대학 인권센터 운영 규정(학칙) 분석 및 쟁점에 관한 검토 — 인권센터 설치 의무화 이후에 제･개정된 운영 규정을 중심으로 —

Abstract

The ‘University Human Rights Center Operation Regulations’ are enacted in the form of ‘school rules’, and the Supreme Court do not view ‘school rules’ simply as internal rules for members, but recognize them as the basis or standard for judgment for dispositions regarding the rights and obligations of citizens, and recognize external binding force by considering dispositions according to school rules as legal. Therefore, the ‘Human Rights Center Operation Regulations’, which are the ‘academic rules’ that serve as the basis for the decisions of the Human Rights Center and the Case Investigation and Deliberation Committee, must have substantive and procedural justification. The issue of substantive and procedural legitimacy of the ‘Human Rights Center Operation Regulations’ is that, regardless of whether the ‘Human Rights Center Operation Regulations’ are recognized as externally binding, it is necessary for university members to actually trust the investigation and decision of the investigation and deliberation committee. This is also an issue that must be addressed in order for the university human rights center to establish itself as a true human rights organization within the university. From the above perspective, this paper examines matters that may pose problems for substantive and procedural legitimacy among the university human rights center regulations. First of all, looking at the ‘qualifications of the director of the human rights center,’ the director of the human rights center must be a person in charge of human rights protection with a high human rights sensitivity and a person who can respond resolutely with a sense of duty to pressure from the school appointing authority or strong protests from one party to the incident. Therefore, it is necessary to broaden the scope of appointment by lowering the qualifications of associate professor or higher, which are stipulated as requirements for the director of the Human Rights Center in relevant laws, and to limit the scope of appointment by increasing expertise by adding having human rights-related knowledge and experience. Next is the issue of who will serve as chairman of the investigation and review committee and the participation of external members. If the investigation and review committee is a place where various members express and gather opinions through peaceful coexistence without being oppressed by the power of power, the chairperson who has the role of presiding over the investigation and review committee may break the peaceful coexistence among the review committee members. I don't think it would be appropriate for someone with such power to take charge of this. Meanwhile, appointing external members as members of the investigation and review committee is intended to prevent the closedness that would result from a case where the investigation and review committee consists only of internal members and to improve the fairness and objectivity of the hearing. I think this is absolutely necessary to improve fairness. Next, according to most school rules, in practice, the only opportunity for the accused person to make a defense during the investigation stage is when he or she is investigated by one researcher or counselor. Therefore, for the sake of the accused person's right to procedural defense and the fairness of review, the consent of the accused person is assumed. It needs to be specified in the ‘Human Rights Center Regulations’ that the review committee (or investigation committee) provides an opportunity for the accused to appear and state his or her opinion. In relation to remedial measures, it is necessary to specify specific measures in the regulations so that victims or respondents can predict what measures they will take if human rights violations are acknowledged. Additionally, if the investigation and review committee takes ‘space separation’ measures, it is necessary to specify and recommend the ‘period’ of ‘space separation’. Lastly, with regard to ‘emergency measures’, considering that these measures are quick measures taken in cases where the protection of the victim's life and body is urgent due to concerns about the spread of damage, it is undesirable for the investigation review committee, rather than the center director, to take emergency measures.