영미 행정법상의 원고적격: 사법적극주의와의 관계에서

Issues on "standing" refer to the possibility of judicial review on administrative discretion. This paper introduced the three recent cases: World Development Movement case of the United Kingdom; and United States v. SCRA and Massachusettes v. EPA of the United States of the United States. These recent cases showed different opinions from the famous cases (for example, Chevron case and Lujan case) dealing with judiciary review on administrative discretion. Chevron case declared that only abuse of discretion could be subject to judicial review, and Lujan case required the concrete injury of an individual to have standing even though a specific statute provides citizen suit. Legal issues of the two cases seem to be different, but they have one common question of which extent the judiciary could expand its jurisdiction. Massachusettes v. EPA showed needs of balancing between the public interests and industries'. The statutes having Amorphous concepts and discretion sometimes could granted the broad delegation of Congress to the executive. These are inevitably made by limited capabilities of the legislative. Therefore, duties of balancing interests for a certain administrative decision are imposed on administrative agencies on behalf of Congress. Congress could not speculate all situations requiring interests-balance procedures before a certain case would happen. Courts review the case happened already so that they can easily identify the facts necessary for interests-balance. Although both Congress and courts suffer from lack of human and material resources, courts could be more familiar with a particular case's history and facts than Congress. The judicial decision for one specific case outweighs the legislative decisions using amorphous concept and discretion. In reality, a court is not allowed to review all administrative discretion due to inherent lacks of its knowledge, skills and knowhow when compared to administrative agencies. However, courts should be not prevented from reviewing administrative decisions all the time. When courts are sure of their own decisions, they should allowed their decisions to outweigh those of the agencies.