公的 警告에 대한 節次的 統制

‘Public warning’ in information society is fatal to the sufferer concerned. It should be carried out carefully. But we have no code which says ‘public warning’ directly. It is very uncertain that we could be saved by law over public warning. In addition to this, we doubt that the conclusion on the judging sentence is always sufficiently accurate to believe it. Thus on the basis of comparative belief in value, it needs that we take along the procedural process, mix all opinions, and lead to a conclusion. If that, we feel it very stable in law, and are not embarrassed at that conclusion. Concerned with this, the theory of procedural participation right has been asserted as a kind of subjective public right or interest in law, but is left alone in a corner of administrative law's square The legal mind of preserving the importance of process should be open to the world plainly, and by doing so we need to give body to the procedural democracy. In case of public warning, if once carried out, it is fatal to the sufferer concerned, and never can be recovered fully, lead to the characteristic ruin. In that sort of field like that, we need the preventive, procedural control of it. For that, we need the legistlation of concrete procedure of carrying out public warning. The criteria of doing that vary with the character of its administrative field. ‘Public warning’ in information society has the extreme character, so called, all or none rule. ‘Procedural control’ is the fittest way for the solution of extremity of public warning. But the legistlation is not yet suggested for that, we are far behind the era of information. As an administrative organ to cope with ‘procedural control’ of ‘public warning’, we can make use of the administrative trial committee which has existed long before.