국가의 재난 시 동물 안전관리 의무에 관한 법적 연구

Extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, rainy seasons, typhoons, droughts, and wildfires are occurring all over the world, and Korea is no longer considered safe from disasters. The scale of human and property damage caused by recurring disasters is also increasing every year, and various disasters such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian-Ukrainian war are occurring, and the damage is difficult to predict. Humans are not the only ones whose lives are threatened by these disasters. Animals are also at risk of disaster, as they live in society in various relationships with humans. After a long social discussion on animal safety management in disasters, Article 9, paragraph 4 of the Animal Protection Act, which was completely revised in April 2022, was enacted. This article newly stipulates the obligations of animal owners to protect their animals during disasters. It seems to be a very meaningful enactment as it imposes specific obligations on animal owners to protect and manage animals in the special situation of ‘disaster’. However, it can be seen as a limitation of this provision that it is limited to ‘owners’ who are obligated to manage animal safety during disasters. In the event of a disaster, the only thing animal owners can do is to evacuate with their animals. Even then, evacuees with pets may find it difficult to get into evacuation shelters, and there's not much owners of other animals can do to protect their animals. The key to animal safety in disasters is the ‘entity’ in charge of disaster management. Different disaster management entities have different scope and capacity to protect animals. Instead of placing the responsibility of animal safety management on individuals, the state should be the center of animal safety management in disasters. Instead of simply announcing evacuation instructions, the state should establish a disaster management system that considers both humans and animals in advance in the process of establishing disaster management plans and systems through the revision of relevant laws. In the case of the United States, which has experienced a relatively large number of disasters and has established a disaster management system ahead of Korea and other states, the Planning for Animal Wellness Act (PAW Act) has been enacted to clearly present the scope of animals subject to protection during disasters, and to establish a T/F team of disaster and animal-related experts to properly consider animals in the entire process of disaster management. The U.S. case can serve as a model for domestic disaster management legislation to be revised to consider animals in the future. Therefore, this study will begin by examining the current status of animal safety management in disasters and analyze the limitations of the guidelines proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I will also point out that the newly enacted Article 9(4) of the Animal Protection Act does not overcome the above limitations, and explain that the state should be the main body of animal safety management in disasters. In order to impose an obligation on the state to ensure the safety of animals during disasters, I will review the content of laws on the disaster management of the state and consider whether an animal safety obligation can be added to this obligation. The deaths of animals in disasters should not be seen as unfortunate accidents but as innocent sacrifices of lives that could have been prevented and responded to, but were neglected indifferently. The greater the role of the state in managing animal safety in disasters, the fewer innocent lives will be lost.