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

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국환경법학회 환경법연구 환경법연구 제31권 제1호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
115 - 142 (28page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
As enacted in 1980 and as amended in 1986, CERCLA, also known as “Superfund,” creates a federal framework for addressing the problems associated with the existence of hazardous substances in the environment. The statute contains provisions addressing both the investigation and cleanup of property contaminated with hazardous substances and the recovery of costs associated with such cleanups from “responsible persons.” Some scholars say that the brownfields problems has happened in large part because, under prior law, the extent of environmental remediation liability under CERCLA was potentially huge and sometimes unknowable. Even though these sites often have access to infrastructure and available labor, developers prefer to develop greenfields instead of brownfields. The role of CERCLA liability and other environmental regulation in creating brownfields in the first place is uncertain and probably minimal. The movement away from the city centers in the first place began long before CERCLA liability. Therefore, the Brownfields Amendment, by simply modifying environmental liability itself, cannot bring commerce, industry, or people back. Moreover, redevelopment is only likely to occur where other conditions, such as a convenient location, are favorable. The Amendment aims to encourage the purchase and development of brownfields. While this may be a praiseworthy goal, the means chosen may cause negative impacts on legal enforcement and economy. By freeing purchasers of property subject to CERCLA from liability, the Amendment creates a number of potential problems. First, it removes an important deterrence to the creation of properties subject to CERCLA, commonly known as “CERCLA Sites” or “Superfund Sites.” Therefore, the Amendment will beget more releases of hazardous materials. Second, it gives property owners a random benefit. This is not only undesirable but also it leads in the end to increases in the cost of government regulation. Third, it will make the overall costs of performing clean-ups under CERCLA higher. Fourth, brownfields Act raises not only economic concerns but also environmental justice issues that are considered separate or even opposed to the conventional environmental movement and economic considerations. Environmental justice, in theory and principle, seeks to addresses the lack of equal environmental protection experienced by minority, low-income communities, or certain local communities. Attempts to craft justiciable claims for communities that incur a disproportionate share of the burden of lawfully regulated pollution have not proven successful as legal remedies, although the effort has led to a substantial body of legal scholarship. Given the perceived inability of the legal process to protect minority, low-income communities, or certain local communities from the disproportionate impacts of environmental pollution, the question remains as to whether or not the public and private sectors adequately address the central concerns or principles of environmental justice as a matter of social responsibility and sustainable development. Last, because real situations of Korea environmental litigation has no serious problem which was found in U.S.A before the Brownfields Amendment, it is not right time for Korea to adopt Brownfields policy yet.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (49)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

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

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0