인도적체류자의 가족재결합에 대한 소고: 보충적 보호 및 일시적 보호와의 비교 검토를 포함하여

Korea’s Refugee Act designates individuals who do not qualify as refugees but face a risk of torture, inhuman treatment or punishment, or serious harm as ‘humanitarian status holders’. However, the Act does not specifically stipulate the treatment of humanitarian stay holders, including the right to family reunification. Humanitarian residence permits share certain similarities with complementary (subsidiary) protection and temporary protection beneficiaries, yet they cannot be fully subsumed under either category. Even if humanitarian residence permits were considered a subset of complementary protection, the implementation of family reunification for complementary protection beneficiaries varies by region and country. Therefore, the study proposes the transitional and phased measures from a perspective of gradual realisation: First, the definition of humanitarian status holders should be revised to clarify the legal basis for improvements in the standard of their treatment. Second, mechanisms that reconcile the temporary nature of the status and the necessity of the family reunification, such as a return policy for temporary protection status holder, should be considered. Third, by reference to the practices for subsidiary protection status holder, a minimum period of residence in the host state could be required prior to the application of family reunification. The issue of family reunification presents a conflict between a state's sovereignty over border control and the protection of the right to family life. Family reunification involves the entry and residence of foreign nationals, as states may control the entry and exit of foreigners in the exercise of their sovereign functions. While the right to family life must be respected, it does not inherently confer the right to enter another country's territory. However, given the protection needs of humanitarian status holders and the reality of their long-term residence, it is difficult to deny that a prohibition on family reunification would be excessively harsh for those concerned. It is hoped that the content of this study will be understood as an effort to maintain normative consistency while seeking a balance between sovereignty and human rights.