테러방지법상 대테러 인권보호관의 실효적 인권보호 활동을 위한 입법적 방안

During the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act, various issues with the law were raised through an extended filibuster lasting 192 hours, particularly the serious concerns regarding potential violations of citizens' fundamental rights during the enforcement of the law. The strengthening of extensive information access and collection powers for counter-terrorism agencies, led by the National Intelligence Service, has further increased the risk of human rights violations. Consequently, to overcome the opposition from the opposition parties and civil society regarding the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Counter-Terrorism Human Rights Protection Officer system was hastily introduced in Article 7 of the law to prevent potential human rights violations arising from the extensive information-gathering activities of the National Intelligence Service and other agencies. In contrast to the time of the Anti-Terrorism Act's enactment, current counter-terrorism activities have somewhat fallen out of the political spotlight and public interest, with very few terrorist incidents occurring domestically, leading to South Korea being recognized as a "clean" country regarding terrorism. However, considering our country's international status, international relations, various global events, and the relationship between North and South Korea, the possibility of terrorism still exists. Therefore, continuous preventive measures are necessary, making the role of the Counter-Terrorism Human Rights Protection Officer extremely important. The regulations regarding the Counter-Terrorism Human Rights Protection Officer were hastily established in a manner that only formally appointed one Human Rights Protection Officer to mitigate opposition to the Anti-Terrorism Act. At the time of its enactment, the government and ruling party argued that the activities of the Human Rights Protection Officer could address concerns about human rights violations by intelligence agencies; however, the issues raised at that time remain unresolved. The Anti-Terrorism Act, designed with the extreme forms of terrorism in mind, permits excessive counter-terrorism measures and grants broad authority to counter-terrorism agencies. As a result, these agencies have increased powers to collect information not only from administrative bodies but also from ordinary citizens. This raises concerns about the abuse of power and human rights violations by counter-terrorism agencies. However, the current Anti-Terrorism Act lacks specific provisions allowing human rights protection officers to independently oversee and control such violations, making it difficult for them to carry out their duties effectively. While it is crucial to protect citizens' safety and the existence of society from terrorism, counter-terrorism efforts must also be carried out within the minimum limits of restricting citizens' fundamental rights. Control over counter-terrorism activities should occur within the legislative and judicial branches, but it is more efficient and important to prevent human rights violations in advance through the Counter-Terrorism Human Rights Protection Officer. While sufficient authority must be granted to relevant agencies for counter-terrorism activities, there must also be controls to prevent abuse of power and legal means to remedy violations of fundamental rights. To achieve this, human rights protection officers should be legally empowered to participate in counter-terrorism policies and monitor the legitimacy of these activities. Furthermore, legislative measures are needed to effectively investigate and address human rights violations that may occur during counter-terrorism operations. Therefore, this paper aims to critically examine the risks of human rights violations that the current Anti-Terrorism Act may cause and to propose specific amendments that would allow the Human Rights Protection Officer to effectively supervise or control human rights violations, thereby enhancing the efficacy of the Human Rights Protection Officer's duties.