• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• Environmental engineer
• /
• s.139
• /
• pp.35-43
• /
• 1998

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.567-576
• /
• 2022

Seafarers are exposed to various unpredictable maritime risks due to the spatial specificity of the working environment of the sea; thus, sufficient compensation for injured crewmembers is needed. However, Korea does not provide such compensation. Therefore, this study attempted to examine the Maritime Labor Act and the Industrial Accident Insurance Act of Germany, an advanced European social insurance country, and derive implications compared to Korea. First, we investigated how compensations are managed by a public institution in Germany and by shipowners in Korea. Second, regarding the contents of accident compensation, Germany does not only provide continuous treatment and care through various support systems, but also operates various programs to enable a return to ship work. In contrast, Korea has a temporary compensation system that allows shipowners to avoid liability for accident compensation, which is disadvantageous to shipwrecked seafarers. Finally, in Germany, workers' compensation insurance is public, judged considering the origin of work, whereas in Korea, it is determined by shipowners or insurance companies. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a public institution in charge of crew accident compensation to ensure proper compensation for crewmembers in Korea and to improve the Seafarers Act or system to provide compensation for additional medical care, disability pension, and rehabilitation benefits.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2006

Attempts were made to increase an efficiency of soil contamination investigation systems(SCISs) including Soil Contamination Fact-Finding Investigation Sites and Special Soil Contamination Management Facility Sites in Korea. In order to increase low efficiencies resulting from inappropriate SCISs, possible policy suggestions are driven based on the results from problem findings of Korean policy and comparisons of policies in industrialized countries including United States, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan. First, functions of Soil Environment Conservation Act(SECA) on liability should be updated and reinforced to initiate a soil contamination investigation process for stakeholders including an owner(s) or a responsible party(ies) of the potentially soil contamination sites positively. Second, appropriate SCISs should be emerged for implementing the Soil Contamination Fact-Finding Investigation Sites and Special Soil Contamination Management Facility Sites properly. Stakeholders for the potentially contaminated sites should easily access and raise the soil contamination issues, and soil contamination investigation implemented by liable and profit environment (consulting) companies should be encouraged. Third, the soil contamination reporting system of SECA needs to change legally responsible. Further more, public announcement system showing soil quality of a site which exceeds a certain scale would be considerable. Fourth, liable environment (consulting) companies should legally execute Soil Environment Assessment of SECA.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.31-57
• /
• 2004

Attempts were made to compare and analyze the policies of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark concerning Korea's major problems associated with legal liability of the contaminated sites. These countries were chosen from a feasible preliminary analysis of 18 countries of the EU and the U. S. The major problems were revealed based on the analysis of Korean legacy and legislation, which are summarized as follows i) lack of clear detailed technical and legal guidance to determine the responsible party or parties of contaminated sites, ii) no distinction between the strict and non strict legal liability of innocent land owners, iii) no clearly set limit on retroactive legal liability. Comparison of the policies of countries chosen suggested improvements regarding these major problems as follows: i) activating national and international research on soil contamination prevention policy, ii) arranging distinct legal regulation between strict and non strict liability criteria, iii) establishing the limits on innocent and non strict liability, iv) establishing methodology and process of legal liability distribution and compensation, and v) establishing a legal process to redeem any benefit derived from remediation of contaminated sites with the public budget. Our policy suggestions above are not yet conclusive due to a lack of policy implementation simulation. Additional research is needed on aspects of social, economic and long term effects of the proposed policy directions. Nevertheless, application of the policy suggestions of this research would increase the efficacy of Korean policy regarding the survey and remediation of the potentially contaminated sites.