환경법 영역에서의 규제개혁과 공익보장

Abstract

Just as regulation itself is not good or evil, deregulation itself is not a public interest or abandonment of the public interest. Traditional administrative laws developed around the exercise of public power by administrative agencies to achieve the public interest, and excessive infringement of administrative power is based on the belief that individual administrative laws pursue practical rule of law and guarantee the basic rights of the people. Although not all arguments are valid, the theory of public choice urges the need to check the reality in administrative law in the process of implementing “participants' selfish choices” and policy formation, which have been ignored and overlooked in our public law. The main purpose of the deregulation policy is to remove unnecessary regulations to revitalize the economy by respecting the autonomy and creativity of the private sector, and the possible problems can be prevented or alleviated in the free market system. However, unlike other areas, deregulation in the environmental sector is a direct or indirect cumulative impact on people's lives, public health, and the environment, but it is generally accepted that a different approach from other deregulation areas is needed. Under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, not only should the basic principles act as a guiding principle in interpreting all environmental laws, but also the environmental mitigation system should ensure the actual participation of all people, actively disclose relevant information, and provide environmental relief. Environmental deregulation, which always has a direct cumulative impact on people's health and the natural environment, should be carefully designed and introduced to ensure that a reasonable and efficient environmental deregulation system can be established through deregulation policy and deregulation performance evaluation. Although the method of analyzing the costs and benefits added to regulation from regulatory policy is quantified and used, unlike direct economic regulation, it is difficult to calculate the benefits of preventing environmental damage from regulatory policy and the benefits of deregulation. Restorative justice or corrective justice requires information, discovery of truth, compensation and reflection, and the core of restorative justice is explained by compensation. Economic damage can be compensated by adding up simple economics or accounting and adding interest rates, but there is an aspect of quantification relativity, along with fundamental skepticism about environmental infringement, people's physical and mental shocks and living disorders. Therefore, there is a need to enact a special law for fact-finding (including causal recognition) and compensation calculation under the U.S.-style jury system only for environmental damage. Although all environmental laws are declared to be enacted for public interest purposes, we cannot trust only the reason or basic ideology, and we should not forget the alertness that public selection theory warns of the tragic situation in environmental individual laws in highly technical and professional areas determined by the attached notes or notices of individual enforcement ordinances. To avoid deregulation errors, it is also necessary to introduce a ‘real-name deregulation system’.