국가의 생명 및 안전보호의무 - 안전권의 헌법화 제안과 함께 -

Reflecting on the Sewol Ferry Disaster and Itaewon Disaster, this article analyzes the content of the state's duty to protect the lives and safety of citizens and its application cases in the wake of the Sewol Ferry Disaster and Itaewon Disaster. Modern society is a society. The safety of many people is threatened by many incidents and accidents, such as natural disasters, industrial accidents due to urbanization and industrialization, and traffic disasters, and many people lose their lives. However, our Constitutional Court still sdheres to a rigid interpretation of the Constitution in response to these risks and disasters. In fact, the Constitutional Court’s two decisions example above target disasters that cause direct infringement on human rights, that is, large-scale disasters in the traditional sense, but the state's duty to protect the right to life or basic rights is a social disaster that occurs structurally in society, a representative example of which is the climate crisis. This is an example - it works resolutely for others, and at this point it should be combined with the state's risk management obligation in the risk society that Ulrich Beck talks about. The issue of state responsibility must be raised to eliminate the risk of structural injustice that Iris Young talks about. Furthermore, based on the results of the analysis, several suggestions were made to define the right to safety as a basic constitutional right. Accordingly, this article first analyzes the state's duty to protect the right to life (Chapter 2) and the people's right to safety (Chapter 3), then points out the state's basic obligations as a disaster and risk management entity and explains why the Constitutional Court's position is While examining whether it is problematic (Chapter 4), several suggestions were made in conclusion to constitutionalize the right to security through constitutional amendment (Chapter 5).