Earticle

헌법은 국민들이 건강하고 쾌적한 환경에서 생활할 권리를 보장하고 있으며, 이를 위하여 환경정책기본법은 환경을 자연환경과 생활환경으로 구분하여 정의하고 있다. 대기, 물 등 사람 의 일상생활과 관계되는 것으로 정의되고 있는 “생활환경”은 주민들의 일상생활에 밀접하고 직 접적인 영향을 미치고 있으나, 개별 환경법은 “자연환경” 규제를 더 중시하고 있는 실정이다. 그 예로서 환경영향평가법의 환경영향평가대상에서 생활환경분야의 비산먼지는 독립적 환경영 향 평가항목으로 규정되어 있지 않으며, 대기환경보전법에서 규제하고 있는 대상은 주로 점오염 원인 공장 등의 사업장과 자동차 및 선박의 배출가스와 온실가스와 관련하여 규정하고 있으며, 생활환경으로 분류되는 비점오염원인 건설현장의 비산먼지는 대기환경보전법의 단 한 개 조항 인 제43조(비산먼지의 규제) 항목으로 규제하고 있는 실정이다. 이는 비점오염원인 건설현장의 비산먼지는 환경기준을 설정하고, 설정된 기준을 일관되게 측정하기 어렵기 때문인 것으로 판단 된다. 따라서 이 연구의 목적은 비점오염원의 특성을 가진 건설현장의 비산먼지를 규제하기 위하여 현행법 제도를 검토하고, 현행법 제도에 따른 건설현장의 환경관리실태를 조사하고, 건 설현장의 비산먼지로 인한 환경분쟁실태를 조사함으로써, 건설현장의 비산먼지 관리상의 문제 점을 파악하여, 그에 대한 개선방안을 제시함으로써 국민들의 쾌적한 생활환경을 보장하는 것이 다. 본 연구의 결과를 요약하면, 건설현장의 비산먼지를 관리하기 위한 법제도가 대기환경보전 법 제43조(비산먼지의 규제)에서 비산먼지 발생사업신고 및 비산먼지 발생억제 시설기준으로 규제하고 있으나 이는 신고와 더불어 규정된 시설을 설치함으로써 사업자는 의무를 다하게 되 며, 실질적 비산먼지 저감에 대한 효과성을 담보하고 있지 못하여, 비산먼지로 인한 환경분쟁이 지속적으로 발생하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 따라서 현재 건축법에서 규정하고 있는 건설현장 감리 제도를 활용하여 상시적 환경관리제도를 강화함으로써 비점오염원인 건설현장의 비산먼지를 저감할 수있을 것으로 판단된다. 향후 연구로서는 환경오염을 특성을 고려할 때 환경피해 예방 및 저감을 위하여 공학, 자연과학, 인문학, 사회과학 및 법학 등의 관련 분야에서의 지속적인 공동연구가 필요하다.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, and for this purpose, the Framework Act on Environmental Policy defines the environment by dividing it into the natural environment and the living environment. The “living environment”, which is defined as being related to the daily life of people, such as air and water, is closely and directly related to the daily life of residents, but individual environmental laws place more importance on the regulation of “natural environment”. For example, fugitive dust in the living environment is not stipulated as an independent item of environmental impact assessment in the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and ships and greenhouse gas are mainly stipulated on the Clean Air Conservation Act, on the other hand fugitive dust from construction sites, a non-point pollution source classified as a living environment, is regulated by only one article of the Clean Air Conservation Act, Article 43 (Regulation of Fugitive Dust). This is considered to be because it is difficult to set environmental standards for fugitive dust from construction sites, a non-point pollution source and to measure the set standards consistently. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose improved system to ensure a pleasant living environment for the people by reviewing the current legal system to regulate fugitive dust at construction sites, which has the characteristics of non-point pollution sources, and investigating the environmental management status of construction sites according to the current legal system and environmental disputes caused by fugitive dust at construction sites. To summarize, the legal system for managing fugitive dust at construction sites stipulates to submit fugitive dust generating business report and to install fugitive dust generation control facilities according to Article 43 (Regulation of Fugitive Dust) of the Clean Air Conservation Act. However, this article does not guarantee the effectiveness of actual fugitive dust reduction even though the contractor fulfills its obligations such as the installation of the stipulated facilities after submitting the fugitive dust generating business report and it give rise to environmental dispute due to the fugitive dust. Therefore, it is proposed that fugitive dust from construction sites, a non-point pollution source, can be reduced by strengthening the regular environmental management system by utilizing the supervision system stipulated in the current Building Act. For the further research, continuous joint research in related fields such as engineering, natural science, humanities, social science and law is necessary to prevent and reduce environmental damage when considering the characteristics of environmental pollution.

이 연구는 심각한 사회 및 환경문제를 일으키고 있는 미국과 한국의 습지갈등에 대한 특성을 파악하였다. 비교연구를 위해 동일한 개방적 인터뷰형, 리커트 형 및 순위측정 형 설문지가 미국의 12 곳, 한국의 5 곳에 사용되어 갈등의 특성과 그 영향을 파악하였다. 미국에서는 53명, 한국에서는 258명이 개방적 인터뷰에 응답하였고, 여타 설문지에 응답한 전체 응답자수는 567명이다. 설문분석 결과, 습지 갈등에 관련된 이해당사자들은 각각 다른 갈등프레임을 가지고 있었으며, 그 프레임은 갈등시의 역할에 따라 크게 다르게 나타났다. 갈등해결의 열쇠로 이해당사자의 재프레임이 갈등해결에 중요한 단서가 되는 사실을 규명하였고, 이를 유발하기 위해, 공적중재자를 통한 갈등해결 방안을 대안으로 제시하였다.

This study attempted to characterize and compare wetland conflicts in Korea and United States, which caused serious social and environmental effects. First of all, such 3 different survey methods as open-ended questionnaires, Likert-type and ranking questionnaires were adopted for 5 selected study sites in Korea and 12 cases in the U.S. in order to understand and measure these effects. 53 subjects were contacted for open face-to-face interviews in the U.S. and 258 in Korea and overall 567 disputants were for other questionnaires. Analyses of survey results revealed that disputants involved in the wetland conflicts had developed different concept of conflict frames. The study also identified the reframing is the key for conflict resolution Based on these results, a idea of public mediator was suggested to resolve and mediate conflicts.

The Paris Agreement, which urges countries around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and participate in climate change, has begun, and various policies are being implemented to solve environmental problems around the world. India has implemented several environmental policies early on to solve the environmental pollution problem. The National Green Tribunal, also known as the Environmental Court, is one of them. However, the environmental courts in India have less authority than the environmental courts in the West, which have been concerned about environmental conservation for a long time, because tourism based on environmental resources and natural scenery are major national resources such as New Zealand, England, and Austria. In Korea, the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee is being operated as an environmental dispute mediation system, but it is difficult to prepare for environmental problems that are gradually increasing in size and complexity. In this case, I think that the environmental court of India can be considered as a model that can improve the realistic environmental solution for Korea compared to the environmental courts of the western world. Also, when thinking a little later, it would be a good way to introduce an environmental court as an opportunity to strengthen the method of resolving environmental disputes.

육상오염원 등으로 인한 해양환경오염에 따른 초국경해양환경피해는 한국뿐만 아니라 주변인접국들에게 중대한 영향을 줄 것이다. 이 경우 초국경해양환경피해에 대한 실효적인 예방책과 사후 현실적인 구제책을 국제법상 체계적이고 종합적으로 마련할 필요성이 있다. 그러기 위해서는 해양환경오염에 의한 초국경해양환경피해에 대한 관 련 조약과 사례를 검토하고 국가책임 문제와 분쟁해결의 한가지 방법인 유엔해양법협 약의 강제절차를 다룰 필요가 있다. 유엔해양법협약은 눈에 띄는 분쟁해결절차를 도입 하였다. 동 협약은 각 국가들 간의 해양관련 분쟁을 처리하는 데 있어 자발적이고 평화 적인 해결 방법을 이용할 것을 강조하고 만약 실패했을 때에는 강제조정 및 사법재판 을 수단으로 해결할 것을 명시하여, 기존의 방법보다 한 차원 높은 분쟁해결방식을 제시하였다. 유엔해양법협약의 해석과 적용에 관한 분쟁이 평화적 방법들에 의해 해결 되지 못하는 경우에는 동 협약 제15부 제2절의 분쟁해결규정들이 적용되는데, 이를 구속력 있는 결정을 수반하는 강제절차라고 한다. 이는 제3자에 의한 분쟁해결을 도입 했다는 뜻에서 국제법적으로 그 의미가 매우 크다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 강제절차의 선택에 있어서 국가들은 많은 재량권을 갖게 되고, 유엔해양법협약 당사국들은 국제해 양법재판소, 국제사법재판소, 중재재판소, 특별중재재판소 중에서 하나 이상을 선택할 수 있다. 특히 국제해양법재판소의 역할과 기능, 강제절차의 적용과 선택, 적용의 제한과 예외, 관할권 문제를 검토하였다.

Transboundary ocean environmental harms due to marine environmental pollution caused by terrestrial pollutants will have a significant impact not only on korea but also on neighboring countries. In this case, there is a need to systematically and comprehensively prepare effective preventive measures and realistic ex-post measures for transboundary ocean environmental harms under international law. To do so, it is necessary to study relevant treaties and cases on transboundary ocean environmental harms caused by ocean environmental pollution and deal with the issue of state responsibility and the compulsory procedures of the UNCLOS, which is one method of dispute settlement. The UNCLOS introduced a prominent dispute settlement procedure. This convention emphasizes the use of voluntary and peaceful means of settlement in resolving ocean disputes between countries, and if this fails, it have stipulates that they will be resolved through compulsory arbitration and judicial proceedings, thereby presenting a dispute settlement method that is level higher than existing methods. In cases where disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the UNCLOS cannot be resolved through peaceful means, the dispute settlement provisions of Part 15, Section 2 of the Convention shall apply, which are referred to as compulsory procedures involving binding decisions. This can be said to have great significance in terms of international law as it introduces dispute settlement by a third party. However, states have a lot of discretion in choosing a compulsory procedure, and the parties to the UNCLOS can choose one or more of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, the Arbitral Tribunal, and the Special Arbitral Tribunal. In particular, the role and function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the application and choice of compulsory procedures, limitations and exceptions to application, and jurisdiction issues were studied.

환경문제를 목적으로 체결되는 다자간환경협약이 당 협약의 이행을 담보하기 위해 행해지는 무역규제조치가 자유무역을 증진시키기 위한 WTO 협정과 충돌하는문제가 발생할 경우가 매우 높아지고 있다. 만약 두 가치의 충돌로 인하여 분쟁이일어나면, 그 분쟁의 해결은 WTO 분쟁해결절차 또는 분쟁해결기구의 판단에 따르게 될 가능성이 매우 크다. 그런데 WTO는 기본적으로 환경 전문가로 구성된 환경기구가 아니라 무역전문가들로 이루어진 조직일 뿐만 아니라 자유무역의 왜곡과제한을 최소화하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있기 때문에 WTO 협정이 추구하는 가치를우선순위로 고려할 가능성이 높다. 이에 무역과 환경의 연계뿐만 아니라 다양한MEAs의 이행 및 준수, 환경관련분쟁의 전문적 해결에 대한 수요가 날로 증가하고있는 현 상황에서 환경 중심의 새로운 분쟁해결기관의 출현은 매우 시급하다. 실제로 자유무역 가치가 아닌 환경보호 중심의 관점에서 볼 때 무역과 환경 간의 분쟁문제를 효과적으로 조율할 수 있는 적절한 분쟁해결기관의 부재는 상당수 MEAs의의미와 실질적인 집행력을 저하시키는 원인이 되고 있다. 하지만 현실적으로 이러한 기관을 설립하는 데에는 많은 제약이 따르므로 단기적인 관점에서 무역과 환경사이의 충돌을 평화적으로 해결하기 위한 적절한 분쟁해결기관으로 유엔 산하의유엔지속개발위원회(UNCSD)를 활용하는 방안을 고려해 볼 필요가 있다. 무엇보다도 UNCSD가 무역과 환경의 적절한 조화, 즉 지속가능한 개발을 도모하기 위해 설립된 조직임을 고려해 본다면, UNCSD가 무역과 환경의 적절한 조화를 위한 도모하기 위한 구심점으로서의 역할을 수행하는데 큰 문제는 없어 보인다. 아울러 이러한 역할과 관련하여 WTO 산하의 무역환경위원회(CTE) 및 국제연합환경계획(UNEP)가 UNCSD와의 지속적인 연계를 통해 UNCSD를 보완해 줄 수도 있을 것이다.

The international and national environmental perspective trade-related measures provided by 'Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)' may have significant implications for trade. In this sense, efforts to reconcile MEAs' rule and WTO law have taken various paths. Indeed, finding the way of a sensible balance for the tension between the trade and environment is urgent for sustainable development. But it seems that the parties to MEAs have generally waited for the WTO to act,and the WTO created the 'Commission on Trade and Environment (CTE),' to clarify and reconcile the conflicts between the goal of free trade and environmental protection. The works done by the CTE, however, have not successfully solved such tensions. Therefore, we need to find a new approach to resolution of the conflicts between MEAs and WTO Agreements from an environmental perspective,rather than trade bodies, such as WTO dispute settlement bodies. The establishment of the 'World Environment Organization' would be the best resolution effort from an environmental perspective, but it is not practical yet. Therefore, this article suggests the 'UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)' to serve the forum for the effective dispute resolution of trade-environment conflicts.

Transboundary air pollution between China and South Korea starts with desertification in China and southeasterly “yellow dust” storms act as vectors for various kinds of pollutants, including fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, These pollutants are carried by wind towards South Korea sulfur dioxide, aerosols, ozone, and heavy metals. and can cause numerous health problems, including respiratory and eye diseases. While air pollution within China is well understood, attributing causation for this pollution becomes complicated once it reaches South Korea. Studies have estimated as much as 49% of South Korea’s air pollution can be attributed to China. Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) led a 2016 international effort which determined that only 15% of South Korea’s particulate matter is attributable to South Korean anthropogenic sources while most of the remainder comes from China. Despite its complexity, the China-South Korea transboundary air pollution problem is not unsolvable. State responsibility entails the violation of an obligation under international law primary norms typically found in treaties, customary international law or general principles of international law. State liability entails the compensation of damage in the absence of a wrongful act.** 2) The latter is concerned with the transboundary risk associated with legitimate activities occurring in a state’s territory (including activities carried out by private actors). Transboundary pollution is a prime example because it occurs as a result of activities which may not be unlawful or inherently reprehensible (energy production, for instance). State responsibility/liability has no direct equivalent in domestic liability law, but the two can easily capture the same kind of conduct. The so-called regulatory liability of the state in tort, for instance, targets the failure of public authorities to ensure compliance with environmental law. Trial and appellate courts have grappled with claims brought by victims against polluters and the public authorities who had been negligent in overseeing or investigating the operations. I will overview the issue for the civil liability of transboundary air pollution in international environmental law context, the present statutory structure, and the future challenges of international environmental law. I introduce the concepts of responsibility and liability in international environmental law, which paved the way for the proliferation of civil liability regimes and the development of the duty to ensure prompt and adequate compensation.

This article was modified and the original article was lectured and discussed on the Conference(2008.9.27.) held by Korea Environmental Law Association. This article focus on the main issue of the relation between Environmental Dispute Resolution and Environmental Litigation. Basically the Environmental Dispute Resolution is the one of the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) has the merits of informalization, delegalization and deprofessionalization comparing with the litigation at the court. In the aspect of environmental dispute, National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission deals with disputes and potential conflicts under the Environmental Dispute Resolution Law, which is one of models of ADR. Recently the Environmental Dispute Resolution Law gives the decision of National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission the power of enforcement. This change would increase the possibility of litigation of decision of National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission. Environmental Dispute Resolution and Environmental Litigation has different goals and procedure. Nevertheless Environmental Dispute Resolution has to be offered under the rule of law. Also the public legal assistance or legal aid has to be prepared to protect the party who suffered personal injury and property damages, specially in the case of the Environmental Dispute Resolution case is handed over the court.

본 연구의 목적은 우리나라 행정형 분쟁조정기구 중 환경분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정(ADR)의 운영과정, 분쟁조정 방법, 분쟁조정의 경제적 효과를 분석하고 이에 따른 정책적 함의를 제시하는 것이다. 이를 위해 환경분쟁조정위원회의 5년간(2007∼2011년) 실적자료를 분석하였다. 본 연구의 연구결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정 접수건수는 조사기간(2007∼2011년) 5년 동안 연평균 351건이고, 이 중 처리건수는 연평균 205건으로 분쟁처리율은 58.3%이고, 조정성립률은 84.8%로 나타났다. 둘째, 분쟁조정(해결) 방식은 재정이 98.1%(201건), 조정이 1.9%(4건)로 재정이 절대적으로 많이활용되고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 재정방식 중에서는 배상결정 61.9%, 중재합의 21.5%, 기각 16.0%의 순으로 나타났다. 셋째, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정 처리기간은 연평균 5.3개월로 나타났다. 넷째,환경분쟁조정위원회의 기구운영에 따른 2011년(1년간)에 발생하는 연간 총비용은(운영비용+이용비용)은약 83억 9천 2백만 원이고, 기구운영에 따른 연간 총 편익(이용편익)은 약 176억 9천 4백만 원으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 기구운영에 따른 분쟁조정의 경제적 효과(순편익=총편익-총비용)는 약 93억 2백만 원으로 나타났다.

The purpose of this study is to analyze dispute resolution and its economic effects of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission (EDRC), which is one of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) government agencies in South Korea. This paper analyzes EDRC dispute resolution data from five years (2007 to 2011) and calculates benefits and costs in terms of dispute resolutions of the EDRC. Summaries of the results are as follows: First, the total number applying to the EDRC to resolve environmental disputes is 351 on annual average; the total number of dispute resolutions is 205 annually, which means that the resolution rate of the EDRC is 58.3%; the mediation rate is 84.8%. Second, in terms of resolving disputes, finance (98.1%) is the most successful resolution method, while mediation (1.9%) is one of the least successful methods. Among finance resolutions, compensation is used 61.9% of the time, arbitration agreement 21.5%, dismissal 16.0%. Third, the period for dispute resolution is 5.3 months on annual average. Fourth, the total yearly operational cost of the EDRC is about 8,392 million won, whereas the total benefit is about 17,694 million won. The final economic effect (net benefit = total benefit ? total cost) arising from dispute resolution by the EDRC is 932 million won.

Resently, in accordance with increasing complaints about procedures such as high cost, delay of proceedings, inefficiency, the need for an alternative dispute resolution at the environmental dispute related to environmental Pollution is increased. And the effort to utilize the traditional dispute resolution and to develop a new form of dispute resolution is being made, but Coordination, Ruling are applied in the form of legal conflict solution. In other words, this form of alternative dispute resolution as a method for solving daily complicated environmental dispute promptly and fairly through efficient use of professionalism and swiftness of the administrative agents with little costs and an easy-to-use process by administrative council having quasi-judicial dispute settlement. Also, more important and necessary than an agreement is a fundamental solution by precautions. It should be institutionalized that institutional and operational problems that were found in the cource of dealing with he coordination process should be feedbacked to concerned departments and be reflected when policies are established. In the future, promoting should be strengthened so as to proactive conflict resolution system and licensing agencies should exert so residents not to be exposed to pollution damage.

인간의 삶의 질이 향상되는 가운데 끊임없이 일어나고 있는 환경분쟁은 분쟁지역의 광범위성, 분쟁당사자의 집단성, 사람의 생명과 건강의 관련성, 피해와 가해행위와의 상관관계 규명의 곤란성, 신속한 해결의 필요성 등의 특성을 가지고 있다. 그러나 분쟁해결의 전형인 정식적인 재판은 재판자체의 복잡성, 형식성, 고비용, 장기성 등과 더불어 환경소송 자체의 원고적격의 문제, 입증책임의 어려움 등으로 말미암아 소송을 꺼려하고 있어 소송 대체적 분쟁해결기제(ADR)가 대두하게 되었다. 오늘날 ADR을 활성화하려는 움직임은 세계적인 추세이고 그 이론이 보편화되고 있다. 이러한 ADR의 이론적 내용을 토대로 현재 시행되고 있는 우리나라의 환경분쟁조정제도와 일본의 공해분쟁처리제도의 운영 실태를 분쟁조정제도․제도의 이용실태․제3자의 개입성․경제성․전문가의 활용성․당사자의 자율성 등의 기준에서 비교분석하여 우리나라의 환경분쟁조정제도의 개선점을 도출하였다. 즉, 조정위원회의 기능 보완, 중앙과 지방의 기능 재배분, 조정위원회의 운영 내실, 조정 전 단계에서 분쟁을 해결할 수 있는 제도적 기틀 마련, 분쟁의 대종을 이루는 소음․분쟁에 대한 대처, 다양한 소송 대체적 해결기제의 개발과 연구 및 홍보 등이 필요함을 제시하였다.

The environmental disputes that ceaselessly occur with the objective of improving the quality of human life have various characteristics. They show the extensiveness of regional disputes, the collectivism of the people concerned, the relation to human health and life, the difficulty in examining the interrelationship between damage and harm, as well as the necessity for immediate treatment. Because people avoid litigation due to its complexity, formality, cost and time, ADR has come up as a secondary dispute resolution system. There is a global tendency to use ADR, so the theory is becoming widely accepted. This paper has figured a reform measure by comparing Korea’s and Japan's environmental dispute resolution system. It focuses on the mediation system, the use status of the mediation system, interactions of the mediator, economical procedures, practical use of experts and the self-control of the parties involved, all based on ADR. The results were as followed: 1. a need for supplementing the function of the mediation committees 2. a redistribution of the functions of the central and local mediation committees 3. a strengthening of the mediation committee's administration 4. a foundation for resolving disputes prior to mediation 5. a countermeasure against noise conflicts that consist mostly of environmental disputes 6. development and research about various ADR and publicizing ADR.

When individuals need to resolve their disputes with other individuals, they may often go not only to courts for trial but also to alternative methods of dispute resolution (“ADR”). Drawing upon a few recent studies, this article provides some economic explanation about why individuals make use of ADR instead of trial and/or settlement. By examining what the social interest is in ADR, it also provides a useful reference point by which one can evaluate the ADR system the “Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act” has developed to cope with complicated environmental disputes. Part I begins with defining the characteristics of environmental disputes that make environmental litigation less frequent. Due to the tendency of “under-litigation” involving environmental disputes, ADR is particularly needed for environmental disputes. An ADR system aiming at environmental disputes needs to be designed so as to i) minimize the total cost of resolving disputes, and simultaneously ii) to engage as many parties involved as possible and make an ideal communication structure where the parties involved can provide each other with the relevant information(Part II). Part III looks over the cost structure of ADR. The dispute resolution costs of ADR consist of ADR-using cost(“operation cost”) and misjudgment cost(“error cost”). To save the former, it is necessary to trade off the latter. Accordingly, an ideal ADR system must be such that the sum of both can be minimized. In general, ADR brings about less operation costs than a trial before the courts. Therefore the success of ADR depends upon how much it can minimize error costs. If one can design an ideal communication structure in ADR process, it may also help lower error costs. Part IV specifies ADR's institutional elements necessary to cope successfully with environmental disputes. Drawing upon the findings of Part III and IV, Part V evaluates the current ADR system established by the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act.

The Environmental Dispute Adjustment System (“EDAS”) stipulated in the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act (“EDAA”) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) handled by a division of the Administrative Branch. This particular dispute resolution mechanism followed in the EDAS, consists of several controversial aspects, when viewed in the light of various general principles that lies in the core of ADR. Though the main purpose of EDAS, which models after the Japanese Adjustment System for Grievances from Pollution, is to settle civil disputes arising in the environmental areas, when compared, the vast majority of EDAS cases in Korea relate to adjudicatory awards while mediation cases constitute overwhelming dispute resolutions in Japan. This, therefore, has drawn criticism concerning the Korean practice of dispute resolution in the environmental dispute setting, since it runs contrary to the very nature of ADR. Furthermore, in consideration of the general principles of ADR, the provisions of EDAA consist of various fundamental defects. In fact, due to the tendency of ‘under-litigation’ involving environmental disputes, to some extent, this requires a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes. Under the current system of EDAS, however, the State provides public subsidy to litigants as a matter of fact, which may result in ‘over-litigation’ of disputed cases and actually create a converse effect. Though it may be inevitable to sustain the current system for the time being, for the future, the EDAS should be framed in order to minimize the total cost of resolving disputes. Since the total cost consists of both an ‘operation cost’ and an ‘error cost,’ to reduce the former cost, the latter cost is considered as a necessary trade-off. The EDAS, therefore, must be constructed in a way to minimize the sum of both costs accordingly. Until recently, the successful outcome of a mediation or an adjudicatory award within the EDAS has been considered as a formal consent agreement between the parties concerned, which is greatly similar to that of Japan. Nevertheless, because of the newly enacted statute, EDAA(amended by Act No. 8955 on Mar. 21, 2008, and effective on Sep. 22. 2008), the final outcome of EDAS now has the same effect as a consent judgment of a court. This raises doubts on whether the amendment of the statute can even be upheld as legitimate at all. Under the current Civil Procedure Act in Korea, consent judgments not only have the effect of an execution(enforcement power) but also the effect of a claim preclusion(res judicata). When compared, the Korean consent judgment system is somewhat different from the German system, which only has the effect of execution(enforcement power) but not of claim preclusion. The constitutionality of the statute must also be strictly scrutinized since outcomes of the ADR conducted by the Administrative Branch have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Even from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, the Korean EDAS is relatively inferior to the Japanese system. Thus, it seems unreasonable to produce the outcomes of EDAS have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Furthermore, in light of the precedents of the Korean Constitutional Court, controversy surrounding the constitutionality of the provisions on the effect of EDAS or Ex Officio Mediation system still remains as an important issue to be considered. The very nature of the ADR must be emphasized that respects the parties’ autonomy involving each dispute, in order to establish a dispute resolution system that is based on sound ADR principles. From another standpoint, the success of EDAS system depends on the extent of reducing the error costs associated with the disputes resolutions. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the empirical research conducted in the U.S. or Japan for guidance in improving the current EDAS system, attempts to narrow the gap between the decisions of the...

The Environmental Dispute Adjustment System (“EDAS”) stipulated in the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act (“EDAA”) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) handled by a division of the Administrative Branch. This particular dispute resolution mechanism followed in the EDAS, consists of several controversial aspects, when viewed in the light of various general principles that lies in the core of ADR. Though the main purpose of EDAS, which models after the Japanese Adjustment System for Grievances from Pollution, is to settle civil disputes arising in the environmental areas, when compared, the vast majority of EDAS cases in Korea relate to adjudicatory awards while mediation cases constitute overwhelming dispute resolutions in Japan. This, therefore, has drawn criticism concerning the Korean practice of dispute resolution in the environmental dispute setting, since it runs contrary to the very nature of ADR. Furthermore, in consideration of the general principles of ADR, the provisions of EDAA consist of various fundamental defects. In fact, due to the tendency of ‘under-litigation’ involving environmental disputes, to some extent, this requires a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes. Under the current system of EDAS, however, the State provides public subsidy to litigants as a matter of fact, which may result in ‘over-litigation’ of disputed cases and actually create a converse effect. Though it may be inevitable to sustain the current system for the time being, for the future, the EDAS should be framed in order to minimize the total cost of resolving disputes. Since the total cost consists of both an ‘operation cost’ and an ‘error cost,’ to reduce the former cost, the latter cost is considered as a necessary trade-off. The EDAS, therefore, must be constructed in a way to minimize the sum of both costs accordingly. Until recently, the successful outcome of a mediation or an adjudicatory award within the EDAS has been considered as a formal consent agreement between the parties concerned, which is greatly similar to that of Japan. Nevertheless, because of the newly enacted statute, EDAA(amended by Act No. 8955 on Mar. 21, 2008, and effective on Sep. 22. 2008), the final outcome of EDAS now has the same effect as a consent judgment of a court. This raises doubts on whether the amendment of the statute can even be upheld as legitimate at all. Under the current Civil Procedure Act in Korea, consent judgments not only have the effect of an execution(enforcement power) but also the effect of a claim preclusion(res judicata). When compared, the Korean consent judgment system is somewhat different from the German system, which only has the effect of execution(enforcement power) but not of claim preclusion. The constitutionality of the statute must also be strictly scrutinized since outcomes of the ADR conducted by the Administrative Branch have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Even from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, the Korean EDAS is relatively inferior to the Japanese system. Thus, it seems unreasonable to produce the outcomes of EDAS have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Furthermore, in light of the precedents of the Korean Constitutional Court, controversy surrounding the constitutionality of the provisions on the effect of EDAS or Ex Officio Mediation system still remains as an important issue to be considered. The very nature of the ADR must be emphasized that respects the parties’ autonomy involving each dispute, in order to establish a dispute resolution system that is based on sound ADR principles. From another standpoint, the success of EDAS system depends on the extent of reducing the error costs associated with the disputes resolutions. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the empirical research conducted in the U.S. or Japan for guidance in improving the current EDAS system, attempts to narrow the gap between the decisions ...

Recently people have come to demand more pleasant environments as the quality and right of life have been improved. Along with industrial development, the tendency is causing a growing number of disputes concerning environmental damages. Of many kind of environmental damages, noise and vibration pollution rising at construction fields are particularly the most common subjects of public grievance. Thus the government launched the Environments Dispute Mediation Committee in 1991, purposing to utilize fully the promptness and expertise of administrative institutes and to resolve environmental damage disputes promptly and fairly by interfering in them actively. With the prompt and fair dispute mediations of the committee, people came to be able to get fair and prompt remedies for damages in their health and fortune by environmental pollution. Therefore, by analyzing dispute mediation cases on construction noise and vibration damages, we will suggests basic material on which efficient actions can be takes for public grievances happening in the future.

환경분쟁은 당사자의 법적 권익을 둘러싼 갈등이며, 환경오염·파괴 또는 환경사고 등 환경훼손을 초래하는 행위의 불가피한 결과를 말한다. 베트남의 환경적 이해충돌은 환경분쟁해결의 신속성·효율성·경제성 및 공정성 등 요건을 충족시키기 위하여 법원에 의한 환경분쟁제도(소송상 분쟁해결제도)에 따른다. 법원에 의한 환경분쟁제도는 대체적 분쟁해결제도(소송 외 분쟁해결제도 –ADR)와 함께 수행된다. 환경분쟁해결제도는 환경보호에 대한 법제정비를 거쳐 진보적 규정이 수립된 것으로 평가되었으나 법적 문제점이 일부 존재하고 있어 분쟁이 발생한 경우 환경관계에서 공익과 사익을 보호하기 어렵다. 본 연구는 베트남에서 발생한 대표적인 환경분쟁 사례를 통하여 베트남 법원에 의한 환경분쟁제도 및 대체적 분쟁해결제도에 따른 환경분쟁해결 과정을 소개·분석하고 평가하고자 한다. 향후 베트남에서 영리 활동을 수행하는 경우, 현행 베트남법의 한계에도 불구하고 경제·사회 및 환경 사이의 균형을 창출해야 한다는 요구 사항을 실현하기 위하여 환경분쟁해결의 효율성을 개선하기 위한 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

Environmental disputes are conflicts over the legitimate rights and interests of entities, which are the inevitable consequences of acts that cause environmental damage such as environmental pollution, environmental degradation, or environmental incidents. To meet the requirements of promptness, timeliness, economy, and fairness in environmental dispute settlement, environmental conflicts of interest in Vietnam are not only limited to the process of settling environmental disputes through a Court's decision (intra-procedural dispute resolution) but can also be conducted by alternative dispute resolution methods - ADR (out-of-court dispute resolution). Through the process of amending, and suspending the legal system on environmental protection, the ways of resolving environmental disputes are considered to have established progressive and appropriate regulations in terms of nature and requirements for settlement of the environmental dispute resolution. However, several existing problems are causing significant barriers to adequately protecting public and private interests in environmental relations when environmental losses arise. This study introduces, analyzes, and evaluates the current status of environmental dispute resolution processes according to court proceedings and alternative dispute resolution methods through particular environmental dispute cases. Based on existing legal limitations, proposing solutions to improve the efficiency of environmental dispute settlement in Vietnam to support a closer approach to realizing the requirements of creating a balance between economy, society and the environment when conducting activities for profit in Vietnam the next time.

우리나라는 현재 별도의 환경법원이 설치되어 있지 아니하고 각급 법원에서 내부적으로 환경전담부를 설치하여 운영하고 있다. 그러므로 만일 독립적인 환경법원의 설치에 대한 필요성이 인정된다면 법개정을 통하여 특수법원의 한 형태로서 환경법원을 쉽게 설치할 수 있을 것이다. 한편 환경분쟁조정위원회는 환경분쟁조정법에 따라 1991년 설립된 이래 많은 사건을 처리하여 오면서 법원에서의 권리구제와는 구별되는 고유의 권리구제 기능을 수행하여 왔다. 환경법원과 환경분쟁조정위원회의 역할에 대한 전망에 앞서, 그간의 환경분쟁조정위원회의 성과를 신속성, 효율성, 전문성, 저비용, 내용적 안정성(판결 예측력) 측면에서 살펴보면 환경분쟁조정위원회가 법원과 어떻게 구분되는 역할을 수행할 수 있을 것인지 전망이 가능하다고 할 것이다. 또한 환경법원과 환경분쟁조정위원회의 역할을 전망하기 위해서는 환경분쟁조정이 소송 즉 법원의 재판과 일정한 연관성을 가진다는 점에 유의할 필요가 있다. 환경분쟁조정제도의 종류 중 특히 재정은 소송과 유사한 절차이다. 현행법은 재정이 신청된 사건에 대하여 소송이 진행 중일 때는 수소법원은 재정이 있을 때까지 소송을 중지할 수 있으나, 위 소송절차의 중지가 없는 경우에는 해당 사건의 재정절차는 중지하여야 한다고 규정함으로서 소송 우선의 구조를 취하고 있다. 환경분쟁조정이 축척하여 온 성과와 소송과 구별되는 특징을 감안하여 환경법원과 환경분쟁조정위원회의 역할을 예상해 보면, 반복적이고도 전형적인 동종의 피해유형에 대하여는 환경분쟁조정제도가 더 큰 역할을 할 수 있을 것으로 판단되며, 법원의 인과관계 판단에 있어도 일정 부분 환경분쟁조정제도가 기여할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다. 또한 환경분쟁조정과 법원의 양 절차를 동시에 이용할 수 있도록 제도적인 수정을 가할 필요도 있을 것이다. 환경법원과 환경분쟁조정위원회간의 역할에 대한 전망의 논의는, 환경소송이 공공재적 성격임에도 불구하고 소송비용 부담으로 인하여 사회가 필요한 만큼 제기되지 못하는 현상을 양 제도간의 역할 분담을 통한 비용감소로 해결될 수 있다는 점에서도 중요하다.

With the growth of environmental problem and the public awareness of them, specialized environmental adjudication body has been needed. Korea has no independent environment court. Korea has traditional court system in environment dispute. But Korea has created an administrative dispute resolution agency, the National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission under the Ministry of Environment in 1991. The Commission aims to address environmental disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient way so as to preserve environment and to relieve damages of health and property. The commission is free from the barriers to effectiveness in solving the environment dispute, for example, long delays, poor case management, decision makers lacking in environmental expertise, high cost and economic expense for litigation. Despite these advantages of the Commission, the Commission has limited judicial power as the Constitution Law provided that judicial power shall belong to the court consisting of judges. It is difficult to independently exist separately from trials at the point of legal procedure. Nevertheless, the Commission can be an attractive solution for the following reasons; cost reduction, no delays, expert decision makers with knowledge of environmental law and science. This will helps public interest lawsuits and class action be expanded in environmental dispute.

In accordance with recent betterment of living quality, it is real condition that the dispute related to environmental damage which occurred by industrial development together with enlargement of the people's desire for a pleasant environment are increasing tendency. Especially, since this contains many difficult cases for minute examination on certain causal sequence, government had organized National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission in 1991 for the purpose to relieve the environmental damage dispute promptly and fairly by intervention positively to the environmental dispute, such system was made for salvation of people's health and financial damage owing to environmental pollution, and is now able to be relieved by the administrative organ's prompt and fair grievance resolution. This study progressed in the National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission among 1750 trouble affairs in 1508 trouble affairs with the noise and vibration since 1993 in 2007. As a result to deal the trouble adjustment from a construction noise and vibration efficiently, each other between position difference recognition do recognition conversion necessary. Therefore, this study would like to present the elementary material for the formulation of an effective countermeasure when any civil appeal was filed in the future, by conduct of analysis about the mediation case on damage dispute concerned with the constructional noise and vibration among such environmental pollution damage disputes.

환경피해에 대한 법적 구제의 폭을 넓히기 위하여 환경책임법의 제정 작업이 추진되고 있다. 입법 추진 중인 환경책임법안에는 무과실책임, 인과관계의 추정, 정보청구권, 환경책임보험제도의 도입, 환경오염피해보상기금의 설치 등 환경오염피해 구제의 확대에 기여할 수 있는 중요한 내용들이 담겨 있다. 이 글은 환경책임법의 제정이 환경분쟁조정제도에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가, 향후 환경분쟁조정제도의 역할을 어떻게 설정하여야 할지에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 환경책임법이 제정되면 환경오염피해의 구제와 관련된 법적 환경에 변화가 예상되고, 이는 환경분쟁조정제도에도 긍정적 또는 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 동 법안에서는 신속한 피해배상을 위해서 환경책임보험제도를 도입하고 있는데, 이는 환경분쟁조정제도의 활용을 축소시킬 가능성이 있다. 왜냐하면 환경분쟁이 발생한 경우 피해자는 가해자를 직접 상대할 필요없이 신속하고 간편하게 일반적인 보험제도의 틀 안에서 배상문제를 처리할 수 있기 때문이다. 또한 법원이 환경책임법의 취지를 보다 적극적으로 해석하고 적용하기 시작하면 그동안 환경분쟁조정제도로 우회했던 사건들이 법원으로 향하게 될 것이고, 그렇게 되면 환경분쟁조정제도의 역할과 기능이 다소 축소될 가능성도 있다. 그러나 한편으로는 환경책임법의 도입은 환경분쟁조정제도가 새로운 법적 환경 속에서 변화할 수 있는 기회가 될 수도 있다. 우리의 환경정책과 법제가 환경분쟁조정제도에 일정한 역할을 부여하고 있는 상황에서 양자가 서로 조화를 이루면서 효과적으로 운영되도록 노력할 필요가 있다. 양자는 환경오염피해로 인한 국민의 권리구제를 신속하고 실효성있게 실천하기 위한 수단이라는 점에서 공통점을 갖고 있고, 서로 보완관계 속에 존립하게 할 필요가 있다. 이 글은 환경책임법과 환경분쟁조정제도의 정합성(整合性) 확보를 위한 방안을 고찰하고 있다. 이를 위해 본 논문에서는 환경분쟁조정제도의 제도적 본질을 검토한 후, 환경책임법안 및 환경분쟁조정법에 대한 실증적 분석과 해석을 시도하고 이를 토대로 환경분쟁조정제도의 역할과 개선방향, 입법론 등을 제시하고 있다.

This Paper aims to review the Legal Study on fitting Relation of Environmental Liability Act and Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act. The Korean Ministry of Environment is currently preparing the Environmental Liability Act. This act has provisions of liability without fault, presumption of causation, claim to information, environmental liability insurance, etc. In this paper, I tried to review how the enactment of Environmental Liability Act impacts with Environmental Dispute Adjustment. The Environmental Liability Act defines term of ‘environmental pollution damage’, the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act defines term of ‘environmental damage’. The latter is broader than the former. The latter means damage to the health, property and mentality resulting from air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, sea pollution, noise, vibration, malodor, the destruction of ecosystem, sunshine inhibition, view inhibition etc. which occur or are expected to occur by acts of business or any human acts. This involves the damage by destruction of ecosystem, damage of mentality. Definition of the latter is broader than the former. Therefore the latter can complement lack of the former. It’s important that both should have fitting relationship in order to expand remedies. In this paper, first of all, I review a institutional essence of the Environmental Dispute Adjustment System, and then I try to analyze empirically relationship of Environmental Liability Act and Environmental Dispute Adjustment System, to suggest improvement of Environmental Dispute Adjustment System.