부확정개념(不確定槪念)의 해석(解釋)과 환경법(環境法)의 퇴보(退步) -미국의 판례를 중심으로- = Amorphous Concepts and Retrogression of Environmental Regulations -ocusing on Cases of United States-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Amorphous Concepts and Retrogression of Environmental Regulations - Focusing on Cases of United States - Rhee, Vian The Supreme Court of the United States had shown the tendency of pro-environmentalism from 1960`s and the mid of 2000`s. Unfortunately, since the mid of 2000`s, the most cases of the Supreme Court seem that it prefers the economy to the environment. Amorphous Concepts make this possible. According to Chevron case, courts defer to administrative agencies` interpretation of legislations as long as it is reasonable. However, since the mid of 2000`s, the Supreme Court has been against the interpretation of agencies on amorphous concepts, which were to protect environmental interests. It argued those legislations did not need to require agencies to interpret because their meaning was clear. It is difficult to deny importance of Chevron case but the Supreme Court considers it as the tool of justifying its decisions. Therefore, this paper studied Rapanos v. United States, Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Counsil and Entergy v. Riverkipper. They were recent and famous cases of the United States, which were related with Clean Water Act, CWA. The paper reached the three conclusions. First, the Supreme Court did not judge amorphous concept cases by the steps which were generally applied: a) whether a legislation included an amorphous, b) if so, whether Chevron case should be applied, and then c) whether environmental interests should be prioritized. Second, arbitrary or capricious and an ``abuse of discretion`` standard for amorphous concepts seems to depend on Justices` value of rights. Third, the way to designate Justices could be questioned, because they lack democratic justification and judicial decisions have been influenced by their value.