메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국비교공법학회 공법학연구 공법학연구 제5권 제3호
발행연도
2004.12
수록면
575 - 603 (29page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The writer of this thesis reviewed the current status, nature and legal problems of the Japanese mediation system for grievances from pollution. The Japanese mediation system for grievances from pollution, when compared with the Korean mediation system for environmental problems, roughly has the following characteristics, which are very suggestive.
Firstly, National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission, a subordinate organization of the Ministry of Environment, was established in Korea in 1991. However, in Japan the mediation committee for grievances from pollution and problems of similar nature was originally established under the Office of Premier, and later became an extra departmental organization of the Ministry of General Affairs. This committee has combined functions of dealing with disputes over the land use in addition to the disputes over environmental problems.
Secondly, disputes can be settled by arbitration in Japan. However, this arbitration system seems not very effective, as indicated in the body of the thesis. It will be useful for us to analyze the reasons behind the unpopularity of such arbitration, and let it serve as a good lesson to us.
Thirdly, in Japan seven major types of pollution (such as air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, noise pollution, vibrations, subsidence and a foul smell) are the focus of the disputes, limiting the subject of a dispute when compared to the case in Korea where more comprehensive regulations are adopted for all-inclusive 'environmental damage'. As indicated in the body of the thesis, more elaborate legislative arrangement are needed to settle this problem of generality. Korea needs to pay more attention to the preparation of such an legislative arrangement elaborating on the definition of the 'environmental damage' in response to the increasing trends of developments that causes of the environmental damage are getting diversified.
Fourthly, in Japan ruling is divided into the ruling providing an indemnity and the ruling determining the causes, contrasting with the case in Korea where only the ruling providing an indemnity is available. The ruling determining the causes provides an official cause while leaving all the other matters to the disputing parties, thus giving them a variety of options and leading the disputing parties to settle the dispute by themselves. Such a ruling system of Japan appears to be full of suggestions when compared to the Korean system in which even an indemnity is determined in addition to the causes.
Fifthly, the ruling made for the environmental disputes is unable to be enforced in both Japan and Korea, contrary to the case of a decision of the court. Since the decision of the environmental dispute resolution commission is largely respected even when jurisdiction over the environmental disputes is transferred from the Administration to the judicature, an effective legislative arrangement including a revision of the laws should be made so that ruling made for the environmental disputes can be effectively enforced for compulsory execution.
Sixthly, in Japan the self-government of provinces and cities are allowed to actively intervene in the settlement of environmental disputes through the existing system of TODOUHUKEN Pollution Evaluation Committee and Federation of TODOUHUKEN In Korea, by contrast, most of the disputes are being settled by an award, and depends largely on the roles of the central environmental dispute resolution commission rather than those of the provincial environmental dispute resolution commission. For this reason creation of a regional combined mediation committee for the settlement of environmental disputes, as in the case of Japan, can be an option appropriate for the age of decentralization.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 일본의 환경분쟁조정제도의 개관
Ⅲ. 공해분쟁처리의 해결수단
Ⅳ. 환경분쟁사건의 특징과 금후의 과제
Ⅴ. 환경분쟁조정사례의 대표적인 예
Ⅵ. 마치며
〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016081132