대규모 난민 유입에 대한 국경폐쇄와 인도적 보호

Abstract

Whether neighboring countries can become safe havens is a major concern in case of an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, the question of whether the international law on refugee protection can provide a shield is critical to humanitarian protection to be applied in an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula when the major neighboring countries refuse to accept mass refugee influx, especially when they close their borders in order to block any further inflows. It is not clear whether the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement can prevent the first country of arrival from closing its border in situations of mass refugee influx. The right to asylum has not been fully established as the legal rights of asylum-seekers. It is unsettled yet whether the principle of non-refoulement encompasses the principle of non-rejection at the frontier. As a result, the acceptance of mass refugee influx largely depends on the political and economic interests of the country of arrival. First, a country of arrival will provide prima facie recognition and temporary protection to a large scale of refugee when it accepts the entry of them. However, it is often limited to minimum humanitarian protection. Second, when a country of arrival undertakes a border closure while maintaining humanitarian considerations, it tends to transfer or evacuate the refugee to a safe third country. A country of destination sometimes even blocks the entry of mass refugees influx outside of its territorial waters and transfers them to a third country in order to prevent it from being a major destination for refugees. Third, there is an alternative way of providing a safe haven within the country of origin. In this case, the United Nations Security Council declares the mass refugee influx as a threat to the international peace and security in pursuant to the Chapter VII of the UN Charter and authorizes to establish a safety zone as a military buffer zone within the country of origin. However, a safety zone can hardly provide stable humanitarian protection because its establishment itself depends on highly political and volatile interests and results in militarization of humanitarian spaces. Therefore, international law and practices are yet to be fully established to ensure effective provision of humanitarian protection when neighboring countries close their borders in the event of armed conflicts on the Korean Peninsula.