온실가스 배출권의 법적 성격에 관한 문제
The problem of the legal nature of GHG's emission right
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Kyoto Protocol introduced three new 'flexible mechanisms' to assist developed country parties in achieving their agreed emission limitation on commitments under the UNFCCC. Since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, a range of legislations relying on the concept of emission trading have been and are being developed and implemented at international, EU and domestic levels. The unit that are trade under these various system all represent one tonne of greenhouse gas equivalent. However, there are differences in the legal nature of emission right. Where tradable units are issued by States as part of an environmental regulatory scheme, they are in the nature of administrative license. However, once allocated to the operator of an installation for compliance purpose, or held or transferred to a private firm, they assume characteristics of property right. These conflicting aspect of the legal nature of emission right were reflected by the legislation at international and domestic level. For example, the Kyoto Protocol provides that it "has no created or bestowed any right, title or entitlement to emissions of any kind on Paties included in Annex Ⅰ. The EU ETS Directive at Article 3(a) defines an "allowance" as "... an allowance to emit one tonne of CO2 equivalent during a specified period...". In the U.S. legislation, Section 403(f) of the Clean Air Act defines an "allowance" as a "limited authorization to emit SO2 in accordance with the provisions of this title" and expressly provides that "does not constitute a property right." U.S. legislature's view on the emission right is a same way in the GHG's ETS Bill. Germany and U.K. provided the legal nature of emission right under it's GHG's ETS legislation as a same manner in the EU ETS Directive. In contrast to the approach adopted by EU, U.S., Germany and U.K., France, Spain, New Zealand, and Australia classified an emission alloeance in the property right category. The comparative analysis of the various regime of the legal nature of emission right has made it obvious that whether emission right constitutes property right is not the legal reasoning problem but the legislative policy choice issue. Therefore, considering market certainty, liquidity and function of the emission trading, legislation that provides the legal nature of emission right as property right is a resonable policy choice. On the basis of this viewpoint, we emphatically recommend that the proposed Korea ETS Bill provides emission right as property right.
Abstract
The Kyoto Protocol introduced three new 'flexible mechanisms' to assist developed country parties in achieving their agreed emission limitation on commitments under the UNFCCC. Since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, a range of legislations relying on the concept of emission trading have been and are being developed and implemented at international, EU and domestic levels. The unit that are trade under these various system all represent one tonne of greenhouse gas equivalent. However, there are differences in the legal nature of emission right. Where tradable units are issued by States as part of an environmental regulatory scheme, they are in the nature of administrative license. However, once allocated to the operator of an installation for compliance purpose, or held or transferred to a private firm, they assume characteristics of property right. These conflicting aspect of the legal nature of emission right were reflected by the legislation at international and domestic level. For example, the Kyoto Protocol provides that it "has no created or bestowed any right, title or entitlement to emissions of any kind on Paties included in Annex Ⅰ. The EU ETS Directive at Article 3(a) defines an "allowance" as "... an allowance to emit one tonne of CO2 equivalent during a specified period...". In the U.S. legislation, Section 403(f) of the Clean Air Act defines an "allowance" as a "limited authorization to emit SO2 in accordance with the provisions of this title" and expressly provides that "does not constitute a property right." U.S. legislature's view on the emission right is a same way in the GHG's ETS Bill. Germany and U.K. provided the legal nature of emission right under it's GHG's ETS legislation as a same manner in the EU ETS Directive. In contrast to the approach adopted by EU, U.S., Germany and U.K., France, Spain, New Zealand, and Australia classified an emission alloeance in the property right category. The comparative analysis of the various regime of the legal nature of emission right has made it obvious that whether emission right constitutes property right is not the legal reasoning problem but the legislative policy choice issue. Therefore, considering market certainty, liquidity and function of the emission trading, legislation that provides the legal nature of emission right as property right is a resonable policy choice. On the basis of this viewpoint, we emphatically recommend that the proposed Korea ETS Bill provides emission right as property right.
참고문헌 (40)
- Bruce A. Ackerman, "Reforming Environmental Law: The Democratic Case for Market Incentives", Colum J Envtl L, 13, pp.171~ (1987)
- Bruce Yandle, "Global Market for Global Commons: Will Property Rights Protect the Planet? From Local to Global Commons: Private Property, Common Property, and Hybrid Property Regimes Grasping for the Heavens: 3-D Property Rights and the Global Commons", Duke Envtl. l. & Pol'y, 10, pp.19~
- Constant Djama, "La comptabilisation des quotas d'emission de gaz à effet de serr: véritable incitation de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique?" (2007), Programme du L'association Francophone de Comptabilite
- Daniel H. Cole, "Clearing the Air: Four Propositions About Property Rights and Environmental Protection", Duke Envtl. L.&Pol'y F, 10, pp.103~ (1999)
- Financial Markets Law Committee, "Issue 116-Emission Allowances: Creating Legal Certainty, Bank Of England", pp.10~ (2009)
- "Gesetz über den Handel mit Berechtigungen zur Emission von Treibhausgasen, 8 July 2004", pp.1578~ (2004), Federal Gazette(BGBL)
- Henry A. Span, "Of TEAS and Takings: Compensation Guarantees For Confiscated Tradable Environmental Allowances", Yale L. J, 109 (1983)
- Jeffery M. Hirsch, "Emissions Allowance Trading Under the Clean Air Act: A Model for Future Environmental Regulations?", N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J, 7, pp.352~ (1999)
- Jolene Lin, "Private Actors in International and Domestic Emissions Trading Scheme, in Leagal Aspect of Carbon Trading", pp.143~144 (2009), OUP
- K. Russell LaMotte, "Emissions Trading in the US: Legal Issues, in Legal Aspects of Carbon Trading", pp.398~ (2009), OUP
- Karl Upston-Hooper, "United Kingdom Questionnaire Response, in Overview Report; Legal Frameworks for Emissions Trading in the European Union", pp.37~ (2006)
- Markus Pohlmann, "The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, in Leagal Aspect of Carbon Trading" (2009), OUP
- Markus W. Gehring, "Emissions Trading: Lessons From SO2 and NO Emissions Allowance and Credit Systems Legal Nature, Title, Transfer, and Taxation of Emission Allowances and Credit", E.L.R. New&Analysis, pp.1~ (2005)
- Matthieu Wemaere, "Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms", pp.50~ (2005), OUP
- "Legal Nature of Kyoto Units, in The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond A Legal Perspective"[URL]
- Matthieu Wemaere, "Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Leagal Aspect of Carbon Trading", pp.38~ (2009), OUP
- Michael Mehling, "Germany Questionnaire Response, in Overview Report, Legal Frameworks for Emissions Trading in the European Union", pp.126~128 (2006)
- Norman Fichthorn, "Preservation the SO2 Market", pp.28~ (2002), ENVTL. FIN.
- R de Witt Wijnen, "Emissions Trading under the Kyoto Protocol, in Legal Aspect of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work", pp.404~ (2005), Oxford
- Raimund Körner, "TEHG: Treibhausgas-Emissionshandelsgesetz, Zuteilungsgesetz 2007-Kommentar" (2005), Beck
- Raphaëlle Gauthier, "Note sur le statut juridique des quotas", Réseau Action Climat-France
- "RGGI Memorandum Of Understanding"[URL]
- "RGGI Model Rule"[URL]
- Robert W Hahn, "Where Did All Market Go? An Analysis of EPA's Emissions Trading Program", Yale J on Reg, 6, pp.109~ (1968)
- Theodore Panayoton, "Economic Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development 27" (1994), United Nations Environment Program
- International Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading: Defining the Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines for Verification, Reporting and Accountability, "Tietenberg, T.", United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD), ~, pp.UNCTAD (1999), GDS[DOI]
- Title Ⅳ of the CAA, enacted as part of the CAA Amendments of 1990, , ~, pp.Pub. L. No. 101-549 (1990)
- Tobias Leidinger, "Übertragung und Abgabe von Emissionsberechtigungen, in Emissionshandel-Ein Praxishandbuch" (2005), Heymanns
- "UNFCCC Preamble"[URL]
- Walter Frenz, "Emissionshandelsrecht-Kommentar zum TEHG und ZuG" (2005), Springer
- Woerdman, E., "Tradable Emission Rights, in Elgar Companion to Law and Economics" (2005)
- Yves Jégouzo, "Les autorisations administratives vont-elles devenir des biens meubles?", pp.945~ (2004), AJDA
- 강현호, "배출권의 정의 및 재산권성에 대한 법적 고찰", 환경법연구, 33(1), pp.43~77 (2011), 한국환경법학회
- "온실가스배출권 거래 2년 연기"[URL]
- 이광윤, "배출권거래제의 도입에 따른 법적 과제", 월간법제, pp.74~ (2010), 법제처
- 이광윤, "프랑스 배출권거래제의 현황과 시사점", 한국환경법학회 제99회 학술대회 배출권거래의 법적과제 (2010), 한국환경법학회ㆍ경원대학교 법학연구소
- 이영종, "탄소배출권의 법적 성질에 관한 고찰", 한국환경법학회 제106회 학술대회 발표문, pp.127~132 (2011), 한국환경법학회
- 최경진, "排出權의 法的 性質", 비교사법, 17(1), pp.415~456 (2010), 한국비교사법학회
- 최문희, "온실가스 排出權 去來의 금융법상 논점", 비교사법, 15(3), pp.83~131 (2008), 한국비교사법학회
- 최승필, "탄소배출권 제도설계에 대한 법제도적 검토 - 유럽의 탄소배출권제도를 통한 고찰을 중심으로 -", 환경법연구, 31(2), pp.171~208 (2009), 한국환경법학회