환경공익소송과 오르후스(Aarhus)협약 - 영국의 사례를 중심으로 -

Now, our contemporary people have a strong sense of environment as a right for future generation and a part of essential public goods. In addition, worldwide concerns - whether nationally or internationally - are more and more concentrated on harmony between sustainable economic growth and environmental conservation. In past, we took abstract conceptual approaches to environmental right, but we now recognize it as a concrete right and a crucial national duty of state as well. There are 3 basic rights that assure such a recognition in practice: 1) Right of access to environmental information, 2) Right to participate in environmental administration procedures, and 3) Right of access to environmental justice. Aarhus Convention has been the outcome of efforts to assure these 3 basic environmental rights internationally. In terms of its purport, the major content of Aarhus Convention comprises environment-concerned people's right of access to environmental information, their right to participate in significant environmental administrative resolutions, and their right of access to justice, which involves direct and indirect participation in relevant environmental disputes. The purpose of this study is to make a general discussion about Aarhus Convention, and examine actual cases of ‘standing to sue’ and ‘protective cost order’ in public environmental litigations of the United Kingdom, a membership country that faithfully implements the fundamental purports of Aarhus Convention, so that we may make a further discuss on possible implications of British cases for South Korea. South Korea is not a contracting party of Aarhus Convention, but the Constitution of South Korea contains express provisions about environmental right as a part of universal human right, so it is important to assure that people can get involved in environmental matters and can have access to them. As a practical mean of assurance for such a public participation and access, it is necessary to examine public environmental litigation by an organization in favor of purely public interests, rather than any personal environmental action. As shown in British cases, it is also required that South Korean judicial authorities make positive examinations into recognizing non-interested party or third party's ‘standing to sue’ and supporting ‘their litigation cost’ with regard to public environmental litigation.