保障國家로 인한 行政法의 構造 變化 (A Study on the New Changes of the Administrative Law Structure for Guarantee State)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국지방자치법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 지방자치법연구 / 15권 / 3호 / 179 ~ 219페이지
· 저자명 : 성봉근

초록

최근 세월호 사건이나 메르스 사건, 쓰나미로 인한 원자력발전소 폭발사건, 기간산업시설물에 대한 해킹 등에서 보듯이, 기존의 전통적 위험과는 다른 현대형 위험들의 등장으로 기존의 법 이론과 실무는 한계에 부딪히게 되었다. 규제를 강화하는 적극적인 규제국가의 길을 걸을 것인지, 아니면 철저하게 민영화의 길을 계속 걸어갈 것인지, 제3의 길로서 보장국가의 길을 새롭게 갈 것인지 고민하지 않을 수 없다. 정부의 실패와 시장의 실패를 겪고 난 지금, 이제는 보장국가의 관점에서 민영화 여부와 상관없이 국민의 기본권을 책임지고 보장하도록 행정법이론과 실무를 변화시켜야 할 때이다. 현대형 위험에 대한 제어를 철저하고 성공적으로 수행할 수 있도록 헌법과 행정조직법 등의 개정을 비롯하여야 한다. 보장행정이 가능하도록 행정조직을 정비하고, 입법ㆍ사법ㆍ행정을 변화시켜야 한다. 그리고 이러한 보장책임은 다양한 유형으로 범위가 확대되어야 한다. 보장국가를 효과적으로 구현하기 위해서 중앙행정기관 주도의 일방적 행정은 대화형 행정으로 구조가 변경되는 패러다임으로 변화하여야 한다. 시장과 정부의 역할을 조화롭게 하는 방향의 포촉책임의 구조가 구현되어야 한다. 이러한 구조가 잘 구현될 수 있도록 사적 자치가 보장책임의 공법적 원리에 의하여 수정되어야 한다. 지방자치단체의 보장행정의 역할을 확대하고 우선하는 방향의 포촉책임의 구조도 고려되어야 한다.

영어초록

We cannot control and overcome Modern-Type Risks for example, MV Sewol sinking accident, expanding MERS events, the nuclear power plant explosion caused by Tsunami, so many Hacking cases on infrastructure facilities, only with the conventional administrative law theory and legal system.
Now we must choose the right way to control the Modern-Type Risks among 3 roads; one is to walk in the way of aggressive national regulations which strengthen the regulation, another is to continue a thorough walk the road of privatization, the other is to take a new and third path so called “State Guarantee” which is try to permit 'Autonomy in the market' at first, but in the case of market failure Gov. should fulfill the duty to intervene to control the risks.
Now is the time to renew and remake the study on the conventional administrative law theory and legal system in the view of “State Guarantee” or “State Warranty”, because we had experienced the Market failure and Government failure in controlling these Modern-type Risks.
At first, we must separate administrative sectors into two parts; one part is sector that can promote economy and efficiency through privatization, and the other is sector that should not be privatized.
Secondly, if Gov. administrates in the other sector which should not be privatized, Gov. should try to furnish and maintain Gov.'s Organization including to amend or even revise of Government Organization Acts for thorough and successful control of Risks.
Thirdly, if Gov. administrates in the sector of privatization, it should carry out it's duty to monitor and oversee whether or not private companies are properly controlling the Modern-Type Risks even after privatization. And in the case of Market failure which means that they can't control Risks any more, Gov. should do duty to intervene in those problems and control of them as “Guarantee State”.
“Guarantee State” is tend to respect the autonomous regulation and market self-control. But Gov. should do duty to assist and help the Market in the case of Market failure. We can call this structure as “Guardianship Liability for Warrants”. “Guarantee State” implement a similar structure to ensure accountability after the subsequent production of the manufacturer or the sale of the merchant.
This Guarantee shall be responsible for expanding the range of Various types. Gov. should expand to guarantee and warrant in these cases; for example, case that the Gov. is causing the Modern-Type Risks, contrary case that it does not a passive control of modern-type risk in spite of the guarantee obligation, case that it does not intervene in conflict between people or companies, and case that officers can not be equipped with a expertise to control Risks. And Gov. should expand to warrant high possible Risks, as well as already occurred Risks prevention.
If we are start to walk in the Road of “Guarantee State”, we are going to experience a lot of structural changes in administrative law theory and practice. And we should also amend and even revise Government Organization Act and Local Government Organization Act including Constitution so that we can supervise responsibly and command officers to guarantee with specialty and responsibility also in the internal administrative organization. We are going to modify the principle of private autonomy including civil law and commercial law for “Guarantee State”, and apply to the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative.
Guarantee State's structure which is so called “Guardianship Liability for Warrants” is expanded as follows in consideration of a fact that municipalities can perform more effectively Guarantee Liability than Central Government. Primarily it entrusts the autonomous control and regulation of the market. But when market can not control the Modern-Type Risks any more, Local Gov. has priority and precedence over Central Gov. to control the Risks. Even when the Local Gov. can not control those Risks, Central Gov. shall exercise the guarantee accountability ultimately.
Now we stand on the view that we can overcome the limits of regulatory State or privatization through the “Guarantee State”, we should take a lot of effort to modify the conventional and traditional Administrative Theory so that change the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative practice.

참고자료

· 없음