행정계획을 대상으로 한 기후변화 소송과 그 법적쟁점 - 아일랜드 온실가스 국가감축계획 파기판결과 그 시사점에 대하여 -

Ireland's decision to abolish the national mitigation plan is significant as it is the first judgment in the climate change litigation that confirmed the illegality of the national mitigation plan established by the government. Plans related to climate change response can have a relatively large scope of discretion in that the related scope is almost the full scope compared to the general environmental plan, and the policy measures also depend on forward-looking judgments in many parts. However, the ruling states that even in such a case, the government should ensure to the maximum degree of specificity possible. And it is linked to public participation as a procedural problem, but it is difficult for the public to participate with a plan that does not guarantee specificity, and this has flaws in legitimacy, such as not reflecting relevant interests properly. In this respect, the judgment is distinctive in that it demonstrated the illegality of the plan by linking the specificity of the plan to the legitimacy of the plan through public participation. In particular, it is meaningful in that the process of reflecting the opinions or interests of stakeholders is very important when considering the omni-directional impact that the national mitigation plan has on society as a whole. In Korea as well, there have been issues raised in relation to the basic plan for carbon neutrality in response to climate change, but it has never been dealt with as a legal issue. This is because it was not easy to make a legal issue because there was a relatively wide range of planning discretion, which is distinguished from general discretion. In addition, although carbon mitigation targets or action plans are being established and implemented, public participation only in the shape in the process of establishing them was criticized. Ireland's decision to abolish the national mitigation plan is meaningful in that it deals with administrative plans for achieving climate change goals and implementing policies, but it is regrettable that it does not make an in-depth judgment on whether fundamental rights and human rights are violated.