環境法의 進化過程 속에 나타난 公法과 私法간의 葛藤構造
The Systematic Conflicts between Private Law and Public Law in the Evolution of Environmental Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 글은 공법과 사법의 이념적인 바탕의 차이를 중심에 두고 환경법에 있어서의 공법과 사법의 긴장과 갈등구조에 대하여 분석한 글이다. 이 글은, 먼저, 환경법의 진화과정을 역사적 사실의 재료로 삼고, 환경사법과 환경공법의 발전 단계와, 그 속에서의 환경사법과 환경공법관계가 어떻게 변화하여 왔는가라는 그 변화의 추이를 살펴보았다. 그 다음은, 시대 맥락의 변화 속에서 환경사법과 환경공법간의 관계가 갈등을 빚게 되는 현상에 주의하면서 그러한 갈등적 요소가 무엇에서 비롯되는지 배경적·구조적 원인을 살펴보았다. 그리고, 특히 그러한 갈등이 환경사법시대를 지나서 환경공법시대에 어떠한 양상으로 나타나는지에 주목하였다. 마지막으로, 그러한 환경사법과 환경공법간의 관계변화와 갈등의 양상이 각국이 채택한 법체계에 따라서 어떠한 특수성을 가지고 전개되어 왔는지를 살펴보았다. 이의 구체적 분석을 위하여 두 가지의 다른 법체계, 즉 커먼로를 중심으로 발전되어 온 법체계와 공·사법의 이분론에 기초하여 발전되어 온 각각의 법체계에서의 법발전단계에 따른 환경법의 변화와 발전과정을 구체적으로 살펴보았다. 마지막으로, 최근에 문제가 되고 있는 사례들을 중심으로 이러한 문제들이 우리나라에서는 구체적으로 어떻게 나타나고 있는지를 살펴보았다.
Abstract
A polluter was sued, based on the private law remedies, for the damages in order to recover suffering from contaminated water or air. However, the polluter acted in compliance with the standards of environmental statutes. In this case, is his or her act justifiable? This question can be controversial to simply answer. Traditionally, particularly in civil law system, private law has been considered as a separate realm from public law, having logical and systematic completeness and independence within itself. However, as administrative agencies and public law have grown noticeably and enlarged progic sively, they began to penetrate thplegh the cicvice of private law and encplach on iogiracking such belief on the one hand and bcelding et their own logics and legal system on the other hand. The opening environmental case shows the dilemma thad encpmodd bcstatutory d agiwhercpprivate and public environmental laws coexist, is facing. The idea that draws distinct lines between private and public law tends to have people lose sight on how to solve the problem and ignore the fact that those two realms are correlated and interacting. However, instead of giving up viewing them discrete, this study rather supposed it, but focused primarily on how their relation has been changed and what makes the initiative within their dynamic relation move. It is because the distinction between the two laws is embedded in the fundamentally different ideas supporting private autonomy and public good, respectively (even though either private law or public law often failed to achieve its ideological goals). Taking these ideological backgrounds seriously, this research aims to analyze what makes them contrasted and conflicting, and to suggest how to handle with such tension. To achieve this purpose, first, this thesis examined legal evolution process in the environmental law, while putting emphasis on the initiatives between the private and the public environmental law. Secondly, this study analyzed the reasons for differentiating private law from public law, and what makes the legal initiative between them move. Thirdly, this analysis reviewed whether legal system, according to which the relation between private and public law is understood differently, influences how to deal with such tension between the two laws in the environmental law context. To show such review concretely, this research investigated how the environmental law developed its legal theories and legislatures under two different legal systems that are based on public/ private law dichotomy and common law. For this comparison, this study analyzed relevant legal issues in US law and German, Japanese and Korean Laws such as ‘Balancing theory’, ‘Public interest’, ‘Preemption’, ‘No right abuse theory’, ‘Bearable limit theory’ and ‘Vicinal community relation theory’ as exemplifications for each legal system.
참고문헌 (47)
- 김유환, "영미에서의 공익개념과 공익의 법문제화", 서울대학교 법학, 47(3), pp.52~88 (2006), 법학연구소
- 구스타브 라드브루흐, "법철학(제1판)" (1997), 삼영사
- 안경희, "公法上 排出許容基準의 私法上 意味", 비교사법, 11(4), pp.323~355 (2004), 한국비교사법학회
- 안경희, "獨逸法上 임미시온과 忍容義務에 관한 公·私法的 考察", 인권과 정의, 324, pp.3~ (2003), 대한변호사협회
- 안경희, "임미시온법의 역사적 발전", 현대민사법연구: 최병욱교수 정년기념논문집 (2002)
- 알렉산더 해밀턴, "페더랄리스트페이퍼" (1995), 한울 아카데미
- 위르겐 하버마스, "사실성과 타당성: 담론적 법이론과 민주주의적 법치국가 이론" (2000), 나남출판
- 李侑峰, "公法과 私法간의 葛藤에 대한 分析硏究: ‐環境事例를 中心으로‐", 박사, pp.2008
- 전경운, "환경책임법상 공법 및 환경기준의 법적 의미 : 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로", 환경법연구, 29(3), pp.27~62 (2007), 한국환경법학회
- 존 헨리 메리만, "시민법전통: 대륙법과 영미법의 비교" (2001), 경남대학교출판부
- 천병태, "행정법I, 행정법총론" (1998), 삼영사
- 한스 켈젠, "순수법학" (1999), 길안사
- 我妻 榮, "事務管理·不当利得·不法行為" (1940), 日本評論社
- 野村好弘, "公害の判例" (1971), 有斐閣
- 加藤一郎, "公害法の生成と展開" (1968), 岩波書店
- 金圭夏, "大韓民国における環境法の展開―日本法繼受の一環として", 大阪大学, (127) (1983)
- 井上繁規, "受忍限度の理論と実務" (2005), 新日本法規
- Cane, Peter, "Rethinking the Relationship Between Tort Law and Environmental Regulation", Washburn L. J., 41, pp.427~ (2002)
- Coase, Ronald H., "The Problem of Social Cost", Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1) (1960)
- de Wall, Heinrich, "Die Anwendbarkeit privatrechtlicher Vorschriften im Verwaltungsrech: dargestellt anhand der privatrechtlichen Regeln über Rechtsgeschäfte und anhand des allgemeinen Schuldrechts" (1999), Mohr Siebeck
- Farber, Daniel A., "The Story of Boomer: Pollution and the Common Law, Environmental Law Stories" (2005), Foundation Press
- Farber, Daniel A., "Eco-Pragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decision in an Uncertain World" (1999), University of Chicago Press
- Farber, Daniel A., "Taking Slippages Seriously: Non-compliance and Creative Compliance in Environmental Law", Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 23 (1999)
- Farber, Daniel A., "Law and Public Choice: A Critical Introduction" (1991), University of Chicago Press
- Findley, Roger W., "Cases and Materials for Environmental Law, 7th ed." (2006), Thomson West
- Fletcher, George P., "Basic Concepts of Legal Thoughts" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Habermas, Jürgen, "Between Facts and Norms" (1996), The MIT Press
- Held, Virginia, "The Public Interest and Individual Interests" (1970), Basic Book, Inc.
- Hoffmann‐Reim, "Wolfgang und Eberhard Schmidt‐Aßmann, Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige" (1997), Nomos Verlagsges
- Kelsen, Hans, "Reine Rechtslehre: mit einem Anhang: das Problem der Gerechtigkeit, 2nd ed." (1960), Deuticke
- Kempin, JR. Frederick G., "Historical Introduction to Anglo‐American law" (1990), West Publishing Co.
- Malloy, Robin Paul, "Law & Economics: A Comparative Approach to Theory and Practice" (1990), West Publishing Co.
- Phineas, Charles, "Roman Law in the Modern World, vol. II: Manual of Roman Law Illustrated by Anglo‐American Law and the Modern Code" (1993), The Boston Book Company
- Polinsky, A. Mitchell, "An Introduction to Law and Economics, 2nd ed." (1989), Little, Brown and Company
- Posner, Richard A., "Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed." (2003), ASPEN
- Radbruch, Gustav, "Rechtsphilosophie. (8. Aufl.)" (1973), Koehler
- Rawls, John, "Justice as Fairness: a Restatement" (2001), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
- Shapiro, Martin, "Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis" (1986), The University of Chicago Press
- Rosenfeld, Michel, "Habermas on Law and Democracy, Critical Exchanges" (1998), University of California Press
- Rosenfeld, Michel, "Roman Law in the Modern World, vol. II: Manual of Roman Law Illustrated by Anglo‐American Law and the Modern Codes" (1993), The Boston Book Company
- Smith, Adam, "The Wealth of Nations, vol. 4, ch. 2, Chicago edition"
- Sunstein, Cass R., "Interest Groups in American Public Law", Stan. L. Rev., 38, pp.29~ (1985)
- Heimert, Andrew Jackson, "Keeping Pigs out of Parlors: Using Nuisance Law to Affect the Location of Pollution", Envtl. L., 27(Summer), pp.403~ (1997), Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College
- Merryman, John Henry, "The Public Law‐Private Law Distinction in European and American Law", J. Pub. L., 17 (1968)
- 6 th ed., "Economic Analysis of Law, 4th ed.", pp.2003, Posner, Richard A.
- Pound, Roscoe, "Public Law and Private Law", Cornell Law Quarterly, 24, pp.469~482 (1939)
- Pound, Roscoe, "Spurious Interpretation", Colum. L. Rev, 7, pp.379~ (1907)