ABSTRACT

There are increasing numbers of cases in which people suffer from injuries induced by environmental pollution. Recognizing that we have many difficulties in obtaining fair compensation of injuries induced by environmental pollution under current legal system, this study made an analysis of legal systems, including the Environmental Health Act(hereinafter referred to as “EHA”) and the Bill on the Remedy of Environmental Pollution Damages(hereinafter referred to as “Bill”), in order to show ways to improve current legal system caring for or relieving the injured. This study tried to analyze the related case laws, aiming to understand legal concerns in depth. Then it went through a analysis of current legal system, including the EHA and the Bill, focusing on their functions and limitation to responding to injuries or relieving people injured by environmental pollution. The bill contains many helpful provisions to remedy or relieve the injured. They includes strict liability, presumption of casual relationship, compulsory environmental liability insurance, and so on. But, the Bill has some problems such as improper definition of “Environmental Pollution Damages”, injustice in limiting liability, ambiguity in providing administrative relief and unequal cost allocation. Though epidemiological survey that are provided by the EHA must be useful tools to grasp the scale of health damages or scientific causations, the EHA fails to establish a connection between epidemiological survey and environmental-related diseases, and has no effective provision on how to care for the injured. Based on these analyses, this study presented some concrete ways to improve our legal system: First, it needs specific trigger condition that competent authority can start measures to control or relieve damages; Second, it needs a legal priority ranking among environmental-related diseases; Third, administrative measures to the injured should be diversified; Fourth, validity and reliability of epidemiological survey should be increased; Fifth, it needs a reasonable financial mechanism. And It is very important to decide how to allocate between the EHA and the Bill.

KEYWORD

Environmental Health Act, Bill on the Remedy of Environmental Pollution Damages, Environmental Liability Act, Environment-related Disease, Epidemiological Survey, Liability Limit, Environmental Liability Insurance

REFERENCES(22)open

  1. [jounal] 김두환 / 1985 / 항공운송인의 책임과 배상한도액에 관한 논고 / 법학논총 (창간)

  2. [book] 김홍균 / 2007 / 환경법-문제사례- / 홍문사

  3. [book] 김홍균 / 2012 / 환경법 / 홍문사

  4. [report] 박정임 / 2006 / 환경보건관련 법령체계 개선방안 연구

  5. [report] 박종원 / 2011 / 환경오염 취약지역 주민 건강피해 구제 및 관리제도 도입 연구

  6. [report] 박종원 / 2013 / 환경유해인자로 인한 건강피해 예방․관리 강화를 위한 환경보건법 발전방안 연구

  7. [jounal] 박종원 / 2009 / 석면피해구제의 비용부담과 원인자책임원칙 / 환경법연구 31 (1) : 193 ~ 226

  8. [report] 박종원 / 2012 / 토양정화책임 관련 분쟁사례 분석

  9. [book] 서희원 / 2004 / 환경소송 / 북피디닷컴

  10. [book] 손윤하 / 2005 / 환경침해와 민사소송 / 청림출판

  11. [book] 안법영 / 1996 / 환경오염 사고와 위험책임, In 환경오염의 법적 구제와 개선책 / 소화

  12. [book] 오석락 / 1996 / 환경소송의 제문제 / 삼영사

  13. [book] 우성만 / 2002 / 수질오염, 해양오염과 환경소송, 재판자료 제95집, In 환경법의 제문제(하)』 / 법원도서관

  14. [jounal] 윤서성 / 1988 / 원인자부담원칙의 적용에 대한 고찰 / 환경법연구 10

  15. [book] 이상규 / 1998 / 환경법론 / 법문사

  16. [book] 이은영 / 1993 / 채권각론 / 박영사

  17. [jounal] 이종태 / 2001 / 대기오염의 건강 영향 평가를 위한 역학연구 설계 및 방법론 / 예방의학회지 34 (2)

  18. [jounal] 전경운 / 2013 / ‘환경오염피해 구제에 관한 법률안’에 대한 소고 / 환경법연구 35 (2) : 357 ~ 393

  19. [jounal] 전경운 / 2003 / 環境侵害被害의 私法上 救濟法理 / 환경법연구 25 (2) : 14 ~ 390

  20. [jounal] 조은래 / 2006 / 환경소송상의 입증문제에 대한 소고 / 환경법연구 28 (3) : 329 ~ 358

  21. [book] David A. Moss / 2004 / When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager / Harvard University Press

  22. [book] Philippe Sands / 2003 / Principles of International Environmental Law / Cambridge University Press