경계와 시민: 국민국가의 국경통제는 정당한가?

Abstract

A tight border control of the nation state and the reinforcement of qualification for citizenship have often collided with the universal human rights of refugees and immigrant workers. Their situation would be worsened when we turn down arrival of those people at our gateway. Behind this control policy, most nation states assume that this is our land and that you don't belong to us. Is this assumption true? On what grounds can border control of the nation state be justified? I trace the meaning of borders and rationales of border control from the viewpoint of three normative theories, namely liberal, libertarian, and republican traditions. I explain the dilemma between democracy (that is possible only after being fixed boundary matters) and human rights (that is threatened by the borders of the nation state). This dilemma is more complicated when we realize that human rights began to be guaranteed with the emergence of nation state which has clear borders under the claim of sovereignty. In this regard, Korea is not an exception to the difficult journey in which it should strike a balance between respecting universal human rights and keeping reasonable control of borders. This mission can be achieved through fulfillment of domestic democracy, thus eventually discharge any claims against the value of borders as a physical ground of democratic political community.