매립지 관할귀속결정제도의 법적 고찰

Abstract

Unlike the brilliant title of the "World's Largest Reclamation Project," the Saemangeum project, which was synonymous with disputes and conflicts in our society, was expected to contribute to the development of the country and region by completing the water curtain construction after twists and turns, but contrary to expectations, it has recently been stigmatized as a synonym for social conflict and conflict due to jurisdiction over landfills. Ironically, the current disputes and conflicts over the jurisdiction of landfills are often caused or intensified by the landfill attribution decision system introduced through the revision of the Local Autonomy Act in April 2009 to effectively resolve conflicts and disputes between local governments over landfills, which ultimately requires a legislative solution to the current legislation. However, until legislative improvement, it is practically reasonable to operate a landfill jurisdiction decision system to conform to the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy under the current legislation. The district of a local government is of great normative significance in that it is an essential component of the local government and a spatial scope of constitutional autonomy guaranteed. Nevertheless, the current legislation, which requires the unilateral disposition of the Minister of Public Administration and Security, an institution of the state that exists in equal cooperation with local governments, is problematic. In this regard, it is clear that the current legislation should be constitutionally operated to be appropriate for realizing the ideology of constitutional guarantee of local autonomy. For this, it is necessary to sufficiently focus on the normative meaning of the jurisdiction decision on the landfill. Due to the nature of Saemangeum, it is necessary to consider the state's political and policy requests in determining the jurisdiction of landfills, but it is also clear that the normative meaning of local autonomy, especially the essential value and meaning of constitutional guarantees, should not be undermined. In this regard, the Central Dispute Mediation Committee for local governments (hereinafter referred to as "Central Committee") should not dismiss disputes over landfill jurisdiction decisions as simply disputes between local governments, but it is necessary to make independent and normative decisions with maximum respect for the normative meaning of local governments' districts. The significance of the Central Committee's existence in the local autonomy legislation lies in the performance of requests for cooperation and coordination that are difficult to expect from the Minister of Public Administration and Security, an independent administrative agency. In this regard, the current situation, in which consumptive controversy and social conflict continue to intensify as a result of continuing delays in jurisdiction decisions on landfills for political and policy reasons, is due to the Central Committee's normative obligations. Delaying the necessary decision, even if it is for optimal resolution, is another cause of dispute and conflict, such as the law that "delayed justice is not justice." A quick decision on the jurisdiction of a landfill is a shortcut to resolving current disputes and conflicts under the consideration of the normative meaning of the jurisdiction decision. It is only an injustice that is difficult to advocate that the confirmation of normative content is delayed by political and policy considerations.