지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
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.
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 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
대안적(代案的) 분쟁해결수단으로서의 환경분쟁조정제도에 대한 검토
한양법학
2015 .02
-
환경분쟁조정제도의 현황과 과제
중재연구
2018 .01
-
우리나라의 환경분쟁 조정제도에 대한 고찰
공공사회연구
2014 .02
-
환경분쟁과 중재제도
중재연구
2005 .01
-
전자사회와 IT분쟁조정법제
법학논집
2007 .01
-
한국 공공갈등의 생애주기별 특징에 대한 경험적 분석
한국사회와 행정연구
2011 .11
-
환경분쟁 조정제도의 경제적 효과 분석 : 수도권을 중심으로
환경정책
2015 .03
-
국제환경분쟁의 해결방법
일감법학
2010 .01
-
개별적 노동분쟁 해결제도에 관한 소고
노동법논총
2012 .04
-
한국 공공분쟁해결의 현황 및 특징：공공분쟁해결시스템 구축에의 시사점을 중심으로
분쟁해결연구
2011 .01
-
소비자분쟁조정제도 전문화 및 활성화 방안
소비자문제연구
2017 .08
-
국내외 금융분쟁조정제도에 관한 연구-우체국보험 사례를 중심으로-
무역보험연구
2020 .01
-
우주법상 분쟁해결방안
원광법학
2008 .01
-
소비자분쟁조정의 입법론적 고찰
아주법학
2011 .01
-
행정ADR로서 개인정보분쟁조정의 법적 쟁점과 개선과제
행정법연구
2013 .07
-
공동주택 소비자분쟁 경감방안에 관한 연구
중재연구
2009 .01
-
일본의 공해분쟁처리제도
공법학연구
2004 .05
-
금융분쟁해결제도의 문제점과 개선방안
원광법학
2007 .01
-
현행 금융 분쟁 해결제도에 관한 법적 연구
일감법학
2011 .01
-
행정형 위원회에 의한 소비자 관련 집단분쟁의 운영 현황과 문제점 개선을 위한 제언
외법논집
2016 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016081132