으로 그 제 한에 대하여 엄격한 심사기준이 확립된 영역에 해당 독트린을 적용하 고있다. 재판소는문제된사안이해당사회의도덕, 종교, 문화와밀 접하게 연관되어 있거나 사안의 쟁점에 대하여 협약 당사국들 사이에 통일된 입장이 없다고 판단되는 경우 개별 국가에 대하여 광범위한 판단의 여지를 인정하는 경향을 보인다. 재판소는 이와 같은 해석태 도의 일반적 근거로서 보충성의 원칙, 국내 기관이 인권해석에 있어 국제 재판소보다 원칙적으로 우월하다는 전제, 당사국의 주권과 민주 주의에대한존중등을제시하고있다. 이와함께, 판결의결론을둘 러싼 당사국들의 저항이나 갈등을 방지하여 재판소의 권위를 확보하 고 유럽인권협약체계의 안정적 운영을 도모한다는 정치적 고려도 중 요하게 작용하는 것으로 보인다. 이와 같은 고려요소와 근거사유들을 바탕으로 적용되는 판단의 여지 독트린은 유럽인권재판소의 심사기준이 ‘다수의 선호’를 지지하는 방식으로 작동되도록 하여 한 사회 내 소수자에 대한 차별과 인권침해행위에 대한 정당화를 보다 용이하게 만든다. 판단의 여지 독트린의 현재와 같은 적용방식은 국내외 정치 적 요소의 압력으로부터 독립되어 보편적 인권원칙을 일관되게 적용 하고 소수자의 인권을 효과적으로 보장해야 할 지역인권재판소의 역 할에 역행한다. 또한 인권 주체가 아닌 국가를 중심으로 인권 사안에 접근하여 인권의 보편성과 특수성의 관계를 왜곡하고 진정한 특수성 의 존중을 어렵게 만든다. 나아가 해당 독트린의 광범위한 사용으로 인하여 비례의 원칙에 기반한 심사가 형해화되면서 법치주의에도 위 협을가져올수있다. 그간판단의여지독트린적용시주요하게고 려되어 왔던 요소들 중 부당한 고려요소들은 배제하고, 구체적 맥락 에 따라 고려의 필요성이 있는 요소들은 비례의 원칙에 기반한 심사 로 포섭하여 체계적이고 일관된 인권심사기준을 확립, 적용할 필요가 있다.

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has habitually applied the margin of appreciation doctrine, granting states parties wide discretion to interpret the provisions and elements of the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to rights restrictions. The Court has applied this doctrine mainly in areas of essential liberty rights, whose restrictions deserve a stricter standard of review. A wider margin of appreciation has been recognized for states in cases where moral, religious or cultural elements in a given society are deemed to be closely engaged or where there is no European consensus on the matter at hand. General grounds provided by the Court for the application of the doctrine include: the principle of subsidiarity, the assumption that the state party is in a better position to interpret the elements of human rights cases compared to international judges, and respect for state sovereignty and democratic processes. Political considerations on the part of the Court to prevent conflict with states parties, secure the authority of the Court and maintain the operational stability of the Convention system also play a crucial role. The margin of appreciation doctrine, based on these elements and considerations, is used to easily justify discrimination and human rights violations against minority groups and individuals in society, as the doctrine tends to drive the Court’s review to uphold majoritarian preferences rather than universal human rights principles. The current use of the doctrine goes against the expected role of the regional human rights court to implement human rights principles coherently and independently of political pressure from within and outside individual states. It also distorts the relationship between the universality and particularity of human rights and hinders the realization of genuine values of particularity in human rights cases. Wide use of the doctrine has also jeopardized the proportionality principle and the rule of law. The Court needs to cease considering improper factors that it has invoked when applying the doctrine, and should instead establish a coherent and systematic adjudication standard, based on the proportionality principle, that incorporates elements necessary for a concrete and contextualized rights review.

참고문헌 (88)

  1. 김대순, "유럽인권재판소의 “판단의 재량” 독트린:법의 지배에 대한 위협인가?", 국제법학회논총, 58(2), pp.11~43 (2013), 대한국제법학회
  2. 송지우, "주권과 보충성: 개념 검토를 통해 본 국제법 규범 이론의 필요성", 법철학연구, 21(2), pp.383~416 (2018), 한국법철학회[DOI]
  3. 정경수, "인권의 보편성과 문화적 다양성의 공존: 유럽인권협약 해석의 판단여지를 중심으로", 국제법평론, (29), pp.153~176 (2009), 국제법평론회
  4. Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka., "The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR" (2001), Intersentia
  5. Bakircioglu, Onder, "The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases", German Law Journal, 8(7), pp.711~733 (2007)
  6. Beitz, Charles R., "The Idea of Human Rights" (2009), Oxford University Press
  7. Benvenisti, Eyal, "Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards", International Law and Politics, 31, pp.843~854 (1999)
  8. Berry, Stephanie., "Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols: Same Right – Different Interpretation?" (2013), Talk!
  9. Bjorge, Eirik., "Domestic Application of the ECHR : Courts as Faithful Trustees" (2015), Oxford University Press
  10. Brauch, Jeffrey A, "The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights : Threat to the Rule of Law", Columbia Journal of European Law, 11(1), pp.113~150 (2005)
  11. Butti, Elena, "The Strategic Use of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights", Jurist, ~ (2012)
  12. Çalı, Başak., "The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes: Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives" (2013), Cambridge University Press
  13. Carozza, Paolo G, "Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law", American Journal of International Law, 97, pp.38~79 (2003)
  14. Donnelly, Jack., "Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice" (2013), Cornell University Press
  15. Feingold, Cora S, "The Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation and the European Convention on Human Rights", Notre Dame Lawyer, 53, pp.90~106 (1977)
  16. Føllesdal, Andreas, "Exporting the Margin of Appreciation : Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights", International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), pp.359~371 (2017)
  17. Fredman, Sandra., "Discrimination and Human Rights" (2001), Oxford University Press
  18. Freeman, Michael., "Human Rights : An Interdisciplinary Approach" (2011), Polity Press
  19. Harris, David, "Law of the European Convention on Human Rights" (2018), Oxford University Press
  20. Henkin, Louis, "Human Rights and State “Sovereignty”", Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25, pp.31~45 (1996)
  21. Hwang, Shu-Perng, "Margin of Appreciation in Pursuit of Pluralism? Critical Remarks on the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the ‘Burqa Bans’", Human Rights Law Review, 20, pp.361~380 (2020)
  22. Kratochvil, Jan, "The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights", Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3), pp.324~357 (2011)
  23. Legg, Andrew., "The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law : Deference and Proportionality" (2012), Oxford University Press
  24. Letsas, George, "Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(4), pp.705~732 (2006)
  25. Letsas, George., "A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights" (2007), Oxford University Press
  26. MacDonald, Ronald. St. J., "The European System for the Protection of Human Rights" (1993), Martinus Nijhoff
  27. McGoldrick, Domonic, "A Defense of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee", International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(1), pp.21~60 (2016)
  28. Nowlin, Christopher J, "The Protection of Morals Under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", Human Rights Quarterly, 24(1), pp.264~286 (2002)
  29. Palombella, Gianluigi, "Non-arbitrariness, Rule of Law and the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ : Comments on Andreas Follesdal", Global Constitutionalism, 10(1), pp.139~150 (2021)
  30. Peters, Anne, "Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty", European Journal of International Law, 20(3), pp.513~544 (2009)
  31. Shany, Yuval, "Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?", European Journal of International Law, 16(5), pp.907~940 (2005)
  32. 신윤진, "Non-Citizens’ Rights, Constitutional Review and an Inclusive Democracy: A Case Study of South Korea", Journal of Korean Law, 19(2), pp.81~118 (2020), 아시아태평양법연구소[DOI]
  33. Talbott, William J., "Which Rights Should Be Universal?" (2007), Oxford University Press
  34. Villa, Marisa I, "Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation and International Adjudication within a Cooperative Conception of Human Rights", International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), pp.393~413 (2017)
  35. Vogiatzis, Nikos, "The Relationship Between European Consensus, the Margin of Appreciation and the Legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court", European Public Law, 25(3), pp.445~480 (2019)
  36. Yourow, Howard C., "The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence" (1996), Martinus Nijhoff
  37. Yusuf, Hakeem, "S. A. S. v France : Supporting Living Together of Forced Assimilation", International Human Rights Law Review, 3, pp.277~302 (2014)
  38. Zucca, Lorenzo, "Lautsi : A Commentary on a Decision by the ECtHR Grand Chamber", International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1), pp.218~229 (2013)
  39. "Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5493", 72 (7 December 1976), 1976
  40. "Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5310", 71 (18 January 1978), 1978
  41. "Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5856", 72 (25 April 1978), 1978
  42. "Klass v. Germany, Application no. 5029", 71 (6 September 1978), 1978
  43. "Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 7525", 76 (22 October 1981), 1981
  44. "Rees v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 9532", 81 (17 October 1986), 1986
  45. "Müller and Others v. Switzerland, Application no. 10737", 84 (24 May 1988), 1988
  46. "Norris v. Ireland, Application No. 10581", 83 (26 October 1988), 1988
  47. "Cossey v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 10843", 84 (29 August 1990), 1990
  48. "Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 14553", 89, 14554, pp.1993, ~
  49. "Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Application no. 13470", 87 (20 September 1994), 1994
  50. "Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 17419", 90 (25 November 1996), 1996
  51. "Z v. Finland, Application no. 22009", 93 (25 February 1997), 1997
  52. "X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 21830", 93 (22 April 1997), 1997
  53. "Sheffield v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 22985", 93 (30 July 1998), 1998
  54. "Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, Application no. 22774", 93 (28 July 1999), 1999
  55. "Dahlab v. Switzerland, Application no. 42393", 98 (15 February 2001), 2001
  56. "Mata Estevez v. Spain, Application no. 56501", 00 (10 May 2001), 2001
  57. "Fretté v. France, Application no. 36515", 97 (26 February 2002), 2002
  58. "I. v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 25680", 94 (11 July 2002), 2002
  59. "Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 28957", 95 (11 July 2002), 2002
  60. "Murphy v. Ireland, Application no. 44179", 98 (10 July 2003), 2003
  61. "Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 65731", 01, 65900, pp.2005, ~
  62. "Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, Application no. 44774", 98 (10 November 2005), 2005
  63. "Dogru v. France, Application no. 27058", 05 (4 December 2008), 2008
  64. "Kervanci v. France, Application no. 31645", 04 (4 December 2008), 2008
  65. "A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455", 05 (19 February 2009), 2009
  66. "Aktas v. France, Application no. 43563", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  67. "Bayrak v. France, Application no. 14308", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  68. "Gamaleddyn v. France, Application no. 18527", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  69. "Ghazal v. France, Application no. 29134", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  70. "J. Singh v. France, Application no. 25463", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  71. "R. Singh v. France, Application no. 27561", 08 (30 June 2009), 2009
  72. "Lautsi v. Italy, Application no. 30814", 06 (3 November 2009), 2009
  73. "Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application no. 30141", 04 (24 June 2010), 2010
  74. "A, B and C v. Ireland, Application no. 25579", 05 (16 December 2010), 2010
  75. "Lautsi and Others v. Italy, Application no. 30814", 06 (18 March 2011), 2011
  76. "Bayatyan v. Armenia, Application no. 23459", 03 (7 July 2011), 2011
  77. "Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 48420", 10, 36516, 10 et al. (15 January 2013), 2013[DOI]
  78. "Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 48876", 08 (22 April 2013), 2013
  79. "S.A.S. v. France, Application no. 43835", 11 (1 July 2014), 2014
  80. "Oliari and Others v. Italy, Application nos. 18766", 11, 36030, pp.2015, ~
  81. "Bayev v. Russia, Application nos. 67667", 09, 44092, 12 (20 June 2017), 2017[DOI]
  82. "Dakir v. Belgium, Application no. 4619", 12 (11 July 2017), 2017
  83. "Belkacemi and Oussar v. Belgium, Application no. 37798", 13 (11 July 2017), 2017
  84. "Fedotova and Others v. Russia, Applications nos. 40792", 10, 30538, 14 (17 January 2023), 2023[DOI]
  85. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, "Copenhagen Declaration", ~ (2018)
  86. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment 22. U.N. Doc. CCPR", C, Rev.1, pp.Add.4[DOI]
  87. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief: Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination in the Name of Religion or Belief, , U.N, ~, pp.U.N. Doc. A (2020), HRC[DOI]
  88. "The Margin of Appreciation"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

유럽인권재판소의 ‘판단 여지(Margin of Appreciation)’ 독트린에 관한 소고장선미법학연구원 · 법학논고2025 · 제90호유럽인권재판소의 개인청구 수리기준에 관한 연구 - 유럽인권재판소의 결정례를 중심으로 -이형석법학연구원 · 법학논고2015 · 제51호유럽인권협약이 보장하는차별금지와 권리제한에 관한 연구- 유럽인권재판소 결정례를 중심으로 -이형석법학연구원 · 법학논고2014 · 제47호유럽인권재판소 판결 집행감독과 아시아인권보장 시스템 적용에 관한 연구이형석법학연구소 · 외법논집2018 · 제42권 제4호프랑스의 부르카 금지법을 둘러싼 유럽인권재판소와 자유권규약위원회의 판단에 관한 소고 – 판단의 여지 독트린 및 인권의 교차성에 대한 검토를 중심으로 –이상혁법학연구소 · 홍익법학2023 · 제24권 제3호유럽인권조약상 교육을 받을 권리: 유럽인권재판소 판결을 중심으로이형석국회입법조사처 · 입법과 정책2014 · 제6권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)

레오 스트라우스와 한나 아렌트의 권리 사상에서 엿보이는 독일 보수주의의 진화전진성pp. 71-109기업과 인권 맥락에서 ‘책임있는 사업철수(Responsible Exit)’ 논의의 전개와 발전방향강민주pp. 111-160보충적 난민수용 경로(complementary pathways)와 난민보호: 캐나다의 노동경로와 TBB 모델을 중심으로최원근pp. 161-188이주노동자 주거 문제의 인권적 접근: 고용허가제 이주노동자를 중심으로이기호pp. 189-243지방정부 인권정책의 권리조건에 관한 고찰: 136개 지방정부 인권기본조례를 중심으로안시형pp. 245-283
원문 보기