On August 25, 2021, the Refugee Rights Network released an official statement in response to a briefing issued the same day by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The core argument was this: “The government is refusing to call refugees refugees, dressing up legal obligations as acts of generosity, and repeatedly using language that fosters hostility toward refugees.” Below, each point of contention is explained one by one.
Response to the Ministry of Justice Briefing
1. Allowing Afghans to stay is an obligation, not a favour
Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 2(1) of the Convention Against Torture both legally prohibit returning a person to a place where they face persecution, torture, or cruel treatment. This is called the principle of non-refoulement.
As of August 2021, Afghanistan had just seen the Taliban return to power for the first time in twenty years, effectively overturning the country’s entire governing structure. That same month, UNHCR called on countries around the world to halt the deportation of Afghan nationals.
Allowing Afghans already in Korea to stay rather than forcibly removing them is therefore something the Korean government is required to do under treaty obligations. Framing this as an act of government generosity does not reflect the facts.
2. The ‘Special Humanitarian Stay Measure’ is not the same as ‘Humanitarian Stay Permission’ under the Refugee Act
The ‘Special Humanitarian Stay Measure’ announced by the Ministry of Justice at the time is a different concept from the ‘Humanitarian Stay Permission’ defined in Article 2(3) of the Refugee Act.
There were cases in the media where the two concepts were confused. Even though the names sound similar, their legal effects and what they actually guarantee differ, so it is important to distinguish between them accurately.
3. Three things that must be included in any stay measures
The Refugee Rights Network stated that any measures for Afghans currently staying in Korea need to incorporate the following three elements.
| Consideration | Content |
|---|---|
| Stable, long-term residency | A secure, lasting status rather than short-term visa extensions |
| Compliance with non-refoulement obligations | Genuine fulfilment of obligations under international law |
| Support for settling in Korean society | Guaranteed social rights including employment, education, and healthcare |
At that time, even Syrians and Yemenis who already held ‘Humanitarian Stay Permission’ were struggling to build lives in Korea because of their precarious legal status. The organisation’s position was that Afghans should not be placed in the same unstable limbo.
4. Specific problems with the ‘Special Humanitarian Stay Measure’
Stay permission without work authorisation amounts to constructive deportation
In Korean society, where almost no financial assistance is available, people have no way to support themselves if they cannot work. Stay permission without work authorisation effectively pressures people to either leave voluntarily or work without authorisation.
Problems with how overstayers are treated
The plan to issue deportation orders to Afghans who had overstayed their visas and then simply extend the deadline for departure was criticised on three grounds.
First, unrecognised refugees face the same dangers. Just like those with valid status, people who have overstayed face the same risk of persecution by the Taliban. Many of them received negative decisions in the refugee recognition process for various procedural reasons and were unable to return home, making them de facto refugees living without legal status. They should receive the same treatment as those with valid visas: fines should be waived and they should be granted G-1-99 (Other) residency status.
Second, ‘protective custody’ is effectively indefinite detention. The Ministry of Justice announced that anyone without a guarantor or with a criminal record would be placed under ‘protective custody.’ In practice, this means issuing a deportation order and then detaining the person indefinitely in an immigration detention centre.
Under this policy, a refugee who happens to know someone in Korea would not be detained, while one who does not would be. That is not an objective standard. Additionally, applying protective custody automatically to anyone with a criminal record, without any assessment of the severity of the offence, is contrary to international standards. Refugees and humanitarian stay permit holders cannot be forcibly removed except in cases involving extremely serious crimes, and if they have already served a criminal sentence, they should be supported in settling into society without being subjected to a second punishment.
Third, actual deportation is impossible. With UNHCR calling for a halt to returns to Afghanistan and no commercial flights operating to Kabul, deportation was not feasible. Placing people under ‘protective custody’ in that situation was tantamount to forcing them to choose between returning to life under the Taliban or being held in indefinite detention in Korea.
5. On the use of language that stirs up hostility toward refugees
The Refugee Rights Network criticised certain phrases used by the Ministry of Justice in its briefing, arguing they foster misunderstanding and hostility toward refugees.
The expressions in question were:
- “We will give top priority to national interest.”
- “We will take firm measures.”
- “We will take the safety of Korean citizens into consideration.”
Repeatedly using these phrases creates the impression that Afghan refugees are somehow “contrary to the national interest” or “a threat to public safety.” Framing people who have fled serious danger in this way directly fuels hostility toward refugees. The Ministry of Justice, as the body responsible for these matters, has an obligation to actively correct misunderstandings rather than reinforce them.
Response to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Description of ‘Special Contributors, Not Refugees’
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the Afghan local staff and interpreters being airlifted to Korea as ‘special contributors, not refugees.’ The Refugee Rights Network stated this framing was deeply inappropriate.
Local staff members are refugees under the Refugee Convention
The very fact that they worked for the Korean government gives the Taliban grounds to persecute them. This means they meet the criteria for refugee status under the Refugee Convention. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Japan, and numerous other countries were already bringing their own local staff home and supporting them in resettling as refugees for exactly this reason.
This is a legal obligation, not a reward for services rendered
Calling these people ‘special contributors’ and framing residence rights or permanent residency as something awarded to them makes it look as though refugee status - something that should be granted as a matter of international human rights law - is instead a kind of medal handed out to people who cooperated helpfully with the Korean government. This risks embedding a distorted understanding of the refugee system in Korean society.
The phrase ‘special contributors, not refugees’ also creates an unnecessary sense of hierarchy between these individuals and other refugees in identical circumstances.
Refugee support should not be treated like unwanted homework. ‘Refugee’ is not a word that cannot be spoken. , Refugee Rights Network, August 25, 2021
Key Terms Explained
| Term | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Non-refoulement | The principle of international law that prohibits forcibly returning a person to a place where they face danger |
| Recognised refugee | A foreigner who has been formally recognised as a refugee under the Refugee Act |
| Humanitarian Stay Permission | A legal status granted to someone who does not meet the full refugee criteria but cannot return home due to risks such as torture (Refugee Act, Article 2(3)) |
| G-1-99 (Other) | A residency status code granted on a temporary basis for humanitarian or other special reasons; carries limited legal protection |
| Immigration detention centre (외국인보호소) | A facility where foreigners subject to a deportation order are held until they leave the country; no maximum detention period exists under Korean law |
| Protective custody (보호조치) | An administrative procedure in which a person subject to a deportation order is held in an immigration detention centre |
Reference Links
- Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Korea Ministry of Government Legislation)
- Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Korea Ministry of Government Legislation)
- Refugee Act (Korea National Law Information Center)
- Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act, Article 2, Humanitarian Stay Permission (Korea National Law Information Center)
Figures, deadlines, and policy details can change at any time. Before taking any action, please check the latest information with the Immigration Contact Center (1345) or your local Korea Immigration Service office.