차별금지 법제화 과정과 입법운동의 동학

Abstract

The Anti-Discrimination Bill was laid for discussion at the 17th national parliament, but failed to be enacted. In this paper, I explore the dynamics in the legislative process through the case of the Anti- Discrimination Bill, investigating how the state and other related parties were involved in the complicated and often troubling legislation movement. Since the Independence from Japan in 1945, one of the major goals in Korean society has been to guarantee human rights as part of liberty rights and to establish democracy, while theoretical and practical concerns over ‘discrimination’ as violation of equality rights have been relatively marginal. Under the Participatory Government, which was set off in 2003, ‘correction of discriminations’ became a national agenda. The Government mapped out institutional strategies to correct discriminations, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) drafted the Anti-Discrimination Bill and recommended that the State (the Prime Minister’s Office) lead its enactment. The Bill was first drafted by the NHRC as ‘NHRC’s Recommendatory Bill’ and revised by the Presidential Commission on Social Inclusion(PCSI) as ‘PCSI’s Final Bill.‘ Then, the Ministry of Justice finalized the Bill as ’the Government’s Bill,‘ and sent it to the parliament for approval. A number of factors and conflicts of interests were put into play in this process, such as the need of enactment of anti-discrimination laws initiated by NHRC as a major supportive organization for victims of discrimination; the demand for separate enactment of laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities; conflicting opinions among the ministries on the social areas the law should be applied to; the collective resistance of people with different sexual orientations; and the overall lack of solidarity for the enactment of ‘anti-discrimination act.’ The role of women’s movement and femocrats was noticeable, while some other social groups, to whom the law would also have brought a great deal of benefits, did not organize themselves enough to play an important role in the legislative process.