장애인 차별구제에 관한 비교법적 고찰 – 미국, 영국, 독일 및 프랑스 사례를 중심으로 –

This study examines, from a comparative-law perspective, national frameworks designed to prevent disability discrimination and to provide effective remedies for resulting harms, with the aim of identifying directions for improvement of Korea’s anti-discrimination regime. It proceeds from the concern that Korea’s current system has not sufficiently curtailed recurrent rights violations, reflecting, in particular, the limited enforceability of recommendation-based relief and the structural limits of compensation-centered remedies. To address this problem, the study compares four jurisdictions—the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—using a four-part analytical framework: (1) the clarity and specificity of the legal architecture, (2) the status and powers of the institutions responsible for discrimination redress, (3) procedural accessibility, and (4) the coercive force of remedies. In the United States, a decentralized enforcement structure centered on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act tends to link administrative avenues of redress to judicial relief, and judicial remedies—including injunctions—are widely deployed as mechanisms to prevent repeated violations. In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 consolidates anti-discrimination law, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) supports the effectiveness of the regime through investigations, enforcement measures, and strategic litigation support; a combined model is observed in which judicial determinations are complemented by the implementation and support functions of an independent institution. In Germany, the constitutional principle of equality and the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) recognize claims for cessation/prohibition of discriminatory conduct and for damages, and allow anti-discrimination organizations to represent claimants; however, it is debated that a substantial share of disability-related disputes is addressed through benefit- and service-based schemes, which may limit the accumulation and activation of discrimination litigation. In France, while court-ordered compliance (including orders issued by civil and administrative courts) is institutionally available, in practice petitions to the Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) often function as the principal channel for redress through investigation, conciliation/mediation, recommendations, and links to judicial proceedings. The comparative analysis yields three main implications. First, the statutory articulation of discrimination concepts and remedial standards, together with a more refined design of affirmative remedies—especially prohibitory and mandatory orders and their enforcement—can enhance the effectiveness of redress. Second, independent and specialized equality bodies can substantially improve victims’ procedural access through investigation, corrective measures, and litigation support, but their recommendations should be paired with follow-up mechanisms that secure compliance. Third, courts can play a pivotal role in preventing recurring violations by ordering affirmative remedies aimed at addressing structural inequality; such judicial action is most effective when coupled with policy interventions by the legislature and administrative authorities.