감염병의심자에 대한 격리조치와 인권

Abstract

Coronavirus infection-19 (COVID-19) is a first-class infectious disease under the Infectious Disease Prevention and Management Act, and it is also classfied as the new infectious disease syndrome. Article 42 (2) of the same Act stipulates quarantine measures for suspected infectious diseases in the event of a first-class infectious disease. The term, people suspected of contracting an infectious disease was introduced on March 4, in 2020 to expand the scope of quarantine targets, reflecting the need for enhanced quarantine after the MERS outbreak in 2015. The term shows that people recognize COVID-19, which was spreading at a terrifying rate without even knowing the cause of the disease, as a "risk of infection" rather than its own risk. Only some of the people, who had been classified as people suspected of contracting infectious diseases and then quarantined, were confirmed to have COVID-19, while much more people of them were not confirmed. Of course, they have been compensated for the economic losses incurred during the quarantine period, but it cannot be compared to the damage to human rights that were deprived or restricted by procedures, regardless of whether the quarantine period is long or short. The government can limit individual freedom in order to protect the more people’s right to live a healthy life when individual free actions can harm society. However, it is very important for the government to find a balance between the public interest and the human rights which should be restricted by the public interest. Still wee have been fighting an infectious disease (war) that we never know when it will end. Like this, the infectious disease prevention method is also undergoing a process of change in relation to the interpretation and the operation of related regulations based on the principle of proportionality under Constitution. The government tends to use compulsory means which are similar to direct compulsion for the public interest and the purpose of preventing the occurrence and the epidemic of infectious diseases. As a result, while the government can achieve the administrative purposes rapidly, significant human rights restrictions are bound to be imposed. It is very important to discuss how much and how to limit people’s freedom of the body in order to prevent infectious disease. To minimize human rights restrictions, it is necessary, I think, to have legislators and scholars discuss direct compulsion and the scope of direct compulsory application deeply.