원자력안전법제에 관한 공법적 연구 : 역사적 형성과정과 비교법적 분석을 중심으로
- 발행기관 한동대학교 일반대학원
- 지도교수 이국운
- 발행년도 2019
- 학위수여년월 2019. 2
- 학위명 박사
- 학과 및 전공 일반대학원 법학과
- 원문페이지 372
- 실제URI http://www.dcollection.net/handler/handong/200000211173
- UCI I804:47030-200000211173
- 본문언어 한국어
- 저작권 한동대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
초록/요약
이 연구의 목표는 원자력안전법제에 관한 공법이론을 탐색하고, 한국 원자력안전법제의 역사적 형성과정 분석과 해외 원자력안전법제의 비교법적 분석을 통해 도출한 시사점을 중심으로, 원자력안전법제론의 관점에서 국내 원자력안전법제에 대한 평가 및 개선방향을 제시하는 것이다. 본 논문의 문제의식은 “원자력연구· 발전과의 관계에 있어서 종속적 또는 보조적 위치에 머물렀던 원자력안전 분야는 어떻게 독립성을 확보할 수 있는가?”라는 질문에서 출발한다. 원자력안전 분야의 독립적인 위상은 안전규제의 전문성과 독립성이 확보될 때 인정되며, 본 연구는 이를 ‘원자력안전법제의 독립성’ 개념으로 설명한다. 두 번째 질문은 “원자력안전 분야에서는 왜 민주주의가 전면적으로 적용되지 않는가? 민주주의를 원자력안전 분야에 전면적으로 적용할 경우 원자력안전의 법률과 제도는 어떻게 재구성해야 하는가?”이다. 본 연구는 민주주의에 근거한 시민참여의 원칙을 원자력안전법제의 핵심적인 원리로 수용해야 함을 논증하며, 이를 ‘원자력안전법제의 특수성’ 개념으 로 설명한다. 이러한 문제인식을 기반으로 본 연구는 위험·안전·전문성·위험거버넌스 개념에 근거해 원자력안전법제의 이론적 근거를 규명한다. 그리고 이 연구는 전문성과 민주주의에 대한 헌법적 논의를 통해 전문적인 분야에 시민참여의 정당성을 도출하고, 안전 기본권과 국가의 국민안전보장의무에 대한 헌법해석론을 통해 위험거버넌스의 방향성을 제시함으로써, 원자력안전법제의 독립성과 특수성 논의를 위한 기초를 마련한다. 이러한 기초 위에 본 연구는 원자력안전법제의 독립성과 특수성을 기준으로 원자력안전법제의 발전단계를 네 가지로 유형화하고, 국내 원자력안전법제의 역사적 형성과정에 대한 분석을 통해 현재 한국의 발전단계가 제3단계 모델에 머물러있음을 논증한다. 그리고 이 연구는 해외 원자력안전법제의 비교법적 분석을 위하여 자유민주주의체제와 시장경제체제를 운용하는 국가들 중에서 원전 산업구조의 유형에 대응하는 국가로 프랑스·미국·일본을 선택하고, 이 국가들의 원자력안 전법률, 원자력안전 거버넌스, 시민참여의 원칙을 반영한 제도를 분석한 뒤에, 한국을 포함하여 4개 국가의 원자력안전법제를 비교법적으로 평가한다. 한국의 원자력안전법제를 개선하기 위해서는 시민참여의 원칙이 전면적으로 반영된 특별법을 제정하여 제4단계 모델로 전환했던 프랑스 모델을 참고할 필요가 있다. 제3단계 모델에 머물러 있는 우리나라는 제4단계 모델로 나아가기 위해「(가칭)원자력안전 정보공개 및 소통에 관한 법률」을 제정하여, 시민참여의 원칙을 제도화한 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도를 활성화시켜야 한다. 이 제도를 운영하는 핵심은 시민참여의 원칙을 실행하는 차원에서 ‘지역협의체’를 중심으로, 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도를 하나로 연계하여 운영하는 것이다. 그리고 국내 원자력안전 거버넌스는 ‘위험사회 패러다임’을 수용하고, ‘시민참여를 요청하는 안전 소통 패러다임’을 추구하는 민주적 원자력안전 거버넌스로 전환할 필요가 있다. 이 연구에서 원자력안전법제의 제4단계 모델에 기초하여 제시한 원자력안전법제의 방향성은 체계적이고 종합적인 관점에서 원자력안전 문제를 접근하는데 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다. 특히 정부가 에너지전환론을 국가 에너지정책으로 수용하여 원자력안전·금지 패러다임이 지배적인 영향력을 행사하고 있는 한국 사회의 현실에서, 본 연구는 민주주의를 원자력안전 분야에 전면적으로 적용하는 경우 원자력안전에 관한 법률과 제도를 어떻게 재구성해야 하는지에 대해 하나의 방향성을 제시하였다는 점에서, 향후 원자력안전에 대한 생산적인 논의를 이끌어나가는 시발점이 될 수 있을 것이라 생각한다.
more초록/요약
This dissertation aims to explore the public legal theory of nuclear safety legislation and to analyze the historical process of the Korean nuclear safety legislation and the implications of the comparative analysis of the overseas nuclear safety legislation. It has the goal of evaluating domestic nuclear safety legislation from the perspective of nuclear safety legislation and suggesting its improvement direction. The problem recognition of this paper starts with the question “How can we ensure independence in the field of nuclear safety, which has remained subordinate or auxiliary in relation to nuclear research and development?” Independent status in the field of nuclear safety is recognized when the expertise and independence of safety regulations are secured, and this study describes them as the ‘independence of nuclear safety legislation.’ The second question is “Why is democracy not fully applied in the field of nuclear safety? How should the laws and systems of nuclear safety be restructured if democracy is applied to the nuclear safety sector in its entirety?” This study demonstrates that the principle of citizen participation based on democracy should be accepted as a core principle of the nuclear safety legislation, which is described as the ‘speciality of the nuclear safety legislation.’ The purpose of this study is to identify the theoretical basis of nuclear safety legislation based on the concepts of risk, safety, expertise, and risk governance, to draw the legitimacy of citizen participation in professional areas through constitutional discussions on expertise and democracy. I will present the direction of risk governance through the constitutional interpretation theory on the fundamental rights of safety and national safety obligations, and lay the basis for discussing the independence and specificity of nuclear safety legislation. Moreover, I will analyze the historical formation process of domestic nuclear safety legislation by evaluating the development stages of the nuclear safety legislation based on the independence and specificity of the nuclear safety legislation. For comparative legal analysis of overseas nuclear safety legislation, France, the United States, and Japan are selected as countries corresponding to the type of nuclear industry structure among the countries that operate a system of Liberal Democracy and Market Economy. After analyzing the nuclear safety law, nuclear safety governance system, information disclosure system on nuclear safety and local resident participation system of these three countries, I will comparatively evaluate the nuclear safety legislation of four countries including Korea. In order to improve the Korean nuclear safety legislation, it is necessary to refer to the French model, which changed to the fourth phase model by enacting a special law that fully reflected the principle of citizen participation. Korea, which remains on the third phase model, should enact the ‘Nuclear Safety Information Disclosure and Communication Act’ to promote the information disclosure system on nuclear safety and local resident participation system. The key to operating this system is to operate ‘Regional Consultative Body’ in a single way with the information disclosure system and the participation system of local residents in order to implement the principle of citizen participation. And it is necessary to switch to democratic nuclear safety governance that embraces the risk society paradigm and pursues the safety communication paradigm that requests citizen participation. In this dissertation, the direction of the nuclear safety legislation, which was presented based on the fourth phase of the nuclear safety legislation, could help approach the nuclear safety issue from a systematic and comprehensive perspective. In particular, in the reality of Korean society where the nuclear energy safety and prohibition paradigm wields a dominant influence by accepting energy transition theory as a national energy policy, I think this research could be a starting point for leading productive discussions on nuclear safety in that it provided a direction for how laws and systems on nuclear safety should be restructured when democracy is applied to the nuclear safety sector as a whole.
more목차
제1장 서론································································································································ 1
제1절 연구의 의의 및 목적 ··························································································· 1
I. 연구의 의의······································································································ 1
II. 연구의 목적···································································································· 6
제2절 연구의 방법··········································································································· 9
제3절 연구의 범위········································································································· 10
제2장 원자력안전법제에 관한 이론적 탐색 ···································································· 12
제1절 원자력안전법제론의 이론적 배경··································································· 12
I. 위험과 안전···································································································· 13
1. 위험사회론과 위험의 다차원적 의미················································· 13
2. 기술적 안전과 사회적 안전································································· 16
II. 전문성 ············································································································ 19
1. 기술적 전문성과 시민 전문성····························································· 20
2. 기술적 전문성과 전문가주의에 대한 비판 ······································· 23
III. 위험거버넌스······························································································ 27
1. 안전 소통 패러다임: 일방적 정보제공에서 시민참여로의 전환· 28
2. 기술적 전문성과 시민 전문성의 협력적 모델 ································· 29
제2절 원자력안전법제에 관한 헌법적 논의····························································· 31
I. 안전과 헌법···································································································· 31
1. 안전에 대한 헌법적 가치의 변화······················································· 31
2. 안전 기본권에 관한 헌법해석론 ························································· 33
II. 전문성과 민주주의······················································································ 37
제3절 원자력안전법제의 이론적 쟁점 ······································································· 41
I. 평화적 목적과 원자력안전법제 ·································································· 42
1. 자유민주주의체제와 시장경제체제····················································· 42
(1) 원전 산업구조의 유형 ····································································· 42
2. 원자력이용법제와 원자력안전법제의 구별 필요성························· 46
(1) 원자력안전법제와 원자력이용법제의 관련성····························· 46
(2) 문제점과 유용성 ··············································································· 47
3. 원자력안전법제의 발전단계································································· 49
II. 원자력안전법제의 독립성과 특수성에 관한 논의································ 55
1. 원자력이용법과 원자력안전법의 구별 여부··································· 56
(1) 통합론 ································································································· 57
(2) 구별론 ································································································· 58
2. 원자력 안전규제기관의 독립성 여부················································· 62
(1) 전문성 강조론··················································································· 63
(2) 독립성 강조론··················································································· 64
(3) 전문성과 독립성의 균형론 ····························································· 65
3. 원자력정책 의사결정과정에 시민참여 확대 여부 ··························· 65
(1) 전문가 통제 강조론 ········································································· 66
(2) 시민참여 확대론 ··············································································· 67
III. 한국 및 해외 원자력안전법제의 분석 방향········································ 69
제3장 한국 원자력안전법제의 역사적 형성과정 분석 ·················································· 73
제1절 한국의 원자력안전법제 개관··········································································· 74
I. 원자력안전법률의 체계················································································ 74
1. 원자력관련법률 개요············································································· 74
2. 현행 원자력안전법률의 체계 ······························································· 78
(1) 원자력 안전규제 관련 법률··························································· 80
(2) 원자력 안전규제기관 관련 법률··················································· 84
(3) 방사능방재 및 손해배상 관련 법률············································· 86
II. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 체계···································································· 90
1. 원자력 행정체계····················································································· 90
2. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 발전과정······················································· 91
제2절 제1단계 모델(1958년 ~ 1981년)····································································· 97
I. 원자력이용·안보·안전 패러다임의 경합·············································· 97
1. 에너지빈곤과 원자력이용 패러다임의 주도····································· 98
2. 석유파동과 원자력안보 패러다임의 강화······································· 100
3. 고리 1호기 원전 건설과 원자력안전 패러다임의 등장··············· 102
II. 원자력이용에 종속된 원자력안전 ·························································· 104
1. 원자력연구와 발전의 주도권 경쟁··················································· 106
(1) 한미원자력협정과 원자력연구의 강조······································· 106
(2)「원자력법」제정 과정··································································· 108
(3) 이원적 원자력 행정: 원자력연구와 발전································· 110
2. 고리 1호기 원전과 종속적 안전규제··············································· 111
(1) 고리 원전에 대한 안전심사과정················································· 112
(2) 기술적 안전과 주요 안전규제사항············································· 116
III. 중앙집권적 관료제와 전문가주의의 결합·········································· 122
1. 국가주도 경제발전과 원자력이용 확대 ··········································· 122
2. 기술관료적 전문성의 확대 재생산··················································· 127
IV. 소결·············································································································· 130
제3절 제2단계 모델(1982년 ~ 2010년)··································································· 133
I. 원자력이용·안전 패러다임의 경합························································ 134
1. 원전 기술자립과 원자력이용 패러다임의 주도····························· 134
2. 체르노빌 원전사고와 원자력안전 패러다임의 강화····················· 136
II. 원자력안전법제의 독립성 개혁 논의 ···················································· 142
1. 안전규제 전문성의 공고화································································· 142
(1)「원자력법」전면개정과 안전규제의 기틀 마련 ······················· 142
(2) 원자력연구소 원자력안전센터의 기능 강화 ··························· 147
(3)「한국원자력안전기술원법」제정과 안전규제 전문기관의 설립 149
(4) 원자력안전전문위원회의 운영과 전문성의 강화····················· 150
2. 원자력안전위원회의 신설과 독립적 안전규제의 기반조성········· 153
(1) 원자력안전협약 가입과 독립적 규제기관의 설립 요청········· 153
(2) 원자력안전위원회 설립 논쟁······················································· 154
(3) 원자력안전위원회 설립의 의미와 한계····································· 156
III. 원자력안전 거버넌스로의 전환 논의·················································· 158
1. 민주화와 지역주민참여제도의 도입 ················································· 159
(1) 방폐장 건설부지 선정의 실패와 「주민투표법」의 제정 ····· 159
(2) 원전소재 지역에 설치된 민간환경감시기구 ··························· 163
(3) 방사선환경영향평가와 지역주민 의견청취제도 ······················· 167
2. 원자력안전에 관한 정보공개제도의 도입······································· 169
(1) 정보공개제도의 도입 배경 ··························································· 169
(2)「원자력안전정보공개법(안)」의 함의······································· 171
IV. 소결·············································································································· 173
제4절 제3단계 모델(2011년 ~ 2018년)··································································· 179
I. 원자력안전·금지 패러다임의 경합························································ 180
1. 후쿠시마 원전사고와 원자력안전 패러다임의 주도····················· 180
2. 에너지전환론과 원자력금지 패러다임의 강화 ······························· 182
II. 원자력안전법제의 발전 방향·································································· 185
1. 원자력안전법률의 복수법 체계화 논의 ··········································· 185
(1)「원자력안전법」과 「원자력진흥법」의 분법 제정··············· 185
(2) 원자력안전기본법의 제정 논의··················································· 187
2. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 전문성과 형식적 독립성 확보··············· 189
(1) 합의제 행정기관인 원자력안전위원회의 설립························· 189
(2) 위원 결격사유의 적정화와 이해충돌방지의무의 강화 ··········· 192
(3) 원자력안전위원회의 주요활동에 대한 평가 ····························· 193
1) 월성 1호기 원전의 계속운전허가············································ 194
2) 원전부품 품질서류 위조 조사 및 원자력관계사업자에 대한
행정처분 ······················································································ 196
3) 한국원자력연구원에 대한 행정처분········································ 198
III. 원자력안전법제의 특수성 개혁 논의·················································· 200
1. 신고리 5·6호기 공론화 과정··························································· 200
2. 지역주민참여제도의 확대 ··································································· 204
(1) 지역주민과의 소통 경로 다원화: 원자력안전협의회 ··········· 205
3. 적극적 정보공개제도의 도입 ····························································· 209
(1) 정보공개의무의 법적 기반 마련················································· 209
(2)「원자력안전 정보공개 및 소통에 관한 법률(안)」에 대한
비판적 평가·················································································· 211
1)「원자력안전 정보공개 및 소통에 관한 법률(안)」의
기본 골자···················································································· 211
2)「원자력안전 정보공개 및 소통에 관한 법률(안)」의
개선방향 ······················································································ 214
IV. 소결·············································································································· 218
제5절 한국 원자력안전법제의 발전단계 분석······················································· 222
제4장 해외 원자력안전법제의 비교법적 분석 및 시사점 ·········································· 225
제1절 프랑스················································································································· 225
I. 원자력안전법률의 체계·············································································· 225
1. 복수의 특별법 체계············································································· 225
2. 원자력안전법률의 변화······································································· 227
(1) 1945년 ~ 2005년: 「대기오염 및 악취방지법」····················· 228
(2) 2006년 ~ 2011년: 「원자력 투명성 및 안보에 관한 법률」 229
(3) 2012년 ~ 2018년: 「환경법전」 ················································· 230
(4) 원자력안전법률의 특징 ································································· 232
3. 원자력안전법제의 독립성과 특수성 형성과정 ······························· 234
(1) 원전기술 자립과 기술전문가 집단의 주도······························· 234
(2) 대규모 원전건설과 원전반대운동의 확산································· 235
(3) 투명성과 민주성 강조를 위한 특별법 제정 ····························· 236
1)「방사성폐기물관리계획법」 ······················································ 236
2)「원자력 투명성 및 안보에 관한 법률」································ 237
(4) 시민참여의 원칙과 원자력안전법제의 특수성 강화··············· 238
II. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 체계·································································· 239
1. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 전문성과 독립성 확보과정····················· 239
(1) 원자력이용에 종속된 원자력안전 ··············································· 240
1) 국가엔지니어 집단과 원자력 연구개발의 강조···················· 240
2) 원자력청과 프랑스전력공사의 협력과 갈등·························· 241
(2) 원자력 안전규제기관의 전문성과 독립성 확보 ······················· 241
2. 원자력안전청의 독립성 강화방안····················································· 243
(1) 독립행정청의 지위 부여······························································· 243
(2) 의회의 민주적 통제 강화····························································· 243
(3) 위원의 해임사유 제한과 이해충돌방지의무 강화··················· 244
3. 원자력안전청의 전문성 강화방안····················································· 244
(1) 위원의 순차적 교체 ······································································· 244
(2) 안전규제 전문기관과 자문위원회의 운영································· 245
III. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도································ 245
1. 원자력안전 정보공개제도에 관한 특별법 제정····························· 246
2. 원자력안전에 관한 지역주민의 대변기관: 지역정보위원회 ······· 247
3. 지역정보위원회의 대표성과 실질적 권한 확보····························· 247
제2절 미국 ····················································································································· 249
I. 원자력안전법률의 체계·············································································· 249
1. 기본법과 특별법 체계 ········································································· 249
2. 원자력안전법률의 변화······································································· 251
(1) 1940년대 ~ 60년대: 「원자력법」과 원자력위원회··············· 251
(2) 1970년대: 「에너지기구재편법」과 원자력규제위원회········· 252
(3) 1980년대 이후: 방사성폐기물 관련 법률과 「에너지정책법」 253
II. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 체계·································································· 253
1. 독립적인 원자력규제위원회의 운영 ················································· 253
2. 원자력규제위원회의 독립성 강화방안············································· 254
(1) 대통령 직속 독립위원회의 지위 부여······································· 254
(2) 국회의 민주적 통제 강화····························································· 255
(3) 동일정당 소속 위원의 인원 제한과 위원의 해임사유 제한· 255
(4) 원자력규제위원회 임직원의 이해충돌방지의무 강화············· 255
3. 원자력규제위원회의 전문성 강화방안············································· 256
(1) 위원의 순차적 교체 ······································································· 256
(2) 자문위원회의 운영········································································· 256
III. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도································ 257
1. 정보공개제도에 관한 일반법 활용··················································· 257
(1)「정보자유법」과「회의공개법」: 알 권리 보장과 시민참여의 확대 257
(2) 원자력규제위원회의 정책성명과 관리지침 3.4······················· 258
2. 원자력안전에 관한 지역주민의 대변기관: 주 정부····················· 259
(1) 연방 정부의 배타적인 안전규제 권한에 대한 논쟁··············· 259
1) 주 정부의 일정한 규제 권한 인정과「원자력법」제274조의 신설 260
2) 원전의 안전성 강화를 위한 엄격한 요건 설정과 주 정부의 승소 261
(2) 상시 소통의 채널: 주 연락 담당관 제도································· 261
제3절 일본 ····················································································································· 262
I. 원자력안전법률의 체계·············································································· 262
1. 기본법과 특별법 체계 ········································································· 263
2. 주요 원자력안전법률의 특징 ····························································· 265
(1) 안전규제와 「원자력기본법」 ····················································· 265
(2) 안전규제기관과 「원자력규제위원회의 설치법」··················· 266
(3) 후쿠시마 원전사고와 「방사성물질오염대처특조법」 ··········· 267
II. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 체계·································································· 268
1. 독립적인 원자력규제위원회의 운영 ················································· 268
2. 원자력규제위원회의 독립성 강화방안············································· 269
(1) 환경성의 외국 독립적인 행정위원회 ········································· 269
(2) 국회의 민주적 통제 강화····························································· 270
(3) 정치적 중립성의 보장 및 위원의 해임사유 제한··················· 270
(4) 위원의 이해충돌방지의무 강화··················································· 270
3. 원자력규제위원회의 전문성 강화방안············································· 271
(1) 위원의 임기 만료 후 후임자 임명 시까지 직무수행의무 ····· 271
(2) 안전규제 전문기관과 전문심의회의 운영································· 271
III. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도································ 271
1. 정보공개제도에 관한 일반법 활용··················································· 272
(1)「정보공개법」: 알 권리 보장과 시민참여의 확대·························· 272
(2) 원자력규제위원회 내규에 근거한 적극적 정보공개··············· 273
2. 원자력안전에 관한 지역주민의 대변기관: 지방자치단체··········· 273
(1) 지방자치단체와 원전 사업자 간의 원자력안전협정 체결 ····· 273
(2) 원자력안전협정과 지방자치단체의 실질적 권한 확보 ··········· 274
제4절 비교법적 평가 및 시사점··············································································· 275
I. 비교법적 분석 ······························································································ 275
1. 원자력안전법률의 체계······································································· 275
(1) 기본법과 특별법 체계: 일본과 미국 ········································· 275
(2) 복수의 특별법 체계: 프랑스와 한국 ········································· 276
2. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 체계 ····························································· 278
(1) 독립적인 원자력 안전규제기관의 운영····································· 278
(2) 안전규제기관의 독립성 강화방안 ··············································· 278
1) 위원의 이해충돌방지의무 강화 ················································ 278
2) 국회에 의한 민주적 통제의 강화············································ 280
(3) 안전규제기관의 전문성 강화방안 ··············································· 280
1) 위원의 순차적 교체···································································· 280
3. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도····························· 281
(1) 정보공개원칙의 도입 여부 ··························································· 282
1) 원자력안전 정보공개제도에 관한 특별법 제정: 프랑스···· 282
2) 정보공개제도에 관한 일반법 활용: 미국, 일본, 한국 ······ 282
(2) 원자력안전에 관한 지역주민의 대변기관································· 283
1) 지역협의체: 프랑스와 한국 ······················································ 283
2) 주정부 또는 지방자치단체: 미국과 일본 ······························ 283
II. 한국 원자력안전법제에 대한 시사점 ···················································· 284
1. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 전문성과 독립성 강화····························· 284
(1) 위원의 이해충돌방지의무 조항의 신설····································· 285
(2) 위원의 순차적 교체 조항의 신설 ··············································· 286
2. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도의 개선··············· 286
(1) 원자력안전 정보공개제도에 관한 특별법 제정 필요············· 287
(2) 원자력안전에 관한 지역주민 대변기관의 역할 강화············· 288
1) 법률이나 협정에 근거한 지자체의 감시자 역할 강화········ 288
2) 대표성을 갖춘 지역협의체에 법적 권한 부여······················ 289
3. 원자력안전법률의 체계 정비 ····························································· 290
(1) 기본법과 특별법 체계로 전환하는 경우 ··································· 291
(2) 복수의 특별법 체계를 유지하는 경우······································· 291
제 5 장 한국 원자력안전법제에 대한 평가 ·································································· 293
제1절 원자력안전법제의 독립성과 특수성에 대한 평가····································· 293
I. 한국 원자력안전법제의 발전단계 평가·················································· 293
1. 제1단계 모델: 1958년 ~ 1981년······················································· 294
2. 제2단계 모델: 1982년 ~ 2010년······················································· 294
3. 제3단계 모델: 2011년 ~ 2018년······················································· 295
II. 비교법적 분석을 통한 한국 원자력안전법제의 발전 방향·············· 296
1. 해외 원자력안전법제의 발전단계 분석 ··········································· 296
(1) 프랑스: 제4단계 모델··································································· 296
(2) 미국: 제4단계 모델 ······································································· 297
(3) 일본: 제3단계 모델 ······································································· 297
2. 한국 원자력안전법제의 제4단계 모델 실현 방안 ························· 298
(1) 프랑스 모델과 특별법 제정························································· 298
제2절 원자력안전법제의 개선방향 ··········································································· 301
I. 원자력안전법제 기본원칙의 확립···························································· 301
1. 기술적 안전성과 사회적 안전성 확보의 원칙 ······························· 301
2. 안전규제의 전문성과 독립성 조화의 원칙 ····································· 304
3. 시민참여의 원칙··················································································· 305
II. 원자력안전법률의 체계 정비·································································· 307
1. 복수의 특별법 체계 유지 ··································································· 308
(1)「원자력안전법」에 원자력안전법제의 기본원칙 반영 ··········· 308
(2)「(가칭)원자력안전 정보공개 및 소통에 관한 법률」의 제정 310
III. 원자력안전 거버넌스의 재편 ································································ 312
1. 민주적 원자력안전 거버넌스로의 전환 ··········································· 312
(1) 위험사회 패러다임의 수용 ··························································· 312
(2) 시민참여를 요청하는 안전 소통 패러다임의 추구 ················· 312
(3) 전문성과 실질적 독립성의 균형 추구······································· 313
2. 구체적인 법제 정비 방향 ··································································· 314
(1) 위원 결격사유의 적정화······························································· 314
1) 위원 결격사유의 완화 필요성·················································· 314
2) 위원의 결격사유 관련 원안위법 제10조 제1항의 개정 ······ 315
(2) 위원의 이해충돌방지의무 조항 신설 ········································· 316
(3) 기술적 전문가를 포함한 구성원의 다양성 확보····················· 317
(4) 대통령 직속기구로 승격······························································· 318
(5) 상임위원의 인원 확대··································································· 318
(6) 위원의 순차적 교체 조항의 신설 ··············································· 319
(7) 국회의 민주적 통제 강화····························································· 319
IV. 원자력안전 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도의 활성화 ················ 320
1. 정보공개제도와 지역주민참여제도 간의 관계 설정의 필요성··· 320
(1) 시민참여의 원칙 실행 차원에서 하나의 제도로 연계 ··········· 320
(2) 프랑스 모델: 지역정보위원회 중심으로 연계 운영··············· 321
2. 원자력안전에 관한 정보공개제도의 확대······································· 322
(1) 정보공개제도 확대의 필요성······················································· 322
(2) 원자력안전 정보공개제도의 법제 정비 방향··························· 323
1) 원자력안전에 관한 시민의 정보접근권 명문화···················· 323
2) 공개 대상 정보의 범위 명확화 ················································ 324
3) 정보공개 방법의 다원화 ···························································· 325
4) 매년 국회에 정보공개의 평가결과 제출 의무화 ·················· 326
3. 지역주민참여제도와 지역협의체 운영의 활성화··························· 326
(1) 지역주민참여제도 운영의 방향성 ··············································· 326
(2) 지역주민참여제도의 법제 정비 방향 ········································· 327
1) 원자력안전협의회의 법적 지위와 재정 지원 보장·············· 327
2) 원자력안전협의회 구성원의 대표성 및 다양성 확보·········· 328
3) 원자력안전협의회에 실질적인 권한 부여 ······························ 330
제 6 장 결론 ························································································································ 332
I. 요약 ················································································································ 332
II. 결어·············································································································· 339
참고문헌································································································································ 341
ABSTRACT ································································································································ 370