Abstract

Environmental disputes not only possess the special characteristics of collectivity and plural value relativity but it also possesses the unique features of difficulty to prove cause and effect as well as the structural maldistribution of evidence and information. Therefore, the positive resolution of an environmental dispute can be brought about more easily with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which can take the form of talks, compromises, as well as arbitration or mediation rather than through a trial process. Such being the case, this paper first looks into the problems and effectiveness of the arbitration system of environmental lawsuits and then takes an even closer look at Korea's environmental dispute arbitration system and finally offer some reform methods. In Korea, the environmental dispute arbitration system was implemented in 1991 and has been executed since then. Although this system does have positive features such as the high rate of coming to an agreement between the involved parties but unfortunately, most of the cases rely on decisions based on right and wrong which cannot but be far away from the intentions of the ADR system. It is heavily centered around claims regarding psychological compensation regarding noise and vibrations and the ratio of the actual amount of compensation is comparatively lower than the requested amount. In addition, with the limits in organization and manpower, it leads to a lack of professionalism as well as the problem of low usage with the low awareness rate. As reform measures against the aforementioned problems, this paper suggests the following. First, in order to activate the arbitration process more fully, it proposes aggressive usage of compulsory arbitration as well as submission to arbitration, while at the same time raising ADR professionals to fill in the missing gaps. Secondly, in order to overcome the problem of concentration of related cases, making representative lawsuits of environmental organizations would be a good idea. It also states that in order to make the compensation amount more realistic, it should go out of the across-the-board decision making process and reach a decision about the compensation amount that takes the individual situation's dispute into consideration. In order to boost the professionalism of the environmental dispute arbitration, it is necessary to reform the organization and manpower such as expanding the number of members of full standing, and increasing the professionalism of the examiners. Also, to increase the usage rate of the ADR system, the paper suggests stationing a civilian consultant regarding environment, or activating the compulsory arbitration which is the premise for public participation on the part of the residents.

Keywords

• Environmental dispute;
• arbitration;
• Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR);
• Environmental dispute arbitration system;
• Environmental lawsuit;
• environment expert;
• environment organization

• 환경분쟁;
• 대체적분쟁해결;
• 환경분쟁조정제도;
• 환경소송;
• 환경전문가;
• 환경단체;