중앙분쟁조정위원회 분쟁조정제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구

Abstract

‘Local Autonomy Law’ provides an alternative dispute resolution process operated by National Dispute Mediation Committee. In case of any disputes between two or more local governments, National Dispute Mediation Committee can initiate the process ex officio. National Dispute Mediation Committee process as an alternative dispute resolution has many advantages over a judicial system ruled by courts. It must be more convenient system than the judicial system to settle arguments between local governments. But there may be a chance to overuse its authority to intervene local affairs in virtue of public interests. Then, Local Autonomy supported by Constitution is threatened by Central Government’s supervision and control. To prevent the overuse of authority, the dispute resolution process performed by National Dispute Mediation Committee must be diversified in jurisdiction, force of decisions and so forth. That means an actualization of the definition of ‘dispute’ and a differentiation of force of decisions. Local governments are allowed a wide autonomous rights and discretion in managing their autonomous affairs by Constitution and Local Autonomy Act. So, in case of mediating a dispute concerned with autonomous affairs, the Committee must do better to consult, advise as an guide as referred to in Article 168 in Local Autonomy Act rather than to mediate enforcedly. Restrained consult and advice can be a better way to enhance a normative effect of National Dispute Mediation Committee`s decision than a compulsory mediation. Particularly, to secure an effectiveness of National Dispute Mediation Committee`s decision, a various type of alternative dispute resolution process - such as advice, mediation, reconciliation, and so forth - must be adopted to Local Autonomy Act.