[가작] 강남소방서

한상운(Han, Sang-woon) 현대건축사 2001 월간 CONCEPT Vol.- No.29

現行 憲法上 環境國家原理에 관한 硏究

韓相雲(Sang-Woon Han, 한상운) 한국공법학회 2006 공법연구 Vol.34 No.4-1

一般的으로 環境保護의 問題는 주관적 권리로서의 ‘環境權’ 保護의 問題와 객관화된 가치로서의 ‘環境’保護의 問題로 구별된다. 다만 종래까지의 法解釋論에 의하면 환경보호의 문제는 주관적 권리로서의 ‘環境權’을 중심으로 그 保護에 관하여 논의되고 있다고 본다. 그러나 오늘날 環境問題에 적절히 대응하기 위해서는 주관적 권리로서의 ‘環境權’保護도 중요하지만, 그것보다는 共同體의 生存基盤으로서의 ‘環境’을 중심으로 그 保護에 관한 논의가 더욱 중요하게 다루어져야 한다. 그리고 객관화된 가치로서의 ‘環境’保護를 위하여 국가의 義務履行을 保障할 수 있는 法理論이 절실하다. 현행 헌법상 국가는 환경보호의무조항에 근거하여 政策을 형성․유지․변경하는 경우에 環境保護를 考慮하여야 한다. 현행 헌법상 環境保護義務條項은 環境國家로서의 국가과제수행을 국가에게 명령하는 國家目標條項이며, 이로부터 環境國家原理가 導出되어 나온다. 국가의 環境保護義務 履行에 관한 立法裁量의 한계는 헌법상 環境國家原理에 의하여 엄격히 규정된다. 13 그리고 객관화된 가치로서의 ‘환경’보호를 목적으로 하는 環境國家原理의 구현을 위해서는 다양한 方法的 原理나 制度가 요구된다. 그리고 객관화된 가치로서의 ‘환경’보호를 목적으로 하는 環境國家原理의 구현을 위해서는 다양한 方法的 原理나 制度가 요구된다. 즉 오늘날 국가는 現世代의 人間만을 위한 環境保護가 아니라 自然環境과 未來世代의 環境까지 보호할 의무를 부담하는 生態的 環境國家임을 의미한다.

현행 헌법상 기본권 체계 및 범위에 관한 일고찰

한상운(Han Sang-Woon) 한국헌법학회 2007 憲法學硏究 Vol.13 No.3(2)

  Respecting the fundamental human right is the core notion of the constitution. Contractions and methodologies of respecting the human rights vary by each county. It is not deniable that constitutional laws, which clearly provide fundamental human rights, are more effectively protecting fundamental human rights than the one that is not provided. Although examples of the British and the USA constitutional laws can challenge this line of claim, it is widely accepted by Korean academia of constitutional law"s theories and precedents that defined fundamental human rights in the constitutional law would have more clear debates such as contents and limitation of fundamental human rights.<BR>  The fact that the limitation of the fundamental human rights, which could be or must be guaranteed by constitutional law, cannot be extended infinitely and it is not necessary. (This can be supported by the openness and incompleteness of the constitution). Therefore, it can be satisfied by indicating provisions of fundamental human rights in the constitutional law considering fundamental values that the current constitutional law pursuits. In other words, various unwritten rights can be derived by the interpretations based on openness and abstractness of the core of the fundamental human rights.<BR>  An issue arises under the current constitutional law that whether the pro-visions of the fundamental human rights meet the system of fundamental human rights. For it, first, prior understanding of the relationship between the systems of the fundamental human rights and ‘Grundrechtstheorie’ is necessary. The definition of Grundrechtstheorie is that it is a systemic view points or theory regarding the general characteristics, regulatory goals and its courses, and contents limitation. Grundrechtssystem, the system of fundamental human rights means the internal system or order that could provide guidance in interpreting general fundamental human rights. Allowing the system of fundamental human rights as a means of understanding the theory of fundamental human rights which is used as a means of understanding fundamental human rights are to prevent national authorities from arbitrative interpretation of human rights, thus to enhance security of the fundamental human rights ultimately. Therefore, the theory and the system of fundamental human rights have been fully supported except the necessary explanation of each of unique values in interpreting individual human rights are remained unproved.<BR>  Regarding the system of fundamental human rights under the current constitutional law, the system of the human rights that based on natural rights should be eliminated. It is an appropriate argument that the interpretation of the human rights should be based on constitutional law rather than natural law regarding methodological limitation of the law. Under the current constitution, fundamental human rights could be understood that the constitutional law has characteristic of natural law and the duplicity of the fundamental human rights in interpreting should be fully considered. Current constitutional law constitutes of dignity of human, pursuit of values and happiness, recognition of duplicity of fundamental human rights, respect of liberty and equality, respect of the right to participate in politics and the right of judicial redemption, right of compensation of human welfare, and effect of the human right toward the nation as well as other people. As a result, debates on understanding of each aspects of constitution could be validated by the fact that the openness, uniformity, and limitation in interpretation of the constitution could be secured via reviewing internal relevance among constituent of systems of the human rights. Regarding effect of fundamental human rights, the provisions of the social rights that the internal relevance is difficult to be admitted under the current law should be improve

영국의 통합환경관리제도에 관한 연구

한상운 ( Sang Woon Han ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2007 환경정책연구 Vol.6 No.3

통합적 환경관리는 산업생태학의 원리에 맞는 이상적인 환경관리방식으로서 일찍부터 서구 산업국가에서 주목을 받았다. 특히 영국은 1970년대 이후부터 다른 유럽국가에 비하여 비교적 일찍 관심을 갖고 이에 대한 정책을 추진해 왔고, 이러한 노력은 EU의 통합적 환경관리 정책에도 많은 영향을 주었다. 영국의 통합적 환경관리는 1976년 RCEP의 보고서에 의하여 그 중요성이 인식되었고 이후 1990년 환경 보호법에 통합적 환경관리가 규정됨으로써 그 결실을 보게 되었다. 이러한 과정 속에서 법률과 행정체제 및 환경관리를 위한 BPEO의 개념을 정립하고 발전시켜 왔다. 영국의 이러한 노력은 현재 통합적 환경관리를 도입하고자 하는 우리나라의 정책에도 많은 시사점을 던져주고 있으므로 본 논문에서는 이를 자세히 살펴봄으로써 통합적 환경관리에 대한 인식의 폭을 넓히고 향후의 정책방향을 모색해 보고자 한다. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control(IPPC) has attracted western developed countries for their idealistic environmental prevention concept which corresponds to the principal of Industrial Ecology. Specially the United Kingdom has been interested in those topics earlier than other countries and carried out environmental prevention polices since 1970`s. As a result of these efforts, United Kingdom gave effects EU on developing European IPPC directives. The United Kingdom recognized the importance of the integrated pollution control through the report of Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution(RCEP) in 1976. Further, the United Kingdom developed the report and resulted the Integrated Pollution Control Directives under Environmental Protection Law in 1990. In the process of the legislation, it established and developed the concept of Best Practicable Environmental Option(BPEO) for the regulations, administrative systems, and environmental control. These efforts of the United Kingdom has implications for South Korean policies in adopting Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control system. Thus, this study examines IPPC directives to broaden the understanding of the system and develop policies.

물자원 관련 갈등 해결을 위한 비용부담체계

한상운 ( Sang Woon Han ),문현주 ( Hyun Joo Moon ) 한국환경법학회 2010 環境法 硏究 Vol.32 No.3

물자원의 배분은 비용부담을 통하여 효율적으로 체계화되어야 하며, 이를 위해서는 비용부담이 합리적으로 조정될 필요가 있다. 물자원의 이용에 따른 비용부담의 갈등을 최소화하기 위한 방안으로서 물자원에 대한 양적·질적 측면의 기여의 결과에 대하여 당해 수익자가 기여의 가치에 따른 비용을 부담하게 하는 방안을 고려하는 것도 현실적으로 검토할 만하다. 이와 같은 관점에서 물관련 비용부담체계에 관한 개선안을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 물이용부담금의 부과가 사용자부담원칙에 따라 하천수이용자까지 부과대상에 포섭하고 있음을 고려할 때, 차제에 물이용부담금의 성격과 목적을 이에 맞추어 재조정할 필요가 있다. 즉 현행법상 물이용부담금 부과의 목적은 상수원 수질개선을 위한 주민지원사업과 수질개선사업 등의 재원을 조성하기 위한 것이며, 부과대상자는 상수원 수질개선으로부터 편익을 얻는 물사용자라는 점에서 하천수 이용자에게는 상수이용자와 비교하여 누리는 편익이 작다고 보아야 하므로 양자를 구별하여 비용부담케 할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 종래의 상수원 수질개선 목적에 따른 사용에 국한할 필요가 없이 물자원의 양적·질적 가용화 비용은 물론 자원비용에 관한 좀 더 엄밀히 산정된 가격을 반영하여 수계기금도 상수원 수질개선만이 아닌 수질 및 수량의 개선 모두에 사용될 수 있도록 조정될 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 조정은 장기적으로 현재의 물이용부담금과 댐용수요금, 그리고 하천사용료 등을 통합한 일원화된 물비용 부담체계(예를 들면 취수부과금체계)로 개편할 필요성이 있음을 의미한다. 셋째, 단기적으로는 상수이용을 위한 상하류 간 비용분담 방안으로서 물이용부담금의 기능을 보다 분명하게 정비하는 필요하다. 현행법상 물이용부담금의 부과근거는 상수원 수질보호 비용의 사용자부담원칙이고, 따라서 상수원의 수질을 일반적인 하천수질 이상으로 보호하기 위해 필요한 추가적인 상수원의 수질보호 비용을 사용자에게 부담시키는 것이 합리적이다. 넷째, 추가적 상수원 수질보호 비용에 산입될 수 있는 범위에는 상수원 수질보호를 위해 추가적인 비용부담을 가지는 강화된 기준을 적용받는 시설들로 한정하여 지원하여야 한다. 따라서 수계기금의 용도도 이러한 사업에 소요되는 경비에 한정하여야 함에도 불구하고 직접적 관련성이 없는 오염총량관리에 필요한 비용의 지원(금강,낙동강,영산강·섬진강 수계)은 문제가 있다. 다섯째, 수계관리기금 용도규정에 따르면 주민지원사업과 별도로 행위 제한에 따른 경작자의 피해비용을 보상하는데 사용할 수 있도록 되어 있다. 그러나 상수원보호를 위한 지역주민들의 토지이용의 제한은 ‘주민지원사업’에 의하여 그 기회비용을 보상하는 것이고, 이와 달리 수계기금에서 행위제한에 따른 보상비용을 사용하는 것은 보상의 중복이므로 이를 명확히 하여 관련 규정을 삭제하는 것이 옳다. Allocation of water resources needs to effectively systematize through cost-sharing system. To minimize burden of cost sharing for water resource user, it is a reasonable way for Beneficiary to bear cost for quantitative and qualitative water use. Here is policy recommendations on cost sharing on water resource use. Firstly, water use charges should be adjusted based on its characteristics and objectives of current system which levy tax to stream river users based on the user pays principle. The objective of water use charges in current legal scheme is to finance for water quality improvement and inhabitant support projects to protect water resources quality. It needs to divide tax pay system for upstream water user who have higher benefit compared to downstream water users according to condition that tax payer is one who benefit from water quality improvement. Secondly, water use charges should be adjusted, beyond current water resources quality improvement objectives, to reflect qualitative and quantitative cost as well as resources cost not only for water quality improvement but also for water quantitative improvement. In long term, it means unified water use chargers system including current water use charges, dam water charges, and river use charges. Thirdly, function of water use charges needs to be clear in short term between upstream and downstream water supply source users. Current legal system in water use charges system based on the user pays principle of water supply source. Therefore additional cost for protection of water supply source to improve beyond the level of general water quality needs to levy to user of water resource. Fourthly, the range of tax standard should minimizes its list of subjects as facilities which has obligation for cost sharing for additional water supply source protection. Therefore uses of watershed management fund should provide its financial support only for water quality improvement, but current fund partially uses for total pollution management in Geumgang, Nakdonggang, Younsangang, and Sumjingang. Finally, watershed management fund also originally designed for compensation of farmers who restricted own farming activities because of water protection regulation. However land use restriction for water supply source protection is compensation for opportunity cost and watershed management fund compensate for behaviors restriction. This is duplication of compensation, therefore it needs to eliminate related implementation rules.

사회변화(社會變化)와 헌법해석(憲法解釋)의 방법(方法) : 헌법상(憲法上) 환경보호조항을(環境保護條項)을 중심(中心)으로

한상운 ( Sang Woon Han ) 韓國環境法學會 2006 環境法 硏究 Vol.28 No.1

북한환경법에 관한 기초연구

한상운(Han Sang-Woon) 한국헌법학회 2007 憲法學硏究 Vol.13 No.4

  Unlike other areas of law, the inability to gain access to information makes it practically difficult to have a true picture of what the environment-related laws in North Korea are like, thereby resulting in total absence of such studies ever made to date, even by scholars working on the laws in North Korea. However, North Korea has recently reorganized its environment-related laws systematically, making them public externally. Such reorganization of environment-related laws could be assessed as mitigated, with respect to its contents, in its ideological colors and as attempts to systematize its laws being made with respect to its form while there still remains much to be desired. It is understood that North Korea is re-organizing environment-related laws in a move to enhance protection of environment by securing legislative control. It is expected, therefore, that the country"s jurisdictional control in the area of environment-related laws will be further enhanced in the days to come. This means that the need to understand the environment-related laws in North Korea can take on a more real significance, as never before.<BR>  This dissertation proposes to have a comparative review of the history of the North Korea"s environment-related laws, their fundamental principles and so forth, alongside their counterparts in South Korea in accordance with such latest shifts in such political and legislative environments. This necessitates making a preview of the basic principles, characteristic features and system of the North Korea"s laws, followed by an review, on this basis, of the fundamental principles of the country"s environment-related laws. To sum up the preceding discussion:<BR>  First, embodied in the laws in North Korea are legal principles of subjectivity, the national leader"s ruling principle, revolutionary mentality of laws and the principle of the people"s legal subjectivity in the form of the fundamental principles and ideology, apparently featuring the ideological nature (the undertone of socialistic system), political (subordination) nature and that of policy making leverage.<BR>  Second, with respect to the form of legal system, there are "laws and ordinances" and "decisions" of People"s Supreme Council, "decisions" and "orders" by Committee of National Defense, amendment of "laws and ordinances", "commands", "instructions" by Resident Committee under Supreme People"s Council, and the Cabinet"s "decisions" and "instructions." The relationships among the legal forms show such a hierarchical structure running downward as the constitution - laws and ordinances, and orders - political ordinances - decisions. Characteristic about the system is the fact that the policies of the party takes the precedence over laws, based on Article 11 of the constitution to the effect that all the activities are under the leader-ship of Labor Party.<BR>  Third, viewed at the time the environmental laws were written into law and from a historical perspective, the North Korea"s legislational trend has made a departure away from the traditional stance where the issue of environment had been perceived in terms of protection of the nature to the stance where the issue of environment is perceived in terms of prevention of environmental pollution.<BR>  Fourth, while the principles of environment protection in North Korea differ from the basic principles in South Korea, the principles of preconsideration is embodied while there remains room for the principles of guaranteed continuation and of sustainable development. In North Korea the principles of results to be imputed to the causer, of cooperation and of administrative information to be made public are not yet admitted.

한국에서의 오염매체별 환경관리의 법적 문제점

한상운 ( Sang Woon Han ) 韓國環境法學會 2007 環境法 硏究 Vol.29 No.2

현행 헌법상 평등심사기준에 관한 연구 - 헌법재판소 판례를 중심으로

한상운(Han Sang Woon),이창훈(Lee Chang Hoon) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.1

  In judicial analysis on equal protection, the things that are essentially same should be treated as the same and the things that are essentially different should be treated differently. By the way, the position of the Constitutional Court in the judicial review on equal protection regarding essential treatment is vague.<BR>  Specially, the recent decision of the Constitutional Court has been shown controversial in the case of “giving discharged soldier benefit in the exam to become a civil servant.” In result, the Constitutional Court"s standpoint is possibly controversial. This is because the Constitutional Court has adopted “review standard of two Step,” i.e. “Mere Rationality Test” - “Strict Scrutiny.” But there are some inconsistency among standards that it has adopted. Standards are founded on misconception about levels of scrutiny.<BR>  Also, balancing of values based on equal treatment and inequal treatment related the comparative object is the essence of the principle of the equality that is as often quoted as the principle of the proportion. Therefore, the rationality of constitutional trials as argumentation procedures is depended whether or not procedures of the balancing realizing the principle of the equality can be reconstructed as reasonable procedures.

"사회통합을 위한 환경법제의 과제와 전망"

한상운(Han Sang woon) 한국국가법학회 2012 국가법연구 Vol.8 No.2

환경갈등을 조정하기 위해서는 환경형평성 보장 절차 및 분배제도 개선, 환경책임성 강화, 사회경제적 취약계층보호정책 강화, 지역간 환경격차 해소 등을 지속적으로 추진할 필요가 있다. 현행법상 환경갈등을 조정하기 위해서는 지역간, 소득계층간 환경형평성을 평가하고 이를 보장할 수 있는 조정제도나 기관 등 관련 제도적 기반을 마련할 필요가 있다. 특히 환경법제 영역에서의 구축해야 될 제도적 기반의 핵심적 내용은 다음과 같다. 1. 지속가능발전원칙의 실현 강화를 위한 지속가능발전기본법으로의 복귀와 환경ㆍ경제ㆍ사회적 형평성의 강화, 2. 국토이용법제와 환경법제간의 연계성 강화를 위한 개발계획과 환경계획의 연계 및 이를 구현하기 위한 정부조직의 전향적 변경, 3. 환경영역에서의 공정성 강화를 위한 환경오염 등 환경부담 및 향유이익에 대한 공정성 확보와 사회적 약자에 대한 배려, 4. 환경피해에 대한 법적 책임 강화와 관련하여 환경오염 등 환경피해에 대한 배상 및 보상책임 강화 및 생태계 등 환경자체의 훼손에 대한 배상 및 보상 책임강화, 5. 환경갈등의 사전예방적 수단으로서 환경영향평가제도의 실효성 확보 및 사회영향평가제도의 실질화 6. 전문화된 환경갈등조정제도의 도입 등이다. In order to reconcile environmental conflicts, there is a need to constantly pursue the following: improving the procedure of ensuring environmental equity and distribution system, strengthening environmental responsibility and the policy for protecting socioeconomically vulnerable group, reducing environmental gap between regions. For the conciliation of the environmental conflicts under the current law, there is a need to form the institutional basis such as a system or an institution that analyses and assures environmental equity between regions and income brackets. Especially, the core contents of the institutional basis that should be built in the area of environmental legislation are as follows: 1) Returning to the fundamental law on sustainable development for the actualization of sustainable development principle and reinforcing environmental, economical, and social equity, 2) connecting development plan and environment plan for strengthening the linkages between land use legislation and environmental legislation; and for this to be realized, a forward-looking change in government organization, 3) securing fairness in environmental benefit or burden such as environmental pollution and consideration for social minorities to strengthen the fairness in environmental area, 4) related to reinforcement of legal liability on environmental damages, strengthening liability of compensation and indemnification for environmental damage such as environmental pollution, and for damage on the environment itself such as ecosystem, etc., 5) securing effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment and actualizing Social Impact Assessment as a precautionary measures for environmental conflict, 6) introduction of specialized system for reconciling environmental conflict.