공유수면 매립지 관할권 결정 관련 지방자치법의 문제점 및 개선방안

Abstract

Recently, local governments are trying to find regional strategic industries and cultivate regional growth centers in order to respond to local extinction. What is essential here is land, but there is a limit to existing land, so a policy to reclaim public waters is being promoted. However, local governments adjacent to the reclaimed land will claim their jurisdiction over such land for a number of reasons, which causes disputes between the relevant local governments. Such disputes should not be approached simply from a ‘regional egoism’ perspective. It is important how to find a harmony for dispute resolution while respecting the local governments who are the parties concerned as much as possible. First of all, it is desirable to resolve the disputes amicably through coordination between the parties. However, if such coordination is not possible, there is no choice but to resolve the disputes based on the relevant legal system. Accordingly, the current procedure for determining the jurisdiction of reclaimed land was introduced through the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act in 2009. It was expected that disputes between local governments over the jurisdiction of reclaimed land would be resolved promptly through the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, but there are still limitations in resolving such disputes fundamentally. This study proposed the following improvement measures in order to resolve such problem. ① After classifying whether the parties to the dispute are metropolitan governments or basic local governments, the relevant dispute must be deliberated and resolved by the dispute resolution committee in charge. ② The decision on the jurisdiction of a reclaimed land within the metropolitan government should be made by the head of the metropolitan government, not by the Minister of Public Administration and Security. ③ The criteria for determining jurisdiction are not stipulated in the law, and this leads to the fact that the criteria for determining jurisdiction are being discussed whenever a dispute arises. Considering such fact, substantial criteria for determining jurisdiction need to be stipulated in the law to the extent that the criteria are recognized legislatively even if such criteria are not specific. ④ The jurisdiction of reclaimed land should be determined by comprehensively reviewing the specificity of the area, the living conditions and methods of the residents, the historical situation surrounding the area, and the actual state of administrative affairs, rather than considering only the purpose and efficiency of the project. ⑤ When determining jurisdiction, the maritime borders on the national basic map, the remaining public waters after reclamation, and the entities providing infrastructure should be considered.