美國法上 原告適格의 構造에 관한 考察

A Study on the Structure of Standing to Sue in U.S.

펼치기

In U.S., the structure of standing law in the federal courts has long been criticized as arbitrary, inconsistent and incoherent. But this unhappy state related to standing does not result from the unimportance of standing doctrine. In this article, through catching the implication of standing and analyzing the concerned cases in U.S., I review the concrete criteria essential to decide which one has a standing or not. In addition, I show what standing doctrine in U.S. hints to us. The federal courts have required a plaintiff to satisfy four criteria in order to establish standing: Injury in fact, Causation, Redressability and Zone of Interest. However, the various cases show us that these criteria apply to all cases flexibly rather than uniformly. In other words, ‘Standing’ cannot and neednot be defined with complete consistency in all of the various cases and reduced to a one-sentence or one-paragraph definition.