美國의 市民訴訟 執行의 比較法的 考察 = A comparative legal study of judicial review of U. S. environmental citizen suit enforcement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Citizens have long played a direct role in U. S. governance, but the availability of citizen suits has allowed citizens to have a particularly strong part in environmental policy development and implementation. Citizens have the ability to influence and challenge government decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which
allows interested parties to challenge both federal agency actions and inaction in certain contexts. Substantive environmental statutes also allow citizens to challenge agency conduct. This article will provide an overview of U.S. citizen suits and explore how they have influenced environmental law. This article will introduce the three
general types of citizen actions that U. S. authorizes, challenges to agency actions, suits seeking to compel agency action; and citizen enforcement actions against regulated entities. This article will discuss some of the legal hurdles citizens must clear to bring their cases before court. Yet, even after 40 years of citizen enforcement,
debates continue about whether citizens should continue to play such a role in U. S. governance and compliance. It is unlikely that debates about the priority of citizen enforcement will abate any time soon. It is safe to say, however, that environmental citizen suits will continue to influence the U. S. legal and political system for years to
come. As this paper explores, citizens have a number of opportunities to enforce environmental laws, and citizens have used these opportunities to profoundly affect the U. S. legal system. Citizens have long played a direct role in U. S. governance, but the availability of citizen suits has allowed citizens to have a particularly strong part
in environmental policy development and implementation. Citizens have the ability to influence and challenge government decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows interested parties to challenge both federal agency actions and inaction in certain contexts. Substantive environmental statutes also allow citizens to
challenge agency conduct. Courts have also invalidated numerous agency actions under the arbitrary and capricious test, finding that the administrative records did not support the agencies’ conclusions. Without these challenges, it is likely that many pollutants would remain unregulated and many unsupported decisions would be U. S. law. On
the other hand, these challenges interfere with agency authority and may result in bad environmental outcomes as well. Collectively, citizen enforcement suits have also had a profound effect on the U.S. legal system. While the common law had long allowed injured parties to sue polluters for damages and injunctive relief, common law claims
typically hinged on plaintiffs being able to prove they had incurred damages and that the defendant had behaved unreasonably. Environmental statutes, in contrast, allow parties to sue even where they have not suffered direct physical or economic losses.
While these parties must show that they have standing to bring their claims, the universe of potential plaintiffs has expanded dramatically as a result of citizen suits.
Citizen enforcers intrude on the prerogatives of government leaders and turn a deliberative administrative process into a legal free‐for‐all. It is unlikely that debates about the priority of citizen enforcement will abate any time soon. It is safe to say, however, that environmental citizen suits will continue to influence the U. S. legal and political system for years to come.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

미국의 환경규제법은 환경보전을 위하여 엄격한 배출 기준과 위반자에 대한 엄중한 처벌을 규정하며 법규를 위반한 자에 대한 공적인 제재 책임을 묻는 것을 1차적으로 주에 두고, 주가 제재를 제대로 하지 않을 경우에 연방 환경청이 제재권을 행사하도록 된 중첩적 구조로 환경법 위반자에 대하여 행정상의 제재, 민사적 및 형사적 처벌을 다양하게 마련한 것도 집행을 철저히 하고자 하는 일면이 있다. 미국의 환경규제법은 여기서 더 나아가 모든 시민으로 하여금 환경 침해자를 감시하게 하고 소추권을 인정함으로써 환경법 집행 제도를 더욱 강화하고 있다. 즉 시민은 누구라도 환경규제 기준이나 제한 사항 등을 위반한 배출원을 발견하면 먼저 환경청, 주정부에 대하여 민사 소송 의사를 통지하고 공적인 집행 조치가 없을 경우 직접 법원에 위반 배출원을 상대로 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 시민소송은 입법제안 당시 반대론자들이 예상했던 소송폭주현상은 결코
발생하지 않았다. 무엇보다도 시민소송의 기저는 환경 분쟁에 있어서 법원으로의 접근을 통한 시민참여를 제도적으로 수용함으로써 환경권의 실질적 실현을 추구하였다는 점이다. 본고는 미국의 연방 환경법규의 시민소송제도를 개괄하고, 이러한 시민소송제도를 통한 연방 대법원의 사법심사가 환경법 집행에 미친 영향을 살펴볼 것이다. 이 논문에서는 시민소송을 제기하기 위해 넘어야하는 법적 요건을 살펴보고 결론에서는 지난 40년간의 시민집행제도의 평가를 통해 우리 법제의 시사점을 제시하고자 한다. 한국의 경우, 사법부로 하여금 이러한 행정부에대한 감시와 견제 역할을 할 수 있게 하는 것은 “시민소송의 가능 과 이를 통한 원고 적격의 확대”이다. 한국에 있어서 사인은 직접적으로 그 행정청의 행정행위에 의하여 피해를 입었다고 입증하지 못하면 행정청을 상대로 소송을 제기 할 수 없다. 우리나라의 경우 환경 침해에 대한 사법적 구제는 대부분 불법
행위로 인한 손해배상 청구 소송에 한정되어 있어 환경 보호의 본령이라고 할 수 있는 사전 환경침해방지는 거의 외면되다시피 한 실정이고 이를 타파하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 현행 환경 정책기본법을 위시한 개별 환경법에 대한 근본적인 수술이 절실하며 그중 여기에 소개되는 시민소송제도의 장․단점을 면밀히 검토한 뒤 가까운 시기에 그 입법화를 과감히 추진해야 되리라고 본다.
한국의 법원이 환경 정책의 집행에 적극적이고 능동적인 동반자로서 참여할 수 있는 소송구조의 문제점과 소송절차의 대안의 모색이 필요하며 미국 법원이 환경행정처의 정책과 집행에 영향을 미쳤던 교훈을 참고하여 새로운 시민 소송 제도의 도입과 평가가 요청된다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序論
• Ⅱ. 美國의 市民訴訟制度
• Ⅲ. 市民訴訟 執行에 대한 評價
• Ⅳ. 結論

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "Will Separation Of Powers Challenges “Take Care” Of Environmental Citizen Suits? Article Ii, Injury-In-Fact, Private “Enforcers,” And Lessons From Qui Tam Litigation" 72 : 93-, 2001

2 Cass R. Sunstein, "What's Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries and Article III" 91 : 163-, 1992

3 Varnum, "Toxic Waste Liability: A Risk in Acquisitions" 28 : 1985

4 Olds, "Thoughts on the Role of Penalties in the Enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts" 17 : 1-9, 1977

5 Vetal, "The Restatement (Second) of Judgments: A Modest Dissent" 66 : 464-, 1981

6 Aaron Roblan, "Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment: The Evisceration of Citizen Suits under the Veil of Article Iii" 12 : 59-, 1998

7 Stewart, "Public Programs and Private Rights" 95 : 1195-, 1982

8 Boyer, "Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement: A Preliminary Assessment of Citizen Suits Under Federal Environmental Laws" 34 : 833-852, 1985

9 Ward, "Private Prosecution—The Entrenched Anomaly" 50 : 1171-1173, 1972

10 Miller, "Private Enforcement of Federal Pollution Control Laws: The Citizen Suit Section" 11 : 368-, 1987

11 Polebaum, "Preclusion of Citizen Environmental Litigation by Agency Action" 16 : 10013-, 1986

12 James R. May, "Now More than Ever: Trends in Environmental Citizen Suits at 30" 10 : 1-20, 2003

13 Currie, "Judicial Review Under Federal Pollution Laws" 62 : 1221-1271, 1977

14 Jonathan Remy Nash, "Grandfathering and Environmental Regulation: The Law and Economics of New Source Review" 101 : 1677-, 2007

15 W. Lewis, "Environmentalists' Authority to Sue Industry for Civil Penalties Likely to Be Ruled Unconstitutional Under Separation of Powers Doctrine" 16 : 10101-, 1986

16 F. Anderson, "Environmental Protection" 324 (324): 1984

17 Benjamin Jesup, "Endless War or End this War? The History of Deadline Litigation Under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and the Multi-district Litigation Settlements" 14 : 327-, 2013

18 Jacob E. Gersen, "Deadlines in Administrative Law" 156 : 923-941, 2008

19 Schwartz, "Citizen Suits Against Private Industry Under the Clean Water Act" 17 : 327-, 1984

20 Michael D. Sant’Ambrogio, "Agency Delays: How a Principal-Agency Approach Can Inform Judicial and Executive Branch Review of Agency Foot-Dragging" 79 : 1381-, 2011

21 James R. May, "2009-2010 Developments: Clean Water Act Environmental Citizen Suits"