미국의 NEPA소송과 환경소송상의 원고적격

Standing of the NEPA in US. and Environmental action in Korea

펼치기

  Pollution is far more damaging to humans than originally thought and is causing genetic mutations which could eventually wipe us from the face of the planet. Now, the endangered of human being is the most important concern is the protection from pollution. In the same, in korea, recently, it is one of core issues for Korean government to solve the Environmental groups brought action challenging such as the Saemangeum case.   This research is analyzed the framework, procedual of NEPA and trends, suits under NEPA in U.S. and then the procedual and Court decisions under (synthesis) Environmental Impact Assesment Act. Especially, Judiciability and the Environmental Decisionmaking Process of Informational and Procedural Standing Under NEPA after Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. For all of the standing of environmental suitors, Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq. Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing requires that plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; that there be a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court; and that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Elements of standing are not merely pleading requirements but, rather, are an indispensable part of the plaintiff"s case, and each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, with the manner and degree of evidence required at successive stages of litigation.   The standing of Environmental plaintiffs" has been extended is by broadening the notion of legal right to include interests protected by Court decisions as well as the NEPA. This expansion was sometimes explicitly amended by the legislature. Even in the absence of such provisions, the courts have sometimes discerned in a statute a legislature intent to afford protection to certain new classes of interests and have afforded a correlative right judicial review to enforce those protections.   It is to be hoped that over time the Court will acknowledge that some classes of procedural duties are so enmeshed with the prevention of a substantive, concrete harm that an individual plaintiff may be able to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of injury just through the breach of that procedural duty such as, in the context of the NEPA requirement of environmental-impact statements. Court has acknowledged that it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results and simply prescribes the necessary process, but these procedures are almost certain to affect the agency"s substantive decision.