프랑스의 부르카 금지법을 둘러싼 유럽인권재판소와 자유권규약위원회의 판단에 관한 소고 – 판단의 여지 독트린 및 인권의 교차성에 대한 검토를 중심으로 – = Divergent Conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee on the French Burqa ban : The Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation and Intersectionality of Human Rights

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2010년 제정된 프랑스의 부르카 금지법은 적극적인 국가작용을 통해 공적 영역에서의 세속주의를 확보해야 한다는 공화주의적 이념인 라이시떼(laïcité) 원칙을 실현하기 위해 도입되었다. 그러나 부르카 금지법이 종교의 자유를 비롯한 무슬림 여성들의 인권을 침해하는 것이 아닌지에 대한 국제인권담론의 비판 또한 제기되어왔는데, 흥미로운 것은 이러한 질문에 대하여 유럽인권재판소와 자유권규약위원회가 서로 상반된 결론에 도달하였다는 사실이다. 이 글에서는 이처럼 부르카 금지법을 둘러싸고 두 국제인권기구가 상이한 결론에 이른 주요한 원인으로 크게 ‘판단의 여지 독트린’과 ‘인권의 교차성에 대한 고려’라는 두 가지 요소에 집중하였다. 유럽인권재판소는 부르카 금지법의 입법목적인 ‘사회적 삶의 최소한의 요건’, 즉 ‘함께 살아가기(vivre ensemble)’의 보장이 유럽인권협약상 적법한 제한 사유에 해당한다고 판단하며, 프랑스 정부에 비교적 넓은 판단의 여지를 허용하였다. 그러나 판단의 여지 독트린은 그 적용 기준이 비일관적이라는 한계를 가지며, 판단의 여지를 적용한 결과 오히려 인권침해를 주장하는 당사국 내 소수자를 더욱 주변화시킬 수 있으므로 주의 깊게 사용되어야 한다. 반면 자유권규약위원회의 경우, 판단의 여지 독트린을 채택하지 않으면서도, 부르카 금지법에 내재된 프랑스 정부와 프랑스 주류 사회의 시선, 즉 얼굴을 가리는 복식을 착용하는 여성이 일방적인 가부장적 시스템의 무력한 피해자라는 전제를 깨고, 오히려 부르카의 착용이 해당 무슬림 여성의 주체적 표현수단이 될 수 있다는 점에서 부르카 금지법이 교차적 차별을 구성한다고 보았다. 이러한 인권의 교차성에 대한 고려는 부르카의 착용이라는 행위를 단순히 여성의 억압 또는 해방이라는 양비론적 대립으로부터 벗어나 종교적 소수자이자 젠더적 약자인 무슬림 여성의 총체적이고 중층적인 경험을 법적 프레임으로 포착하기 위한 단초로 기능할 수 있다는 점에서 적극적으로 옹호되어야 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The French ban on full-face veils (“the ban”), legislated in 2010 upon the republican idea of laïcité, which aims to secure secularism in public realms, was brought to attention of various international human rights discussions on whether it violates Muslim women's right to religious freedom. It is noteworthy that two major international human rights bodies, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") and the UN Human Rights Committee ("the Committee"), reached opposite conclusions regarding this question. This article focuses on two factors that may have caused this divergence between two organisations; the doctrine of margin of appreciation ("MoA") and the intersectionality of human rights. The Court viewed that the legislative purpose of the ban, that is the minimum requirement of social life in a democratic society or vivre ensemble, constitutes a valid reason of lawful restriction of the European Convention on Human Rights, granting a wide MoA to the French government. However, the MoA doctrine does not only entail risks for its inconsistency of criteria in application, but also may further marginalise a claimant who is likely to be a member of minority groups; thus it should be used with extra caution. Meanwhile, the Committee, rejecting the MoA doctrine, saw through the underlying premise of the ban which represents the majority perspective of the French society against Muslim women who wear a burqa that depicts them merely as a powerless victim under the patriarchal system of Islam, and pointed out that wearing a burqa can in fact function as an autonomous expression of Muslim women as an independent agency, concluding that the ban amounts to an intersectional discrimination against them. Such consideration on the intersectionality of human rights should be highly endorsed, as it opens up possibility to part away from a dichotomous opposition which simplifies a debate on burqa-wearing into an either-or question of oppression versus liberation, and instead to capture the holistic and multilayered experiences of Muslim women, which are often neglected in both terms of her religion and gender, into the international legal frame.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김승민, "프랑스의 부르카금지법 추진 배경과 의도" 한국프랑스학회 98 : 89-113, 2017
• 2 조승래, "지금 왜 공화주의인가?" 한국미국사학회 34 : 1-28, 2011
• 3 홍태영, "정체성의 정치학" 서강대학교출판부 2011
• 4 김대순, "유럽인권재판소의 “판단의 재량” 독트린:법의 지배에 대한 위협인가?" 대한국제법학회 58 (58): 11-43, 2013
• 5 정성숙, "유럽에 있어서 부르카(Burqa)착용금지에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 (35) : 245-270, 2016
• 6 정채연, "유럽사회에서 다문화정책의 현황과 관용의 한계 －프랑스의 라이시떼와 독일의 민주적 헌정주의를 중심으로－" 법학연구소 36 (36): 325-371, 2012
• 7 구주(프랑스)주재관, "부르카 착용금지에 관한 법"
• 8 김경희, "공화주의" 책세상 2009
• 9 Bracke, Sarah, "‘Is the Headscarf Oppressive or Emancipatory?’ Field Notes from the Multicultural Debate" 2 (2): 36-56, 2012
• 10 Pew Research Center, "Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe"
• 11 Hunter-Henin, Myriam, "Why Religious Freedom Matters for Democracy: Comparative Reflections from Britain and France for a Democratic “Vivre Ensemble”" Hart Publishing 2020
• 12 Alouane, Rim-Sarah., "Where Face Masks Are Required but Burqas Are Banned"
• 13 Pearson, Mega, "What Happened to ‘Vivre Ensemble’?: Developments after SAS v France" 10 (10): 185-205, 2021
• 14 "UN Doc A/5655"
• 15 Trispiotis, Ilias, "Two Interpretations of ‘Living Together’ in European Human Rights Law" 75 (75): 580-607, 2016
• 16 Berry, Stephanie, "The UN Human Rights Committee Disagrees with the European Court of Human Rights Again: The Right to Manifest Religion by Wearing a Burqa"
• 17 Council of Europe, "The Place of the European Convention on Human Rights in the European and International Legal Order: Report of the Steering Committee for Human Rights" 2019
• 18 Radačić, Ivana, "The Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, Morality and the Rights of the Vulnerable Groups" 31 (31): 599-616, 2010
• 19 Del Moral, Ignacia de la Rasillia, "The Increasingly Marginal Appreciation of the Margin-of-Appreciation Doctrine" 7 (7): 611-623, 2006
• 20 Ní Aoláin, Fionnula, "The Emergence of Diversity: Differences in Human Rights Jurisprudence" 19 (19): 101-142, 1995
• 21 Bellamy, Richard, "The Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Convention:Political Constitutionalism and the European Convention on Human Rights" 25 (25): 1019-1042, 2015
• 22 "Sonia Yaker v. France, CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016"
• 23 Mutua, Makau, "Savages, Victims and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights" 42 (42): 201-245, 2001
• 24 "S.A.S. v. France, Application no. 43835/11 (Grand Chamber, 1 July 2014)"
• 25 Delgado, Richard, "Rodrigo’s Reconsideration: Intersectionality and the Future of Critical Race Theory" 96 (96): 1247-1288, 2011
• 26 Gerin, André, "Rapport d’information fait en application de l’article 145 du Règlement au nom de la Mission d’information sur la pratique du voile intégral sur le territoire national" de l’Assemblée nationale (France) 2010
• 27 "R.P.B. v. The Philippines, CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011"
• 28 May, Vivian M, "Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries" Routledge 2015
• 29 De Beco, Gauthier, "Protecting the Invisible: An Intersectional Approach to International Human Rights Law" 17 : 633-663, 2017
• 30 Angelique, Christina, "Nicolas Sarkozy says Islamic veils are not welcome in France"
• 31 Poulter, Sebastian, "Muslim Headscarves in School: Contrasting Legal Approaches in England and France" 17 : 43-74, 1997
• 32 Benvenisti, Eyal, "Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards" 31 : 843-854, 1999
• 33 Blavignat, Yohn, "L’affaire des «foulards de Creil»: la République laïque face au voile islamique"
• 34 L’Express, "Loi sur le voile intégral: plus de 1600 verbalisations en six ans"
• 35 Gabizon, Cécilia., "Loi sur la burqa: avis défavorable du Conseil d’État"
• 36 Adida, Claire, "Les Français musulmans sont-ils discriminés dans leur propre pays? Une étude expérimentale sur le marché du travail" French-American Foundation 2010
• 37 Conaghan, Joanne, "Law, Intersectionality and Beyond: Law, Power and the Politics of Location" Routledge-Cavendish 2008
• 38 Davis, Kathy, "Intersectionality as buzzword" 9 (9): 557-580, 2008
• 39 Davis, Aisha Nicole, "Intersectionality and International Law: Recognizing Complex Identities on the Global Stage" 28 : 205-242, 2015
• 40 Truscan, Ivona, "International Human Rights Law and Intersectional Discrimination" 16 : 103-131, 2016
• 41 Chow, Pok Yin S, "Has Intersectionality Reached its Limits? Intersectionality in the UN Human Rights Treaty Body Practice and the Issue of Ambivalence" 16 : 453-481, 2016
• 42 "Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 5493/72 (Plenary Court, 7 December 1976)"
• 43 Augenstein, Daniel, "Freedom of Religion and the Politics of the Liberal Public-Private Divide" 44 (44): 8-23, 2015
• 44 Ghantous, Marie, "Freedom of Expression and the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ or ’Margin of Discretion’ Doctrine" 31 (31): 221-241, 2018
• 45 Follesdal, Adreas, "Exporting the Margin of Appreciation: Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" 15 (15): 359-371, 2017
• 46 Fredette, Jennifer, "Examining the French Hijab and Burqa Bans through Reflexive Cultural Judgment" 37 (37): 48-70, 2015
• 47 Nieminen, Kati, "Eroding the protection against discrimination: The procedural and de-constextualized approach to S.A.S. v. France" 19 (19): 69-88, 2019
• 48 Shankar, Priyanka, "Does the EU have hijab bans?"
• 49 Crenshaw, Kimberlé, "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics" 1989 (1989): 139-167, 1989
• 50 Meeus, Carl., "Copé: «Pourquoi il faut une loi anti-burqa !»"
• 51 Benhabib, Seyla, "Chapter 7: L’affaire du Foulard (The Scarf Affair)" 107 (107): 100-111, 2008
• 52 "CE Ass., Avis, 27 novembre 1989, requête n° 346893 : EDCE 1990"
• 53 "CCPR/C/GC/34"
• 54 "CCPR/C/FRA/CO/5"
• 55 "CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4"
• 56 "CC, décision n° 2010-613 DC du 7 octobre 2010"
• 57 "C-804/18 and C-341/19, EU:C:2021:594"
• 58 Bilge, Sirma, "Beyond Subordination vs. Resistance: An Intersectional Approach to the Agency of Veiled Muslim Women" 31 (31): 9-28, 2010
• 59 Greer, Steven, "Agha, Petr, Human Rights Between Law and Politics: The Margin of Appreciation in Post-national Contexts" Hart Publishing 2017
• 60 Henrard, Kristin., "A Test of Faith?: Religious Diversity and Accommodation in the European Workplace" Ashgate 2012
• 61 McGoldrick, Dominic, "A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee" 65 : 21-60, 2016