아시아 인권과 인권도시의 전망 Human� Rights� In� Asia� and Vision� Of� A� Human� Rights� City

특별회의 Special Session

아시아 인권과 인권도시의 전망 Human Rights in Asia and Vision of a Human Rights City

2015. 5. 16. (토) May 16 (Sat.), 2015 - 09:00~13:00 - 김대중컨벤션센터 Kimdaejung Convention Center 206+207

목차 Contents

바실 페르난도 Basil FERNANDO 1 10 아시아인권위원회 대표 Director, Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

라펜디 쟈민 Rafendi DJAMIN 19 20 아세안정부간인권위원회 인도네시아대표 Indonesia Representative, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission and Human Rights (AICHR)

헨리 패트릭 트페인 Henri Patrick TIPHAGNE 34 포럼아시아 의장 20 Chairperson, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-AISA)

백태웅 Tae-Ung BAIK 39 하와이대학 로스쿨 부교수 Associate Professor, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii

발표 1 ┃ Presentation 1

아시아 인권헌장 “우리는 인건향상을 위한 새로운 길을 모색해야 하며, 그 길은 바로 제도적 개혁이다” Asian Charter on Human Rights “We need a new frontier in the human rights field. This frontier is the frontier of institutional reform”

바실 페르난도 Basil FERNANDO

스리랑카, Sri Lanka

아시아인권위원회 대표 Director, Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

1 2 아시아 인권헌장

“우리는 인권향상을 위한 새로운 길을 모색해야 하며, 그 길은 바로 제도적 개혁이다”

– 바실 페르난도 -

연설문

아시아인권헌장이 제시했던 목표를 상기할 때가 온 것 같다. 90 년대 말까지, 아시아 각국에서 광범위한 인권침해 행위가 이루어지고 있다는 우려가 확산되었다. 기실, 그 동안 수 많은 인권 활동가 및 인권 단체가 아시아 민중의 인권향상을 위해 부단한 노력을 기울여왔다. 특히 각국의 학계와 법조계는 유엔의 인권 협약을 도입하기 위하여 많은 노력을 기울였다. 그리고 각국 정부들 또한 이러한 조약들의 비준을 위해 유엔 인권 기구들의 요청에 화답했다.

이러한 노력의 결과, 아시아 국가 대부분은 국제시민정치권리협약과 경제사회문화협력에 관한 규약을 비준하였다. 뿐만 아니라 고문 학대 방지협약과 아동 및 여성 인권에 관한 협약 가입국이 점차 늘어나게 되었다. 많은 나라에서 이러한 인권조약의 내용을 헌법조문에 반영했으며, 일부 국가는 ‘권리장전’ 형태로 입안하였다. 그리고 시민사회단체 및 학계의 부단한 노력에 힘입어 인권교육 분야에서도 괄목할만한 성과를 이룩할 수 있었다.

그러나, 여전히 아시아 각국에서 ‘인권’은 단지 수사적인 표현에 머물고 있으며, 실질적인 성과를 이룩하지 못하고 있다. 조약에서 말하는 인권과 현실사회 속 인권 사이에 존재하는 간극을 좁히기 위해 다양한 형태의 인권교육이 광범위하게 실시되었지만, 인권개선에 실질적인 도움이 되지는 못했다. 인권을 침해 당한 피해자들과 그것을 바로 잡으려는 변호인과 인권단체는 이러한 간극이 불러오는 여러 문제점들을 지속적으로 제기해 왔다. 특히 인권보호와 피해자의 권리구제를 위한 메커니즘이 존재하지 않는 국가에서, 더 심각하고 광범위한 규모의 인권침해가 발생했다.

권위주의 정권과 군부정권은 아시아 민중의 인권문제에 큰 걸림돌이다. 1962 년과 1965 년에 각각 들어선 버마와 인도네시아의 군부정권은 아직까지도 유지되고 있다. 파키스탄은 1948 년 독립 이후, 수 차례의 군부 쿠데타를 겪었으며, 헌정역사의 절반 이상을 군부 통치하에서 보냈다. 필리핀의 페르디난드 마르코스, 인도의 인디라 간디 역시 권위주의 정권이었다. 스리랑카 역시 이러한 정치적 흐름에서 자유롭지 못하였다. 이른바 ‘분권형 대통령제’를 도입하여 민주주의를 억누르고, 권위주의 정권을 창출해 냈었다. 캄보디아는 1975 년부터 1979 년 사이에 전체 인구

3 7 백만 명 중 약 1 백만 명이 비사법적 처형 또는 굶주림으로 목숨을 잃는 비극적 사건을 겪어야만 했다. 말레이시아와 싱가포르의 국가보안법은 이에 반대하는 사람의 인권은 완전히 부정하도록 전개되어 왔다. 특히 싱가포르는 아직까지도 국제시민정치권리협약을 비롯하여 그 어떠한 유엔인권협약도 비준하지 않고 있다. 공산주의 정권 하의 베트남과 중국에서 ‘인권’은 그 자체로 곧 체제전복으로 간주되었다. 한반도 역시, 북쪽은 공산주의 정권에 놓였고, 남쪽은 군부독재를 겪었다. 결국 아시아의 현실은 유엔협약과 반대방향으로 흘러왔던 것이다.

따라서, 아시아가 처한 현실을 직시하고, 또한 어떠한 이유로 아시아 민중이 자신의 인권을 지킬 수 없었던 것인지 그 원인을 파악할 필요가 있었다.

. 무엇이 인권을 단지 수사(修辭)에 머물게 했는가? . 무엇 때문에 인권이행이 난항을 겪었는가? . 실질적인 인권증진을 위하여 어떠한 문제와 쟁점이 제기되었어야 했는가?

위와 같은 물음에 대한 답을 구하는 일은 매우 중요했다. 왜냐하면 아시아헌장을 둘러싼 담론은 그러한 답을 구하는 것으로부터 시작되었기 때문이다. 그렇다면, 과연 어떻게 답을 구할 수 있었을까? 그것은 바로 아시아인권위원회 전략의 초석인 민중학교(folk school)로 돌아가는 것이었다. 즉, 아시아 각국의 인권단체와 의견을 나누는 과정을 통해에서 답을 구해야 했다. 이 같은 맥락에서, 각 지역별 그리고 국가별 협의체가 구성되었다.

아시아인권헌장의 최종안에는 아시아 각지에서 개최된 협의회에 참석한 인권활동가와 인권단체들이 수록되어 있다. 협의회 참가자들은 ‘인권에 관한 담론’이 현실과 괴리된 원인과 이유를 규명하였다.

또한 각국이 가진 제도적 틀이 실질적인 인권이행에 필요한 원칙 및 계획과 부합하지 않는다는 사실을 밝혀냈다.

예컨대, 아시아 각국에서 고문이 범죄수사의 도구로 이용되었다. 즉, 경찰이 법의학을 비롯한 과학적 수사기법의 사용을 전혀 중요하게 생각하지 않은 것이다. 그 대신, 충분한 수사교육을

4 이수하지 못한 신임 경찰관은 선임 경찰관의 관행을 답습했다. 고문이 일상화된 경찰사회에서 신임 경찰관 또한 그렇게 하도록 요구 받았다.

피의자로부터 정보를 캐내기 위한 경찰의 고문수사는 광범위했다. 이러한 수사관행에 정통한 한 관계자의 증언에 따르면, 경찰은 사건의 실체적 진실을 규명하기보다는 보여주기 식 수사에 보다 많은 정성을 쏟았다. 특히 상급기관이나 법원에 제출할 보고서에 자신들의 사건처리 실적을 부풀리기에만 급급했다. 따라서, 경찰은 수사 초기단계부터 피의자를 고문하고, 사건을 조기에 종결 지으려 했다. 뿐만 아니라, 만약 피의자가 고문을 받은 후에도 원하는 답을 내 놓지 않을 경우, 경찰 자신들이 임의로 ‘진술서’를 작성한 다음, 또 다시 피의자를 고문하여 결국 ‘자백’을 했다는데 동의하도록 만들었다. 결국, 아시아 대부분의 국가에서 사건의 실체규명 보다는 조직과 개인의 영달을 위해 존재하는 경찰은 뇌물수수와 부패의 온상이 되었다.

다양한 사례조사를 바탕으로, 경찰이 피해자 및 피의자의 인권을 보장하지 않고 있으며, 나아가서는 경찰조직 자체가 구조적으로 무기력하고, 부패로 물들어 있다는 사실을 알 수 있었다. 경찰의 수사관행이 바뀌지 않는 한, 나머지 사법 집행들 역시 제 기능을 할 수 없었다.

아시아인권헌장 제정을 위한 협의회는 다음과 같은 문제점을 제기하였다:

1. 공포(두려움) 또는 인권개선 가능성에 대한 낮은 기대감으로 인권침해 사실을 신고하지 않는다.

2. 인권을 침해 당하더라도 그러한 사실을 신고할 수 있는 정부 기관이 존재하지 않거나, 또는 존재하더라도 접근이 제한되었거나, 또는 그러한 기관이 신고접수를 거절한다.

3. 인권침해 사실을 접수 한 정부 기관에게 사건을 해결할 법적 권한, 또는 실질적 권한이 없다.

4. 인권침해 사실을 접수한 정부 기관이 자신들의 소관업무가 아니라는 이유로, 또는 타 기관으로부터 압력/영향력을 받은 까닭에, 또는 사건처리를 위한 역량/효율성이 부재하여, 또는 뇌물로 매수되어서, 또는 복합적인 이유로 인하여 아무런 조치를 취하지 않는다.

5. 인권침해 사실을 접수한 정부 기관이 신뢰할 수 없는 방법 또는 자의적인 방법으로 사건을 해결하여 인권보호기준 및 피해자의 기대치와 상반되는 결과를 내 놓는다.

6. 인권침해 사실에 대하여 일부 정부 기관이 적절한 조치를 취하더라도 나머지 대부분의 기관들이 이를 무시하거나 또는 관련된 지침을 이행하지 아니한다.

헌장 초안

위와 같은 협의회를 통하여 얻은 성과물을 헌장 초안에 반영하였다. 인권분야전문가들로 구성된 아시아인권위원회가 1 차 초안을 마련하였으며 {매튜 조지 천아카라 (아시아기독교협의회, 홍콩); 바실 페르난도 (유엔 캄보디아과도행정기구 인권담당관, 캄보디아); 나크필 마니폰, 아이다 진 (아시아기독교협의회, 국제협력과, 홍콩); 세이어 인디아 루르드 (아시아여성인권위원회, 필리핀); 트레마완 크리스토퍼 (오클랜드대학교, 뉴질랜드); T.Y 레날도 (필리핀국립대학교, 필리핀); 옹 카이싱 (아시아인권위원회, 홍콩)}, 인권분야 권위자들로 구성된 심의위원회가 최종안을 작성하였다. {위원장: 야시 가이 박사 (홍콩대학교), V.R. 크리슈나 아이어, P.N. 바그와티 (前 인도대법관)}. 그 후에도 몇 차례의 협의회를 거쳐 초안이 다듬어 졌다.

헌장 선포

헌장의 최종안은 아시아의 인권신장에 커다란 방향을 제시한 1980 년 광주 민주화 운동을 기념하기 위하여, 대한민국 광주광역시에서 헌장을 선포되었다. 그것은 민중항쟁 당시 민주주의와 인권을 수호하기 위하여 목숨을 마친 영령들을 위로하기 위한 것이기도 했다. 아시아 각국의 인권운동가들이 선포식에 참석했으며, 인권관련 국제기구들도 응원의 메시지를 보내왔다. 아시아인권헌장-민중의 헌장은 1988 년 5 월 17 일 선포되었다.

선포 이후

아시아인권위원회와 그 자매기구인 아시아 법률지원센터를 비롯한 각종 인권관련 기구들은 아시아인권헌장을 실무기준으로 삼게 되었다.

지난 17 년간, 아시아인권위원회는 아시아 각 지역과 세계 곳곳에 아시아헌장이 담은 가치를 전파해왔다. 또한 12 개 국에서 인권보장을 위한 제도적 개혁에 방점을 두고 활동해 오고 있다. 그리고 각국에서 인권침해 피해자들의 생활에 대한 실질적인 관여를 통해 정부 기관과 사법 집행에 관한 연구와 문서화를 진행해왔으며, 각국의 인권운동가들을 지원해 왔다.

6 실천

지난 18 년 간 사람들의 삶과 관련된 상황과 이들의 권리 보호를 시도해 온 사람들은 기관들의 상황에 직접적으로 노출되어 왔다.

아시아인권위원회는 민중의 인권, 특히 경제적 약자를 희생양으로 삼는 행정 및 사법제도에 관한 연구를 진행하였다. 조사 결과, 악질적인 행정체계와 사법 체계는 비단 민중의 인권을 부정하는데 그치는 것이 아니라, 법치와 인권에 관한 근본적 가치를 훼손하고 있다는 것을 발견할 수 있었다. 위원회는 이처럼 반 인권적이며 반 법치주의적인 사례들을 모아 서적 또는 전자매체의 형태로 출간하였다.

그 중에서 가장 주목할만한 성과물은 다음과 같다: ‘스리랑카, 정의를 말하다 –고문피해자들의 이야기’; ‘법치에 대한 저항-미얀마의 법과 질서 (아시아인권위원회 위원 겸 호주국립대학교수 닉 치즈맨 박사, 캠브리지 대학교 출판부).

또한, 계간지 ‘고문: 아시안 & 글로벌 퍼스펙티브 (Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives)’와 ‘인권현황(State of Human Rights)’, 그리고 아시아 인권문제에 관한 다양한 정보와 기록 등을 담은 연례 보고서를 발행하고 있다.

이러한 성과를 토대로, 위원회는 다음과 같은 결론에 이르렀다:

1. 아시아 각국, 특히 개발도상국에서의 인권활동은 인권보호를 위한 행정 및 사법제도 개혁에 방점을 두어야 한다. 2. 제도적 개혁을 추진함과 동시에 제도적 개혁을 이해하고, 이에 대해 교육할 수 있는 신진 인권운동가를 양성해야 한다. 3. 개발도상국 민중의 인권을 제약하는 행정 및 사법제도 해결을 위하여, UN 산하 인권기구 및 기타 조약 사무국 등을 포함한 국제적 인권운동을 전개해야 한다.

7 4. 형사제도 개혁 분야 중, 뇌물수수 및 부패로 얼룩 진 기존의 수사관행을 탈피하기 위하여 경찰 및 사법제도 개혁에 최우선 순위를 두어야 한다. 또한 법치제도 확립을 통하여 인권보호의 근간을 마련해야 한다 1.

인권도시, 광주

아시아인권헌장 선포과정은 향후 인권향상을 위해 우리가 나아갈 방향을 제시하고 있다. 헌장 선포 20 주년을 기념하여 ‘2018 아시아인권헌장’ 선언을 준비하고 있다.

이러한 맥락에서, UN 인권협약이 규정한 인권보호와 인권증진을 실현하는데 장애물이 되는 요소를 찾아내고, 아시아 인권운동의 미래를 제시하는 일은 매우 중요하다고 하겠다.

앞서 언급한 바와 같이, 단지 ‘인권’을 논하거나 교육하는 것만으로는 인권이행과 관련된 수 많은 문제점을 해결할 수 없으며 제도적 문제의 해결은 이와 불가분의 관계에 있다. 따라서 201 아시아인권헌장은 실질적 인권증진을 위해 반드시 필요한 제도개혁 문제를 다루어야 할 것이다.

‘시민 및 정치 권리에 관한 국제규약’ 제 2 조는 이러한 과업을 수행하는데 지침서가 될 수 있다. 특히 제 2 조는 기타 UN 협약에서 어떻게든 반복되어 왔다.

위 조항은 각국 정부가 자국민의 인권보장을 위하여 모든 형태의 입법, 사법 및 행정 수단을 제공해야 한다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 각국의 시민사회 기구는 이 조항의 이행여부를 감시하는 역할을 수행해야 한다. 만약, 이와 관련하여 이행수준을 가늠할 수 있는 지표를 개발할 필요가 있다면, 반드시 입법, 사법 및 행정분야를 중심으로 구성되어야 한다.

그 중에서 가장 큰 논란의 대상인 사법개혁은, 사법기관이 그 본연의 기능을 다할 수 있는 방향으로 이루어져야 할 것이다.

또한, 국가기관과 시민사회의 이해당사자들은 인권증진을 위한 실질적이며 다양한 방안을 모색해야 한다. 교육 또한, 단순히 인권문제에 관한 단편적 지식을 전달하는데 그칠 것이 아니라,

1 바실 페르난도, 닉 치즈맨 (발표예정 논문)

8 어떠한 방식으로 제도적 문제점들을 해결할 수 있으며, 인권실현을 위해 필요한 역량은 무엇인지 가르쳐야 할 것이다.

인권도시 광주는 아시아의 인권이행을 위한 교육에서 중추적 역할을 수행할 수 있다. 그리고 한국은 다른 아시아 국가들과 견주어 봤을 때, 이미 경제성장을 이룩한 국가로써 이러한 목표를 실현하는데 보다 적합하고 할 수 있다. 범-아시아적 접근방법은 이웃 국가뿐만 아니라 한국의 민주화에도 도움이 될 것이다. 또한, 광주는 1980 년 광주 민주화 운동의 의의를 전 아시아에 전파함으로써, 인권증진에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

2018 아시아인권헌장은 인권이행을 둘러싼 핵심적인 문제점 및 그러한 문제점을 극복하기 위한 전략을 담아야 한다.

그 첫 번째 단계는 두말 할 것 없이 고문을 중단하는 것이다. 인권을 실현하기 위한 첫 걸음은 고문을 통한 수사관행을 없애고, 고문 및 가혹행위 금지에 관한 협약을 이행하는 것이다.

인권도시 광주는 아시아의 인권 향상을 위한 노력에 주도적 역할을 수행해야 할 것이다. 따라서, 금년 포럼이 아시아에서 고문과 가혹행위 척결에 관한 단호한 의지를 보여주는 자리가 되기를 촉구한다. 또한, 2018 아시아 인권 헌장 선포를 위해 필요한 각종 성과를 도출해 내기를 바란다.

10 Asian Charter on Human Rights

“We need a new frontier in the human rights field. This frontier is the frontier of institutional reform.” – Basil Fernando

Speech prepared for ....

It is useful, I think, to recall the aims of the undertaking of the Asian Charter on Human Rights. By the late 1990s there was a widespread concern about the problems associated with obvious failures to realise human rights in almost all countries of Asia. By then many organisations and individuals have contributed a great deal to spread the gospel of human rights in all countries of Asia. The academics, some persons from the legal professions and the judges and above all persons working for the various human rights organisations have done a great deal of work to introduce the UN Conventions of human rights in their countries. Many of the governments also have responded to the calls of the United Nation’s human rights bodies for the ratification of these Conventions. Except for the few rare exceptions most countries have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and also the International Contention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Convention against torture and ill treatment was another Convention that was ratified by many of the countries. As time went by there were adoptions of Conventions relating to the child and also regarding various human rights problems relating to the rights of women. Further most of the countries also have included reference to human rights and in several countries Bills of Rights’ also into their constitutions. Added to this, there were considerable achievements in the area of education on human rights and in this area also it is the civil society organisations and the academic communities that played a greater role.

However, what was acutely felt everywhere was that while the rhetoric of human rights have become a common place in most countries in Asia in the actual implementation there had been hardly any progress. Thus the gap between the ratification of UN Conventions coupled with education on human rights had become widespread but it had made almost no impact at all in the area of its implementation. It was this gap which was a disturbing factor and concern was expressed mostly by the victims of human rights abuse of one sort or the other and also persons who were pursuing redress for such violations such as lawyers as well as human rights organisations who often act as the friends of the victims. This absence of implementation was felt even heavier in situation where there were grave abuses of human rights taking place in a larger scale. For example large scale enforced disappearances which have become a quite a visible problem in many of the Asian countries raised the absence of any kind of mechanisms to provide redress for such gross abuse of human rights.

A further factor that aggravated the situations was the several of the authoritarian regimes, either as military dictatorships or other forms of authoritarian regimes that had become quite common part of the political experience in several of the Asian countries. When for example, since 1962 Burma remained under a military dictatorship and so was Indonesia sink 1965. In Pakistan there were several military takeovers that since the independence in 1948 and that the period spent under military dictatorships can be put together it was more than half of the entire period of independence. There was the authoritarian regime of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and there were also threats of authoritarianism under the Indira Gandhi regime in India. Similar tendencies could also be seen in Sri

11 Lanka which has abandoned democracy through a change of a democratic constitution into a virtual authoritarian regime by way of the introduction of what is called an executive presidential system. Meanwhile, a unique experience of enormous catastrophe relating to human rights was experienced in Cambodia form 1975 – 1979 which has left according to conservative estimates over 1 million people out of the 7 million population being exposed to death either by extra judicial killings or due to starvation. Meanwhile the Singapore and Malaysia has developed its national security laws in a manner denying all human rights of the persons against whom these laws were applied. Singapore has even refused to be signatory to the international Covenant on Civil and political rights nor any of the conventions of the United Nations. Besides this China and Vietnam were under communist regimes where even the word human rights were regarded as subversive. In Korea there was situation of communism in one part and several military dictatorships on the other. This overall reality of the situation in Asia was a quite the contrast to the expectations involved in the pursuit of the United Conventions.

Thus the reality that was faced in Asia needed to be confronted and it was felt necessary to try to understand the means by which human rights are denied to the people in the Asian countries.

. What confined human rights to mere rhetoric? . Why was implementation so difficult? . What problems and issues were needed to be addressed, if human rights are to be practically realized?

These were the important questions that required answers to. The discourse on an Asian Charter was initiated with the view to find answers to these very questions. Having posed these questions to ourselves, the next issue was as how to find the answers. On this, we fell back on one of the cornerstones of the AHRC’s strategies which are the Folk Schools. What this meant was that answers to these questions should be found by a process of extensive consultations with people who have been involved in the work relating to human rights from around all countries in Asia. On the basis of this understanding, many consultations were arranged regionally and also country wise.

The signatures attached to the final version of the Asian Charter shows a long list of organisations and individuals and many others participated in such consultations which were held in several parts of Asia and also in different countries with local groups.

What the participants of these consultations said clarified the causes or the reasons for the dismal gap between the ‘talk on human rights’ and the actual practical denial of human rights almost everywhere in Asia.

What the consultations also revealed was that the institutional framework of governance in the different countries, were based on principals and designs which are quite opposed to the principals and designs requires for the actual implementation of human rights. The consultations revealed, for example that torture is the main instrument of criminal investigations in most of the countries in Asia.

12 This meant that the policing departments used models of training of the police where little importance was given to understanding of the various forensic sciences and scientific methods of investigations into crimes. Instead, most of the policemen selected for the task of criminal investigations, did not have even the adequate formal education and they were required to learn the habits of the trade by following the examples of officers who were already in the service. This meant that what the officers already in service did in their day to day practice, was what the new officers were also expected to do.

The officers already in service extensively use torture if they needed to gather any information. Persons with extensive knowledge about how these investigations were carried out explained and in great deal, during our consultations how such “investigations take place”. It was even revealed that the officers were not engaged in a search about actual factual details of how a crime had taken place but often were acting with the view to create an impression that something had been done about the crime. Particularly, with the view to provide reports to courts and also to their superior officers. Details about cases revealed that the beginning of an investigation is often done by way of torture of a suspect who the investigators expected to provide some information about the crime. If even after torture no information was actually forthcoming, which was often the case, as the suspects tortured had no knowledge about the crime, then the police officers themselves wrote down “confessions” and had the victims of torture to sign these documents. The absence of an actual curiosity on the part of officers about the details of how a crime has taken place was a result often of other extraneous causes such as the practices of bribery and corruption which has been overwhelmingly spread within the policing departments in most of the Asian countries. All these and more details revealed to us that these officers were not in a position to respect the rights of victims and very often even the rights of complainants due to systemic lethargy and corruption imbedded in the institutions themselves.

Where there is no genuine investigations, the rest of the process of administration of justice cannot function in any meaningful manner.

Obstacles to such functioning that we discovered throughout consultations are as follows;

1. Does not make a complaint, because of fear or low expectation of redress. 2. Tries to make a complaint but cannot, because no legal institution exists to receive it, or because it exists but is inaccessible, or because it declines to receive the complaint. 3. Makes a complaint, but legal institutions have no authority, either in law or in fact to do anything about it. 4. Makes a complaint, but legal institutions do nothing, because they do not interpret their role as being to protect human rights, or because of threats or influence from other quarters, or because of lack of resources or inefficiency, or because they are paid not to act, or for more than one of these reasons. 5. Makes a complaint and legal institutions act, but in a way that is unreliable or arbitrary, that falls short of—or runs contrary to—human rights standards and expectations of the complainant. 6. Makes a complaint and one or more legal institutions act, but other institutions ignore or fail to enforce their directions.

13 From the consultations to the drafting of the Charter

Bringing the wealth of knowledge gained through consultations into the draft of the Charter was the next task. For this purpose the initial summary of the discussions on consultations were made by the AHRC staff and a group of experts consisting of Mathews Gerge Chunakara, CCA Hong Kong; Basil Fernando, UNTAC- Human Rights Component, Cambodia; Nacpil-Manipon Aida Jean, CCA – International Affairs, Hong Kong; Sajor India Lourdes, Asian Women’s Human Rights Council, the Phillippines; Tremawan Christopher, University of Auckland, New Zealand; T.Y. Renaldo, University of Philippines, the Philippines; Wong Kai Shing, AHRC, Hong Kong.

Then, making of the final draft was handed over to a group of eminent persons. The Chairperson of this group was Dr. Yash Ghai, an eminent academic who was at the time based at the Hong Kong University. Two former Supreme Court judges from India late Justice Krishna V R Krishna Iyer and Justice P N Bhagwati were also in the drafting team. The drafters finalised the draft after several consultations.

Launching the Charter

The final launching of the Charter was held in Gwangju South Korea in consideration of the 1980 Gwangju uprising, a landmark in the development of human rights in Asia. Launching of the Charter at Gwangju was a way of paying tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for the cause of democracy and human rights during this great uprising. A large number of human rights activists from around Asia participated at this launching and there were also many messages of support from international human rights organisations as well. The Asian Charter for Human Rights – A People’s Charter was finally adopted on 17th May 1998.

After the launch

After the launching of the Asian Charter it became the working document for the Asian Human Rights Commission and its sister organisation the Asian Leal Resource Centre and also for its partner organisations. Over the last 17 years, the AHRC, took the message of the Asian Charter to Asia as well as outside. In Asia, the AHRC made it its main focus, to work towards institutional reforms that will enable the implementation of human rights in the 12 countries that it has been working in. In each of these countries, the actual nature of the basic institutions of governance and administration of justice was studied and documented through practical involvement with the lives of the victims of human rights abuse, with the help of human rights defenders who were pursuing the cause of human rights in these countries.

A learning experience

During these 18 years we had a direct exposure to the conditions under which people live and the institutions under which people attempt to protect their rights. We began to witness that the system of governance and the system of justice itself as being a contributor to violence and this has remained

14 to be a bewildering experience of most people in Asia, particularly the poor. From the work we carried out we quite clearly began to see that the systems of governance ad that of justice not merely deny people of their rights but in fact they are opposed to the rule of law and the fundamental norms of human rights. We have documented this experience of the basic systems opposing the rule of law and human rights through a large body of documentation that is available in print as well as electronic media and is made available through several websites. Among the most notable contributions are ‘The narrative of justice in Sri Lanka – told through the stories of torture victims’ and the most recently published book by one of our colleagues who is also a member of our staff of the Australian National University Dr Nick Cheesman, published under the title “Opposing the rule of law – How Myanmar’s Courts make law and order” published by the Cambridge University. Also the Quarterly Magazines Article 2 and Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives, and State of Human Rights in 12 countries in Asia and annual publication contains valuable record about the knowledge gathered on the actual state of human rights in Asia.

On the basis of our learning we have arrived at the following conclusions. 1. The major focus of human rights work in Asian countries and in developing countries in general should be the reforms of institutions of governance and the administration of justice to enable such institutions to protect the rights of the people. 2. In order to achieve this it is essential to develop a new generation of human rights activists who are able to understand the tasks associated with such institutional reforms, and thereby to be educators of the people on this issue. 3. It is essential to convince the global human rights movement including the United Nation’s human rights agencies including the treaty bodies to understand the unique obstacles to the realisation of human rights in the developing countries due to problems of the systems of governance and the systems of justice in these countries. 4. Among the priorities are the reform of criminal justice institutions in particular namely the policing systems particularly in relation to investigation of crimes, agencies dealing with bribery and corruption, the prosecution and judicial reforms and the overall improvement of the rule of law as the basis for the protection of rights. 1

Gwangju as a human rights city

The above brief review of the 1998 Asian Human Rights Charter, provides a broader vision of what we may work to enhance work begun in terms of the launching of this charter. Perhaps, we could look into a 2018 Human Rights Charter to mark the 20th Anniversary of the original Charter.

What is important is that context is that the problems that have been identified as major obstacles for the promotion and protection of human rights in terms of the United Nations Conventions on human rights, be addressed so as to throw light on the direction in which Asia’s human rights movement should focus its work in the future.

1 From an Article by Basil Fernando and Nick Cheesman to be published soon.

As mentioned above, the direction of such work needs should be in dealing with the problems associated with the implementation of rights rather than mere articulation and education on the rights. And this work is inseparable from the attempt to resolve the institutional obstacles to the actual implementation of rights.

The overall guidance on how this work should proceed can be found in Article 2 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In fact this article, is repeated one way or the other in all other UN Conventions. What this Article directs is that all the governments should provide for Legislative, judicial and administrative measures in order to ensure that the citizens of these countries enjoy these rights. Therefore, the task of the civil society organisations in particular, would be to monitor the realisation of the Article 2 provisions in all these countries. If indexes are to be developed as instruments for guiding this work of the implementation of requirements of Article 2 then, such indexes must be developed in terms of state obligations under legislative, judicial and administrative fields. It would be quite clear that the main controversial areas are in the judicial meaning in the institutions of administration of justice and in the administrative area meaning proper allocation of resources for proper functioning of those basic administration of justice institutions.

This practical approach to the work on human rights would require different forms of orientation in all the stakeholders meaning the stakeholders in the state agencies as well as all stakeholders in the civil society. At the initial stages this should require new approaches to human rights education which shifts from mere dissemination of knowledge on norms and standards to the development of knowledge on how the institutional issues obstructing the implementations of such norms and standards be dealt with and how resources are allocated for the realisations of that aim.

Gwangju as a human rights city can play a pivotal role in education relating to the implementation of rights for Asia as a whole. South Korea’s relative advantage as a more prosperous country as compared to many other Asian countries, should be utilised in order to make this aim come true. This Pan- Asian approach will not only help the other countries but it will also help the greater democratisation process in South Korea itself. Thus Gwangju could become a dynamic city which communicates the message of its 1980 uprising by contributing to the practical struggle for the actual implementation of rights to benefit all the peoples of Asia.

Thus the task of a 2018 Asian Charter would require a comprehensive programme of work to understand the critical problems around the implementation of rights and the strategies required for overcoming these critical problems.

This practical approach could be focused at the beginning on a single issue of a torture free Asia. In the struggle to deal with the elimination of torture and the implementation of the Convention against torture and ill treatment, we confront all the problems of the implementation of rights. Therefore, by making the elimination of torture as the central issue we embark on a very meaningful struggle for dealing with the implementation of all rights.

I urge that Gwangju as a human rights city, to undertake to play a leadership role in uplifting the human rights movements in Asia towards a richer perspective , towards implementation of rights. For that purpose I also urge that this gathering makes a firm commitment to give priority to the issue of the elimination of torture and ill -treatment in all countries of Asia. Let us hope that by 2018 we could achieve significant results in this direction and that in terms of such practical commitments we could develop the 2018 Asian Charter on Human Rights.

18 발표 2 ┃ Presentation 2

Assessing the sub-reginal human Rights Mechanism: The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) from 2009-2015

라펜디 쟈민 Rafendi DJAMIN

인도네시아, Indonesia

아세안정부간인권위원회 인도네시아대표 Indonesia Representative, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission and Human Rights (AICHR)

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 발표 3 ┃ Presentation 3

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY IN SOUTH ASIA THROUGH A REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISM

헨리 패트릭 트페인 Henri Patrick TIPHAGNE

인도, India

포럼아시아 의장 Chairperson, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-AISA)

34 35 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY IN SOUTH ASIA THROUGH A REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISM

Henri Patrick TIPHAGNE

Chairperson, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-AISA)

Human Rights after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 set itself out on a long and herculean journey, often full of challenges by the States who are the implementers of these rights. Five decades down the line, in this historic city of Gwangju, which sets the example in front of us for democracy and unification among nations, successfully brought forward the 1998 Asian Human Rights Charter (AHRC). A noble and much needed beginning which almost two decades down the line is proving itself to be more relevant that ever before. The document catches the aspiration of Asia given the colonial history and the commonality of struggles for independence and at times democracy. However, the time has come for all of us, to relook at the charter and go deeper and make it more reflective of the challenges in Asia. It is also the time that we take this up with our respective states and concerned international bodies and make this a document which is adhered by one and all in the region.

One of the things to re-visit in the charter is to incorporate freedoms of assembly, association and expression as fundamental rights to be guaranteed by all States in the region. Talking from our existing struggles in India and the South-Asian region, the States are coming down heavily on any voice of dissent often leading to arrests, tortures and extra-judicial executions of the individuals and for organisations’ and civil society groups’ criminalisation, suspensions and freezing of their bank accounts. Democracy when was always understood as the space for dissent and incorporating the last in the ranks has today turned out to be the democracy for the few elites of the society and for the political class. Any critique of the existing framework is now termed to the extent as anti-national. Probably, democracy today is under attack by the same custodians of democracy.

Stating specifically from the examples of India, our organisation had suffered a suspension of almost two years for being critical of our government. We had to struggle and approach the Supreme Court to intervene which provided us minimal relief. The Government of India, in the last few weeks, took on Greenpeace – a reputed international organisation, and ensured its ouster from India. It has been hounding Tesates Setalvad and her Sabrang Trust as well as Citizens for Justice and Peace only for consistently fighting impinity in Gujarat since 2002. It is challenging times for us to believe that we are living in a democracy. Protests against nuclear power plants are termed anti-national and activists are charged with sedition and

36 waging war against the State. It is the apathy that in the land of Gandhi, a pioneer of non- violence struggle, today peaceful protests are termed as anti-national. Probably, our governments continue to be in the colonial hangovers and continue the decades’ old forgone legacies. It is important to mention that a couple of such activists who continue to face the wrath of the Indian State, Dr. Binayak Sen and Ms. Irom Chanu Sharmila were recognised by this city and awarded the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights.

The mechanisms to protect and promote human rights exist in India and other countries in the region. A challenge for the civil society is that these mechanisms exist only on the paper. These mechanisms were envisioned to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable and human rights defenders who more often than not faced the wrath of the State. It was seen with great joy within the civil society who had lobbied for these mechanisms but unfortunately they have allied with the State and further providing clean chit to the same State who is the violator of the right. Seldom have these mechanisms supported of the victims and the defenders. However, there have been some positive movements in the recent years again due to constant engagement with them by the civil society movements, organisations and individuals.

In the South-Asian region, in the absence of any regional mechanism like the Southeast-Asian region, an effort is now initiated by the civil societies in the region under the banner – Regional Initiative for South-Asian Human Rights Mechanisms (RISAHRM). A meeting of civil society in the region along with a few National Human Rights Institutions was held in New Delhi in August 2014. A pledge was to initiate a proceeding for establishment of regional human rights mechanisms similar to other regions and to draw inspiration from the likes of People’s SAARC. This is still fresh and a large civil society in the region is focused for this to be real.

A regional initiative would ensure establishment of fully Paris Principles compliant National Human Rights Institution in the region without further delay and strengthen the existing Institutions for greater effectiveness, facilitate greater cooperation among National Institutions in the region towards ensuring human rights for all, ensure maximum facilities, especially minimizing visa restrictions for civil society in the region to enable deliberations on common concerns thus helping SAARC better discharge its human rights engagements, work collectively towards the establishment of a robust South Asia Human Rights Mechanism with a mandate for the protection and promotion of human rights, follow up on the initiatives for setting up of the Inter-governmental Expert Group for the establishment of a regional mechanism for the empowerment of women as directed in the Addu Declaration, 2011 and ensure inclusion in the agenda of the SAARC Summit discussions relating to the establishment of a South Asia Human Rights Mechanism.

The opportunities are many and as stated in the above paragraph. Along with the opportunities come mounting challenges. A united civil society voice in the region will just be a stronger and more resolute forum for assertion of rights as guaranteed by the UDHR and

37 our respective constitutions and as being inspired again by the AHRC. The civil societies in the region today scattered and their movements restricted by the States can share solidarities and support each other in the struggles. States in the region are coming down heavily on fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens and can be rightly proved by the number of state excesses rising with each passing day. A regional human rights mechanism would bring the human rights institutions on a platform where they can learn from each other and enhance civil society collaboration thus ensuring the States in the region be responsive and pro-active on the issues of human rights.

Gwangju for Asia and the world continues to be an inspiration and the beacon of democracy. One of my colleagues who was with the May 18 Memorial Foundation recently wrote in his article that ‘the May 18, 1980 is not merely a date in history for the citizens of Gwangju and Korea but a reminder to resist all forms of injustices.’ Gwangju has the onus and a responsibility to strengthen the road map for a deeper incorporation of human rights in our democracies. While the vibrant civil societies need to draw inspirations from the Gwangju Movement, the Korean civil society through solidarity and through its State should actively engage in supporting democratic movements in Asia and movement for upholding true democracies in Asia. A model of Gwangju, through its culture of human rights, need to visit and share with those who have little knowledge and awareness about the same. The human rights city of Gwangju should have greater engagement through planned projects and solidarity initiatives with the movements and civil societies of the rest of Asia. Gwangju spirit visiting several other Asian countries will only strengthen our struggles for a true and stronger democracy.

Henri Tiphagne, Convenor Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN and Chairperson , Forum Asia.

38 발표 4 ┃ Presentation 4

Assessing the sub-reginal human Rights Mechanism: The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) from 2009-2015

백태웅 Tae-Ung BAIK

한국, Republic of Korea

하와이대학 로스쿨 부교수 Associate Professor, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii

39 40 아시아 인권기구 설립 방안에 대하여

백태웅, 하와이대학교 로스쿨 부교수

Associate Professor of Law William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii 2515 Dole Street, Room. 245 Honolulu, HI 96822, USA (808) 956‐7838; [email protected]

새로이 떠 오르는 아 시아의 인권시스템,

(캠브리지대학교 출 판부, 2012년

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 41 1 개요

 아시아 인권의 토대

 지역인권기구

 아시아인권기구의 설립

인권이란?

“모든 인간이 인간의 존엄성에 근거 하여 타고난 권리를 갖고 있다는 믿 음에 바탕을 두고, 국제사회가 채택 한일련의 규범과 가치”

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 42 2 인권이란?

세계인권선언 (UDHR, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Art 1. Free and equal in dignity and rights; Art 17. Right to own property; Art 2. Equal entitlements to the rights and Art 18. Right to freedom of thought, freedoms; conscience and religion; Art 3. Right to life, liberty and security of Art 19. Right to freedom of opinion and person; expression; Art 4. No slavery; Art 20. Right to freedom of peaceful Art 5. No torture or cruel, inhuman or assembly and association; degrading treatment; Art 21. Right to take part in the government; Art 6. Right to recognition everywhere as a right of equal access to public service; person before the law; Art 22. Right to social security; Art 7. No discrimination and equal Art 23. Right to work, to free choice of protection of the law; employment, to just and favorable Art 8. Right to an effective remedy; conditions of work and to protection Art 9. No arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; against unemployment; Art 10. Eqqyuality to a fair and public hearin g; Art 24. Right to rest and leisure; Art 11. right to be presumed innocent; Art 25. Right to a standard of living; Art 12. No law, no punishment; Art 26. Right to education; Art 13. Right to privacy, family, home or Art 27. Right to participate in the cultural correspondence; life; Art 14. Right to movement and residence; Art 28. Entitled to a social and international right to leave any country; order. Art 15. Right to a nationality; Art 16. Right to marry and to found a family; 6

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 43 3 시민적정치적권리에 관한 국제규약 (ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

Art 6. Right to life; family, home or Art 7. Right not to be subjected to correspondence, and no torture, or to cruel, inhuman or unlawful attacks on his honour degrading treatment or and reputation; punishment; Art 18. Right to freedom of Art 9. Right to liberty and security thought, conscience and of person; religion; Art 12. Right to liberty of Art 19. Right to freedom of movement and freedom to expression; choose his residence, and right Art 21. Right of peaceful to freedom of speech; assembly; Art 14. Right to equality before the Art 22. Right to freedom of courttdtiblihttbs and tribunals; right to be associitiation; presumed innocence; No Art 26. Right to equal protection of double-jeopardy; the law; Art 15. Right to not to be Art 27. Right to culture. retroactively punished; Art 17. No arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, 7

9가지 핵심인권조약

인종차별 방지조약, CERD: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 Dec 1965 ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 Dec 1966 경제사회문화적권리, ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16 Dec 1966 여성권리, CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 18 Dec 1979 고문방지조약, CAT: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 10 Dec 1984 아동권리조약, CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 Nov 1989 이주노동자권리조약,CMW: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 Dec 1990 강제실종조약, ICED: International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 20 Dec 2006 장애인권리협약, CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 13 Dec 2006 8

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 44 4 아시아의 인권 문제

무수한 인권 침해의 사례들:

재스민 혁명:아랍의 봄

부패한 튀니지 정부에 대항한 26세 모하메드 보와지지의 분신 에서 불붙기 시 작한 아랍의 봄 10

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 45 5 베트남- 법률가 추휘하부의 구속과 대중적 저항

블로거 내용을 빌미로 4명구속(2014) 추휘하부 (Cu Huy Ha Vu, 53)씨는 2010년 11월 인터넷에 비판적 문건들을 싣고, “당과 정부기관과 경찰 등을 비방”하는 인터뷰를 하는 등 반국가 선동 혐의로 구속, 기소되었다. 그러나 그의 가족들은 이례적으로 폭넓은 대중의 지지를 이끌어 내며 저 항하고 있다. 11

미얀마 (버마): 아웅산 수키 여사와 군부체제의 변화

1992년 부터 2011년에 걸친 국가평화발전위 원회 의장 탄 스웨 (Than Shwe) 물러나다.

2011년 데인 세인 2011년 아웅산 수키 여사의 가 (Thein Sein) 최초의 택 연금 해제. 2012년 국회의 문민 대통령 원 선출, 2012.11월 오바마의 미얀마 방문 12

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 46 6 중국- 류 샤오보

08 헌장의 저자 중 한 사람인 류 샤오보는 2009년 11년 형에 처해짐. 류는 정치적 개 혁과 공산당 일당 지배체제의 종식을 촉구하였다. 13

East sea

ASAN 620 HRA 14

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 47 7 인권의 보편성과 특수성

“국제사회가 채택한 일련의 규범과 가치”

규범과 가치의 발전은 외부 개념의 자동적 이식이 아니라 내부의 동적 역학관계 속에서 이루어진다.

특수성을 포괄한 보편성  필터링을 거친 보편성 (Filtered universality)

필터링을 거친 보편성 (Filtered universality)

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 48 8 아시아의 중요성 “21세기는 아시아의 세기”

중국의 부상

아시아태평양 지역의 등장 아세안+3: 세계인구의 30%, 동아시아정상회의- 세계 인구의 49% APEC-세계인구의 40.5%, 세계무역의 43.7%, 세계 GDP의 54.2%

아시아의 개념

아시아는 인위적으로 만들어 진 개념 어원은 동쪽을 뜻하는 라틴어 “Asu” 유럽중심주의: 오리엔트(해뜨는곳), 옥시덴트 (해 지는곳)

아시아의 경계는 미합의 상태. UN, 유엔경제위원회, 유엔인권최고대표사무실, APEC, 국가인권위아시아태평양포럼, 동아시아 정 상회의는 각각 다른 아시아 지역구분 사용

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 49 9 동아시아공동체를 향한 진전

 냉전 이후, 특히 97-98 경제위기 이후 아 시아의 지역협력의 필성필요성 증대

 미국의 아시아 지역협력 용인 정책으로의 점진적 변화

 급증하는 소지역 차원의 협력

 다양한 층위에서 진행되는 인권협력

지역 규정의 정치적 함의

 “지역을 정의하고 이름붙이는 이유는 정 복하기 위해서이다.”

 “지역은 발견된 것이 아니라 창조되거나 만들어 졌다.”

 1930년대의 대동아공영권의 피해의식

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 50 10 지역통합의 장애 지역의 광대함

문화적 다양함

역사적 적대의식

지역 헤게모니에 대한 두려움

미국의 쌍무주의‐ 분리통제 정책

유럽 시스템

1. 유럽평의회 ((pThe Council of Europe ) 1949년 설립, 21개국에서 47개국으로 (동유럽포함); 1949 평의회규약 제 3조:

 국가는 법의지배와 인권을 존중하는 진정한 민주주의여야 하며 평의화와 이러한 점에서 진지하게 협력해야 한다. 유럽인권법원 (European Court of Human Rights)

 유럽인권규약 (1949) 및 부속의정서 제 11호 (1993) 유럽사회헌장 (1965) 2. 유럽연합 (EU): 28 개국 3. 유럽안보협력기구 (OSCE): 57 개국

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 51 11 미주기구 (OAS)

1948년 미주기구 (OAS) 출범, 인간의 권리와 의무에 관한 미주 선언 채택 (유 럽인권헌장보다 2년 앞선 시점)

1959년 미주 인권위원회 설립 미주기구헌장에 기반

1969년 미주인권규약 채택 23 미주인권법원 설립

아프리카 시스템

 2001 아프리카연합 (AU) 53개 회원국으로 재출범  1963년 아프 리카연합기구(OAU) 헌장 채택  1981년 아프리카 인권과 민중의 권리헌장채택(Banjul charter)  아프리카 인권과 민중의 권리 위원회 및 법원 설립  시민정치적 권리, 경제 사회적 권리, 제3세대 권리.  책임에 대한 강조  절차 국가와의 교신; 교섭-통보, 제소-통보 제 3자의 통보: 개인 또는 NGO 관할인정 어렵지 않으나, 만장일치 형식의 결정

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 52 12 동아시아 공동체를 향한 발전

 냉전 종식과 1997-98년 재정 위기 이후 아시아의 지역협력 요구 본격화

 미국 또한 아시아의 지역적 협력에 상응하 는 점진적 정책 변화 보임

 소지역 차원의 협력의 증가

 다양한 층위에서의 인권협력의 진전

동아시아 공동체로의 발전

 아세안+3 아세안 10개국:브루나이, 캄보디아, 인도네시아, 라오스, 말레이시아, 미얀마, 필리핀, 싱가폴, 타일랜드, 베트남 한국, 중국, 일본

 동아시아정상회담 (EAS): 현재 18개국 아세안 10개국+한중일+ 인도,호주,뉴질랜드+ 미국,러시아

Cf. 아세안지역포럼 (ARF)

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 53 13 동아시아정상회의 (East Asia Summit)

동아시아 정상회의

 제 6차회의 (2011.11)  미국과 러시아 참여로 18개국  제 7차 회의 (2012.11))  정치적 문제에 대한 논의  오바마의 중국 영유권 분쟁 거론  북핵 문제 거론- “6자회담 복귀, 포괄적이고 검증가능한 비핵화”  2013년 동아시아 경제블록 협상 개시  동아시아 16개국 역내 포괄적경제동반자협정 (RCEP)  2015년 타결 목표  Cf. 미국: TPP(환태평양 경제동반자 협정) 추진:오스트레일리아, 브루나이,칠레, 캐나다, 일본, 말레이지아,멕시코, 뉴질랜드,페루,싱가포르, 미국, 베트남, (한국)  제 8차 동아시아정상회의 (브루나이, 2013)  제9차 동아시아정상회의 (미얀마, 2014)

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 54 14 아시아 내 소지역 차원의 협력

 동남아시아연합 (ASEAN)  아세안정부간인권위원회 (AICHR), 2009

 남아시아지역협력연합 (SAARC)- 8개국  남아시아지역협력연합헌장, 1985  남아시아지역협력연합 사회헌장 2004  지역 내 협정들, 2002  남아시아지역협력연합 민주주의헌장, 2011

 한중일 3국 정상회의  3국 협력 사무국 (2011)

 아랍연합  아랍인권헌장 1994  아랍 헌장 개정 2004  아랍인권위원회

 태평양군도포럼(PIF)

아시아 지역통합의 특성

경제협력 우선주의

기구로의 발전은 지연

여러 기구의 발전 이 상호 조율과정 없이 진행되고 있음.

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 55 15 개방적 지역주의

 아시아를 개방적이고 유연한 개념으로 이해해야.

 기존의 아시아에 대한 개념을 해체해야.

 아시아의 정체성은 외부에 의해서가 아니라 내부의 결의에 의해서 만들어 내야.

 아시아 정체성의 재발견은 아직 진행 중인 어젠다.

 인권체계는 그 과정의 필수적인 한 부분이 되어야.

아시아 지역통합과 협력

 경제협력

 안보 평화협력

 인권 사회 협력

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 56 16 ASEAN Vision 2020

아세안 정부간 인권위원회 (AICHR)

 2009년출범;  자문 (Consultative)기구;  회원국 당 1인의 위원, 각국의 추천 필요,  3년임기  여전히 인권 침해 사건 심의 재개 못함  2012년 11월, 아세안인권선언 채택 (ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, 2012)  다양한 비판 있음‐ “이빨없음 No teeth”, “비판못함 no biting”  “발전과정의 현상 work in progress”

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 57 17 아시아 인권법원의 역할

지리적 근접성

역사적 문화적 근접성

높은 수준의 인권 보호

효과적인 인권의 실행

아시아 각국의 참여 기회의 증대

아시아 인권 법원

 왜 범아시아 지역기구이어야 하는가 아세안 산하의 AICHR의 취약성 인권법원

 아시아 인권법원에 함께할수있는국가 인도, 몽고, 네팔, 필리핀, 남한, 스리랑카, 호주, 뉴질랜드 (ICCPR 선택의정서 비준국) 인도네시아, 말레이지아, 동티모르 (국가인권위 존재)

초기 합류 어려운 나라 단계적 접근 중국, 북한, 싱가포르, 베트남, 라오스, 미얀마, [일본]

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 58 18 동아시아 지역인권법원의 건설방안

 시나리오 1‐ 소지역 기구의 확장 아세안‐ 아세안정부간인권위원회 (()AICHR) 2009 동북아정상회의, 남아시아지역협력연합 및 태평양군도 포럼

 시나리오 2‐ 지역 통합과 병행하는 인권시스템 동아시아정상회담  동아시아공동체 동아시아인권선언 및 동아시아인권협약 채택 및 비준 [인권법원에 적극적인 나라중심으로 우선 설립 확대]

 시나리오 3‐ 안보체제에서 인권체제로의 발전 북핵 6자회담  아시아의 OSCE(유럽안보협력기구) 가 능성 37

State party ICESCR ICCPR OPT1 OPT2 CERD CEDAW CAT CRC CMW No of treatie s 1966/1976 1966/1976 ICCPR 1966/19 ICCPR 1966/1969 1979/1981 1984/1987 1989/1990 1990/2003 76 1989/1991

a Bangladesh 1998a 2000a 1979a 1984a 1998 1990 2011a 7 Bhutan s:1973 1981 1990 2(1s) Brunei Darussalam 2006a 1995a 2 a Cambodia 1992a 1992a s:2004 1983 1992 1992a 1992a s:2004 6(2s) China 2001 s:1998 1981a 1980 1988 1992 5(1s) Democratic People's Re 1981a 1981a 1976a 2001a 1990 5 public of Korea India 1979a 1979a 1989a 1993a 1968 1993 s:1997 1992a 7(1s) Indonesia 2006a 2006a 1999a 1984 1998 1990 s:2004 6(1s) Japan 1979 1979 1995a 1985 1999 a 1994 6 Lao People's Democratic 2007 2009 1974a 1981 s:2010 1991a 5(1s) Republic Malaysia 1995a 1995a 2 Maldives 2006a 2006a 2006a 1984a 1993a 2004a 1991 7 Mongolia 1974 1974 1991a 1969 1981 2002a 1990 7 Myanmar 1997a 1991a 2 Nepal 1991a 1991a 1991a 1998a 1971a 1991 1991a 1990 8 Pakistan 2008 2010 1966 1996a 2010 1990 6 Philippines 1974 1986 1989 2007 1967 1981 1986a 1990 1995 9 Republic of Korea 1990a 1990 a 1990a 1978* 1984 1995a 1991 7

Singapore 1995a 1995a 2 Sri Lanka 1980a 1980a 1997a 1982a 1981 1994a 1991 1996a 8 Thailand 1999a 1996a 2003a 1985a 2007a 1992a 6 Timor-Leste 2003a 2003a 2003a 2003a 2003a 2003a 2003a 2004a 8 Viet Nam 1982a 1982a 1982a 1982 1990 38 5

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 59 19 아시아적 특수성과 인권협력

 민주주의

 여성과 아동의 권리

 경제적, 문화적 권리

 개발과 환경

전략적 원칙

 인권 원칙을 포기하지 않되 유연한 접근

 개방적 지역주의에 입각한 유연한 기구

 점진적 진화 과정

 동아시아공동체 건설을 위한 네트워크의 필요성

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 60 20 맺음말 급속히 진행되는 아시아의 지역 통합

아시아의 가치는 인권규범을 포함해야

특수성을 담아내는 보편적 규범의 형성

동아시아공동체를 위한 적절한 정체성을 구축하는 활 동에서 시작해야

감사합니다.

백태웅 AitAssociate PPfrofessor of L aw William S. Richardson School of Law University of Hawai'I [email protected]; (808) 956‐7838

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 61 21 Institution Building Strategy for Asian Human Rights Mechanism

Tae‐Ung Baik

Associate Professor of Law William S. Richardson School of Law University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa 2515 Dole Street, Room. 245, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA (808) 956‐7838; [email protected] 1

Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 62 1 Introduction

 Basics of human rights in Asia

 Regional human rights systems

 Building Asian human rights institutions

Human Rights

“A series of norms and values adopted by the international community with the belief that every human being is entitled to the rights based on one’s human dignity”

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 63 2 Human rights

UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 64 3 ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

Art 6. Right to life; Art 17. No arbitrary or unlawful Art 7. Right not to be subjected to interference with his privacy, torture, or to cruel, inhuman or family, home or dditttdegrading treatment or correspondddence, and no punishment; unlawful attacks on his honour Art 9. Right to liberty and security and reputation; of person; Art 18. Right to freedom of Art 12. Right to liberty of thought, conscience and movement and freedom to religion; choose his residence, and right Art 19. Right to freedom of to freedom of speech; expression; Art 14. Right to equality before the Art 21. Right of peaceful assembly; courts and tribunals; right to be Art 22. Right to freedom of presumed innocence; No association; double-jeopardy; Art 26. Right to equal protection of Art 15. Right to not to be the law; retroactively punished; Art 27. Right to culture. 7

Nine Core International Treaties

CERD: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 Dec 1965 ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 Dec 1966 ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16 Dec 1966 CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 18 Dec 1979 CAT: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 10 Dec 1984 CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 Nov 1989 CMW: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 Dec 1990 ICED: International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 20 Dec 2006 CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 13 Dec 2006 8

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 65 4 Human rights in Asia

Compelling human rights issues

Jasmine Revolution: Arabic Spring

26 year old Mohammed Bouazizi incinerated himself in the ultimate protest at the corruption of Tunisia.

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 66 5 Vietnam- the arrest of legal scholar Cu Huy Ha Vu Brings about mass protests

Four bloggers arrested in 2014 Mr. Cu Huy Ha Vu, 53, has been in prison since November, 2010 charged with anti-state propaganda for posting critical articles on the Web and giving interviews “maligning party and state institutions and policies.” He called for multiparty democracy. His family has successfully mobilized unusually broad public support. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. 11

Myanmar (Burma): Aung San Suu Kyi and Changes in Military Regime

Than Shwe, chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) from 1992 to 2011 stepped down.

Nobel Peace Laureate Aungsan Suu Kyi released Thein Sein became from house arrest in 2010, and the first civilian elected as an MP in 2012, President in 2011. Obama met her in Myanmar in Nov. 2012. 12

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 67 6 China- Liu Xiaobo

Liu Xiaobo, one of the authors of Charter 08, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2009. He called for political reforms and the end of communist one-party rule in the People's Republic of China. 13

East sea

ASAN 620 HRA 14

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 68 7 Universality and particularity in human rights •“Norms and values adopted by the international community”

•Norms and values develops through internal dynamic process not by automatic transplantation of external concepts.

• Pursuing universality that incorporates particularities:

Filtered universality

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 69 8 Significance of Asia

The 21 century is Asian century.

The strength of China

The emergence of Asia Pacific region APT‐30% of world population, EAS‐49% of the population. APEC‐40.5% of the population, 43.7% of world trade, and 54.2% of world GDP

The concept of Asia Artificially manufactured concept of Asia Origin of the word: Latin word, “asu (east)” Eurocentric concept: Orient (where sun rises, orience; where sun sets (occidence); Far east Southeast Asia (Indo‐China): area in between India and China

No consensus on the borders of Asia. UN: (i) African States; (ii) Asian States; (iii) Eastern European States; (iv) Latin American States; and (v) Western European or other States Economic Commissions of UN: (i) Europe, (ii) Asia and the Pacific, (iii) Latin America and the Caribbean, (iv) Africa, and (v) Western Asia UN Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights: (i) Asia‐Pacific, (ii) Arab Region, (iii) Europe, (iv) North America and Central Asia, and (v) Latin America & Caribbean APEC: twenty‐one Asia‐Pacific economies, such as China, the United States of America, Canada, Mexico and Chile Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions: From Mongolia to Pacific Islands, and to Western Asian states East Asian Summits: 16 Asia‐Pacific states, including Australia and India

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 70 9 The political implication of regional grouping

 “To define or to name is to conquer.”

 “Regions are not discovered, but invented or constructed.”

 The trauma of the slogan of “Greater East Asia Co‐Prosperity Sphere” in 1930s

Hurdles to Regional Integration Regional broadness

Cultural diversity

Historical animosity

The fear of regional hegemony

Emphasis on bilateral relationship ‐‐ divide and rule policy of the US 20

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 71 10 European Systems

1. The Council of Europe Established in 1949; Grown from 21 states to 47 states. (including East European states); 1949 Statute of Council Art 3:  The state must be genuine democracy that respects the rule of law and HR and must collaborate sincerely and effectively with the Council in these domains. European Court of Human Rights  European Convention on HR(1949) and Protocol No. 11 (1993) European Social Charter, 1965 2. European Union (EU): 28 members 3. The Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE): 57 members 21

American System

 OAS was established in 1948.  American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men was also adopted in 1948  American Declaration is unique because it deals with duties.  Inter‐American Commission on HR Based on OAS Charter Inter‐American Commission on HR was created in 1959.  American convention on HR was adopted in 1969.  Inter‐American Court on HR was established.

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 72 11 African System  African Union (AU) was formed in 2001 with 53 members  The system began bbdased on the Char ter of OAU in 1963.

 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Banjul Charter) was adopted in 1981. African HR Commission and African Court on Human and People’s Rights were established under the Charter.  Civil and political rights, economic, social rights, and third generation rights.  Emphasis on duties

 Procedures Communication from states: negotiation‐communication, complaint‐communication Communication from others: individual and NGOs No admissibility requirements, but generally decisions are taken by consensus, de facto veto.

Development toward East Asian Community

 Demand for regional cooperation in Asia after the cold war and 1997‐98 financ ia l criiisis

 Gradual policy change of the US to accept regional cooperation in Asia

 Increasing sub‐regional cooperation

 Various layers of human rights cooperation

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 73 12 East Asian Community building

ASEAN +3 ASEAN‐10 states :Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam China, Japan, and South Korea

East Asia Summits (EAS): 18 member states ASEAN‐10 states +China, Japan, S. Korea + India, Australia, New Zealand + US and Russia

cf. ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)

East Asia Summit

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 74 13 East Asian Summits

 The 6th EAS (2011.11): US and Russia join EAS.  The 7th EAS, (2012.11):  Political issues are discussed:  Chinese territorial disputes  North Korean nuclear weapons- demanded a return to 6 party talks, and “comprehensive and verifiable nuclear dismantlement.”  Begins negotiation for a East Asian economic block:  The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) between 16 states; Target to conclude in 2015.  cf. US pursues Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) : Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam, [S. Korea].  The 8th EAS in Brunei (2013.10)  The 9th EAS in Myanmar (2014.11)

Sub‐regional institutions in Asia

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) ASEAN Inter‐governmental Commission on HR 2009 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) –8 states • SAARC Charter 1985 • SAARC Social Charter 2004 • Conventions signed in 2002 • SAARC Charter of Democracy, 2011 North‐East Asian Summit China‐Japan‐Korea Summits and Secretariat (2011) The League of Arab States • Arab Charter on Human Rights of 1994 • Revised Arab Charter in 2004 • Arab Human Rights Committee Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) 28

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 75 14 Characteristics of Asian integration

 Economic cooperation first

 Delayed institutional development

 Lack of coordination of institutional development

Open regionalism

 Asia is an open and flexible concept.

 Should deconstruct old perception.

 Identities will be defined not by outsiders, but by internal resolution.

 Rediscovering self‐identities in Asia is an ongoing agenda.

 A human rights system should be a key element in the process. 30

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 76 15 Asian Regional Integration and cooperation

 Economic cooperation

 Peace and security cooperation

 Human rights and social cooperation

ASEAN Vision 2020

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 77 16 ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

 Inaugurated in 2009;  Consultative body;  One per member state, nominated by and answerable to the government.  Three‐year term  No case considered.  Terms of Reference adopted in April 2011  AICHR drafted ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, and ASEAN adopted it in Nov. 2012.  Criticisms on its weakness: “No teeth”, “no biting”  “work in progress”

Benefits of Asian Human Rights court

Geographical proximities

Historical and cultural bonds

Human rights protection with higher standards

Effective enforcement

Better opportunity to participate for Asian states

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 78 17 A HR court for Asian region  Why should it be a pan‐regional one? Limitations of AICHR of ASEAN Human rights courts

 Which state may agree upon a regional human rights court in Asia? India, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka; AAtliustralia, New ZZldealand (OPT 1 membb)ers); Indonesia, Malaysia, Timor‐Leste (NHRIs);

States that may not participate initially: China, North Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, [Japan] 35

Strategy for East Asian Regional HR Court

 Option 1‐ Expansion of sub‐regional systems ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009 NE Asian Summit, SAARC and PIF

 Option 2‐ Regional integration and HR convention East Asian Summits  East Asian Community East Asian HR declaration East Asian Convention on HR [selective participation in the HR Court expansion]

 Option 3‐ A security regime may expand its role to a human rights system Six Party Talk on N. Korea  Asian OSCE? 36

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 79 18 State party ICESCR ICCPR OPT1 OPT2 CERD CEDAW CAT CRC CMW No of treatie s 1966/1976 1966/1976 ICCPR 1966/19 ICCPR 1966/1969 1979/1981 1984/1987 1989/1990 1990/2003 76 1989/1991

Incorporating Particularities in Asia

 Democracy

 The rights of women and children

 Economic and cultural rights

 Development and environment

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 80 19 Strategic principles

 Flexible approach without sacrificing human rights principles

 Soft institution with open regionalism

 Evolutionary process

 Cooperative network for the East Asian Community!

Conclusion Rapid regional integration in Asia

Asian values should include human rights norms.

Promoting universal norms incorporating particularities

Should begin activities to build a proper identity for the East Asian Community.

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 81 20 Thank you!

Tae‐Ung Baik AAitssociate PPfrofessor of L aw William S. Richardson School of Law University of Hawai‘i [email protected]; (808) 956‐7838

Professor Tae-Ung Baik 82 21