The Politics of Asylum 시험 대비 1 (아렌트)

아, 시험공부 정말 하기 싫다. 게다가 한국에서 돌아온지 얼마 되지 않아 시차도 적응되지 않고 비몽사몽 오락가락하는 마당에 집중을 하려니까 도저히 집중이 되지 않는다. 하지만 어쩌겠나, 이 모듈의 에세이 점수도 잘 받아놓은 마당에 마지막에 망쳐버리면 얼마나 후회스러울까. 늦게라도 정신줄을 잡아보자. 나는 외국어를 배울때 어휘를 잘 외우는 편이지만, 그외 학문을 배울 때는 암기가 무척이나 취약하다. 되새김질이 오래 걸린다는 소리다. 각설하고, 정리를 해볼까.

내가 이번 학기에 선택한 과목은 The Politics of Asylum이다. Asylum 은 무엇인가? 번역하면 망명. Asylum-seekers는 망명 신청자를 의미한다. 망명 신청자는 또 무엇이지. 내가 배웠던 이 과목은 Migration 이라는 포괄적인 범주에서 특히나 Asylum-seekers 와 Refugees에 대해 다뤘다. 2015년은 European Refugee Crisis때문에 유럽 전역이 시끄러웠다. 특히나 시리아 난민인 Aylan Kurdi 라는 아이가 터키의 한 해변가에 죽은채로 발견된 사진을 시작으로 미디어나 정치권에서 일시적인 동정과 감정에 기대어 난민 문제를 해결하고자 하였다. 예를 들어, 영국의 수상인 David Cameron 은 Kurdi라는 아이의 죽음 이전에 이민자들을 'swarm (떼)' 라고 묘사하여 공분을 샀지만, Kurdi가 트위터나 페이스북과 같은 뉴미디어에서 안타깝게 그려지고 있는 동안 그 분위기에 편승하여 'deeply moved'라는 말을 했다. 또한 'moral responsibilities' 라는 표현을 썼으며 'refugees와 economic migrants'의 구분이 필요하다라는 발언으로 반대당과 여론의 뭇매를 맞았다. 사실 나도 부끄럽지만 이 과목을 듣기 전에, refugees와  economic migrants에 정확한 구분이 있을 줄 알았다. 하지만, 그 그분이 정말 무의미하며, '사람'중심이 아닌 '행정 중심' 이라는 사실을 곧 알게 되었다. 서론이 길다.

그럼, asylum은 무엇? 'Originally, the word asylum was the equivalent of sanctuary (피난처, 안식처).' 이것을 현대적으로 생각해보면, 종교시설에 함부로 경찰이 사람을 체포하러 들어갈 수 없는 것을 생각해 보면 될것 같다. 'The person in sanctuary was balanced between the two, and therefore temporarily out of reach of the secular authorities' 세속적인 권위의 손아귀에서 잠시동안 벗어났다고 보면 된다. 이런 망명을 찾는 사람을 'asylum-seeker'라 부른다. 그렇다면, 'refugees'는 무엇인가? 'The term refugee has been used for centuries to describe people fleeing their homeland because of persecution, but also now has a precise meaning of someone who has been granted an internationally recognised status to remain protected in a nation different from their own.' 간단히 말하자면, refugees는 asylum-seekers 중에 asylum을 신청한 국가에서 남을 수 있는 권한을 수여받은 사람들을 의미한다. 그런데 그 조건 중 하나가 'persecution'이다. 벤 다이어 그램 중 가장 안쪽에 위치하는 것이 refugees라 할 수 있다. Migrants>Exile>Asylum-seekers>Refugees 순으로. 

After the United Nations' ad hoc (즉석) attempts to deal with displaced populations in the 1919-50 period, an international treaty, the Geneva Convention, was signed in 1951. IMPORTANT. This set out rules and regulations for the international functioning of a refugee and asylum system. In this system, a process was set out whereby internationally displaced people would apply for the formal status of 'refugee' in another state. This person, having once applied, was granted the status of an 'asylum-seeker'. The rights and responsibilities of people with this status were determined by the nation state in question, whereas those for people who had successfully been granted UN 'refugee status' were set out by the Convention and updated by the United Nations.... The term refugee and asylum seeker are used in precise relation to the Geneva Convention and New York Protocol, where an 'asylum seeker' is an officially recognised person with a case to prove. If the case convincingly (납득이 가도록) demonstrates  that the person has, in the words of the Convention: 'a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion', then he or she may be granted the status of refugee. However, this does not apply to the far large number of people who are displaced from their homes, but remain within the borders of their countries of origin, described by the UNHCR as an 'internally displaced persons' or IDPs. 

An asylum seeker is officially recognised by the State in which they have lodged (제출하다) an application for refugee status. The British rules on this dictate (명령/요구/규칙) that an application can be made on arrival or 'in-country', which means at an appropriate place like a police station, as well as a port or the airport. The application has to be made within a certain period of time after entering the country. The person is then processed, registered and issued with identity documents, and given official leave to remain pending a decision. It is therefore impossible to be simultaneously 'illegal' and an 'asylum seeker', as the fact of being recognised as an asylum seeker necessarily means that a claim for refugee status has been lodged and registered. (illegal 이면서 asylum seeker 일 수가 없다. 그들의 난민 청원이 등록된 경우라서) Indeed, to get away from the idea that a person, rather than a status, can be 'illegal'. Asylum seeking is a driven by political and economic instability. This is reflected in the trends over time that show greater numbers of displaced persons at moments with particularly acute instability (war, internal political conflicts, economic crises, etc), and geographically, with war zones the most likely to be places from which people flee. The other important factor is natural disasters. Indeed, globally, the top countries of origin of asylum seekers in early 2008, for example, were Iraq, Russia, China, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The 2007 provisional figure for people under the UN's responsibility was around 51 million, 26 million of whom have been driven out by war and 25 million by natural disasters. ...Thousands of refugees are voluntarily resettled in their countries of origin through UN programmes, and that figure is now the highest it has been since the early 1990s. 

*To sum up, the international asylum and refugee system is currently based on the international agreements such as the 1951 Geneva Convention and 1967 New York Protocol. 

* UNHCR- the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is charged with monitoring asylum and refugees across the world.  

 [출처: Garner, S. (2010) 'The Racialisation of Asylum', in his Racism: An Introduction. London: Sage, pp.143-58. ]

망명신청자는 난민 신청을 받는 국가로부터 공식적으로 인정을 받는 경우에 해당되며, 난민 신청을 희망하는 국가에 도착한 후 일정 기간내에 신청을 해야하며, 오로지 경찰서나, 항구, 공항을 통해 신청이 가능하다. 그리고 망명 신청자와 '불법' 이라는 말이 양립할 수 없으며, 그 이유는 망명 신청자 자체가 공식적으로 난민 신청을 마친 상태이기 때문이다. 이런 망명 신청의 이유는 여러가지가 있지만 크게 두 가지로 나누면 정치/경제적 불안정과 자연재해적 이유가 있다. 대부분이 속한 나라나 공동체로부터 박해를 당한 경우가 전자이며, 내전이나 경제위기를 포함한다. 2007년 UN의 수치에 의하면 5100만 명의 사람들 중 2600만명이 전쟁으로 인해 망명 신청자가 되었고, 2500명이 자연재해로 인해 망명신청을 하게 되었다.  

Hannah Arendt 의 'The Perplexity of the Rights of Man' (2003) 에서는 현대 난민들이 처한 현실을 잘 말해주고 있다. 

글의 첫장에서 18세기 말의 인권선언은 역사에서 아주 획기적인 사건이라고 말을 한다. "The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history." 또 인권의 선언이 의미하는 것은 인간이 더이상 신의 보호에서 부터 안전하지 않는 새로운 시대에 살고 있다는 것을 의미한다고 말했다. "The proclamation of human rights was also meant to be a much-needed protection in the new era where individuals were no longer secure in the estates to which they were born or sure of their equality before God as Christians." ..."Therefore throughout the nineteenth century, the consensus of opinion was that human rights had to be invoked whenever individuals needed protection against the new sovereignty of the state and the new arbitrariness (독단) of society."  따라서 19세기에는 개인이 국가의 새로운 통치권이나 사회의 독단에 맞서는 보호가 필요할때마다 인권이 적용되어야 한다는 공론이 생겼다. 

"Since the Rights of Man were proclaimed to be "inalienable," irreducible to and undeducible from other rights or laws, no authority was invoked for their establishment; Man himself was their source as well as their ultimate goal. No special law, moreover, was deemed necessary to protect them because all laws were supposed to rest upon them." (p.31) 인권은 누구에게도 빼앗길 수도 없고 단순화될 수 없기에, 어떠한 권위도 인권 앞에 거론될 수 없다. 인간 자체가 궁극적인 목적이자 원천이다. 어떠한 특별한 법도 그들을 보호하기 위해서 필수적으로 여겨지지 않는다. 왜냐하면 모든 법들이 그들에 달려있기 때문. 

"From the beginning the paradox involved in the declaration of inalienable human rights was that it reckoned with an "abstract" human being who seemed to exist nowhere, for even savages lived in some kind of social order. " (p.32) 하지만, 아렌트는 모순에 대해서 지적한다. 인권선언에는 어떤 모순이 있냐면, 어느 곳에도 속해있지 않은 인간에 대해 얘기하고 있다는 점이다. 왜냐하면, 심지어 야만인일지라도 일종의 사회적 법칙에서 살고 있기 때문이다. 애초에 인권 선언에서는 누구나 어떤 법도 인간을 속박할 수 없다고 말하고 있지만, 하지만 실제로 인간은 어느 곳에도 속해있다는 것이 모순점이다. 

"The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as "inalienable" because they were supposed to be independent of all governments; but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them."  (p.32)  인권은 결국에 뺴앗길 수 없는 것으로 정의된다. 왜냐하면 인간은 정부 없이 독립적인 존재로 여겨지지만, 인간이 정부가 없는 상태에 놓여지게 되면 그들은 최소한의 권리만 남게 된다. 왜냐하면 어떠한 권위나 기관도 그들을 보호하려고 하지 않기 때문이다. 

"The stateless people were as convinced as the minorities that loss of national rights was loss of human rights, that the former inevitably entailed that the latter. The more they were excluded from right in any from, the more they tended to look for a reintegration into a national, into their own national community. (p.33)" 국가를 상실한 사람들은 국가권리를 상실한 것이 인권을 일은 것과 동일하게 여겨진다. 전자가 후자를 포함한다. 권리에서 제외될수록 그들은 그들의 민족의 재통합이나 민족적 공동체로 돌아가기를 원한다. 

인간으로서 권리를 되찾으려는 시도보다는, 잃어버린 국가를 되찾으려는 시도가 더 우선시되는 것이다. 왜냐하면 (내 권리 상실=국가 상실)

"The reason why the concept of human rights was treated as a sort of stepchild by nineteenth-century political though and why no liberal or radical party in the twentieth century, even when an urgent need for enforcement of human rights arose, saw fit to include them in its program seems obvious: civil rights- that is the varying rights of citizens in different countries-were supposed to embody and spell out in the form of tangible laws the eternal Rights of Man, which by themselves were supposed to be independent of citizenship and nationality.  (p.34)" 인권이 왜 천덕꾸러기 취급을 받았는가? 그 이유는 시민권 때문이다. 나라마다 다른 시민의 권리가 있고 그 시민권이 실재하는 법의 형태로 나타나며 (영원한 인간의 권리로), 그 권리는 시민의 신분이나 국민의 신분에서 부터 독립되어야 했음. 

Although everyone seems to agree that the plight of these people consists precisely in their loss of the Rights of Man, no one seems to know which rights they lost when they lost these human rights. 누구도 분명하게 인권을 상실했는지 알지 못함.

The first loss which the rightless suffered was the loss of their homes and this meant the loss of the entire social texture into which they were born and in which they established for themselves a distinct place in the world. (집의 상실)  this calamity (재앙) is far from unprecedented (전례없는); in the long memory of history, forced migrations of individuals or whole groups of people for political or economic reasons look like everyday occurrences. What is unprecedented is not the loss of a home but the impossibility of finding a new one. 새로운 집을 찾을 수 없다는 점이다. (집 상실)

The second loss which the rightless suffered was the loss of government protection, and this did not imply just the loss of legal status in their own, but in all countries.  (정부의 보호 상실- 자기 나라의 정부뿐만 아니라 모든 정부로부터의 보호를 상실하는 것을 의미함) ex) a German citizen under the Nazi regime might not be able to enter a mixed marriage abroad because of the Nuremberg law. 

이런 경우 어떻게 해결해야 하나? The trouble arose when it appeared that the new categories of persecuted were far too numerous to be handled by an unofficial practice destined for exceptional cases.  

"Moreover, the majority could hardly qualify for the right of asylum, which implicitly presupposed political or religious convictions which were not outlawed in the country of refuge. The new refugees were persecuted not because of what they had done or thought, but because of what they unchangeably were-born into the wrong kind or race or the wrong kind of class or drafted by the wrong kind of government. (p.35)" 대다수가 망명신청 자격에 못미친다. 또한 새로운 난민들은 그들의  행동이나 사상때문에 박해받는게 아니라, (바꿀 수 없는) 틀린 인종 혹은 계급으로 태어나거나 틀린 정부에서 태어났기 떄문이다. 

"One of the surprising aspects of our experience with stateless people who benefit legally from committing a crime has been the fact that it seems to be easier to deprive a completely innocent person of legality than someone who has committed an offense." 범죄를 저지른 사람보다도 권리를 박탈당하기 더 쉽다는 점. 

The calamity of the rightless is not that they are deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or of equality before the law and freedom of opinion-formulas which were designed to solve problems within given communities-but that they no longer belong to any community whatsoever. 어떠한 커뮤티에서도 속하지 않으며 보호받을 수 없다는 것이 가장 안타까운 점이다. 

Even the Nazis started their extermination of Jews by first depriving them all legal status (the status of second-class citizenship) and cutting them off from the world of the living by herding them into ghettos and concentration camps; and before they set the gas chambers into motion they had carefully tested the ground and found out to their satisfaction that no country would claim these people. The point is that a condition of these complete rightlessness was created before the right to live was challenged. 

The prolongation of their lives is due to charity and not to right, for no law exists which could force the nations to feed them; their freedom of movement, if they have it at all, gives them no right to residence which even the jailed criminal enjoys as a matter of course; and their freedom of opinion is a fool's freedom, for nothing they think matters anyhow, 권리의 문제보다는 자선의 개념으로써 해결되는 것이 문제.

What we must call a "human right" today would have been thought of as a general characteristic of the human condition which no tyrant could take away. 누구도 빼앗을 수 없는것으로 여겨진다. 

아렌트는 국가가 없는 사람들을  노예와 비교했는데, 노예의 조건이 더 낫다고 말하고 있다. 왜? "Yet in the light of recent events it is possible to say that even slaves still belonged to some sort of human community; their labor was needed, used, and exploited, and this kept them within the pale of humanity. To be a slave was after all to have a distinctive character, a place in society-more than the abstract nakedness of being human and nothing but human. 그래도 노예는 어디에라도 속해있기 때문...

그런데 슬프게도, human rights가 지켜질 수 있는가?

"For contrary to the best-intentioned humanitarian attempts to obtain new declarations of human rights from international organizations, it should be understood that this idea transcends the present sphere of international law which still operates in terms of reciprocal (상호간의) agreements and treaties between sovereign states; and, for the time being, a sphere that is above the nations des not exist. Furthermore, the dilemma would by no means be eliminated by the establishment of a "world government." Such a world government is indeed within the realm of possibility, but one may suspect that in reality it might differ considerably from the version promoted by idealistic-minded organisations.  주권 국가간의 상호적인 합의를 통해 얻어지는 거기에, world government가 존재할 수 있다는 생각도 거의 비현실적임.

The survivors of the extermination camps, the inmates of concentration and interment camps, and even the comparatively happy stateless people could see without Burke's arguments that the abstract nakedness of being nothing but human was their greatest danger. 가진것은 인간으로 태어났다. 이건가? (p.41)

Our political life rests on the assumption that we can produce equality through orgaization, because man can act it and change and build a common world, together with his equals and only with his equals. p.43

The great danger arising from the existence of people forced to live outside the common world is that they are thrown back, in the midst of civilisation, on their natural givenness, on their mere differentiation. p.43

The danger in the existence of such people is twofold: first and more obviously, their ever-increasing numbers threaten our political life, our human artifice (책략), the world which is the result of our common and coordinated effort in much the same, perhaps even more terrifying, way as the wild elements of nature once threatened the existence of man-made cities and countrysides. p.44

1. What does Arendt mean by the 'right to have rights'? (권리를 가질 권리는 무엇?)

The 'right to have rights' means to have inalienable or undeducible rights  as human beings. In order to have the right to have rights, he or she should be included in the sphere of sovereign government. This right to have rights is only obtainable under the authority. Also, it means to be bound by the tangible law, not the abstract concept. The right to have rights is decided by legitimate sovereign states which can protect people. 

2. How is state sovereignty relevant to the problems of enforcement of human rights? 

The state sovereignty is an obstacle to the problems of enforcement of human rights. It is because the right to have rights, which we call fundamental right is usually regarded as the rights of citizen. To belong to the sovereign state means to have human rights. However, for the stateless people, they have no authority to protect them. It is not easy to enforce the sovereign states to protect people who no longer belong to any kind of sovereign state. 

3. Who, according to Arendt, has lost the right to have rights. 

The stateless people (asylum-seekers_ have lost the right to have rights.

4. What does Arendt say about slavery in this essay? How does that relate to the rights of stateless peoples? 

Arendt says that slaves still belonged to some sort of human community and their labour was needed, used, exploited, and this kept them within the part of humanity. At least slaves belong to a community. However, the stateless belong to nowhere and they have nothing but being human. 

5. To what extent does this essay apply to displaced people today?

추방된 사람에게도 해당되는가?

This essay applies much to displaced people today. First, no authority exists to protect them. Even if UNHCR and universal concept of human rights exist the cooperation is unlikely to happen due to the different asylum regimes by different sovereign states. Second, the right to have rights means to be included in a certain community or society which can offer people equal rights to be treated as human beings. If someone has lost their rights to have rights but still have access to some kind of benefits, that does not mean the person has the right but they are given benefits as charity. 

<시험문제>

1. Hannah Arendt suggested that refugees fleeing the Nazi regime found they had lost the right to have rights. Explain what she meant by this and discuss its relevance to contemporary asylum regimes in Western states.

Intro. What Arendt meant by the right to have rights is relevant to contemporary asylum regimes in Western states. In this essay, I will identify what the right to have right means and argue that it is relevant to contemporary asylum regimes in Western states.