• 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.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.99-108
• /
• 2020

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the regulatory systems for laboratory safety and health management between Korea and Germany and discuss the implications. Methods: Laboratory safety and health regulations for legal enforcement and relevant technical guidelines in Korea and Germany were reviewed. Results: Lab safety and health management is enforced by the Act on the Establishment of Safe Laboratory Environment in Korea. Most provisions focus on supervisory control, that is, the principal's liability is emphasized. In addition, there is a lack of laboratory-specific procedures for safety and health management in the act since it is stipulated that other relevant regulations apply to some technical contents. Non-compulsory technical guidelines for lab safety and health management are also provided by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) in order to enable researchers to follow safe procedures. There is no independent regulation for lab safety and health in Germany, and it is also governed by several regulations. The German Social Accident Insurance Institute provides technical guidelines on lab safety and health, and these contain more specific content to allow them to be followed more easily compared to the KOSHA guidelines. The most remarkable differences between the regulation of each country were contents of the risk assessment and specific protect measures from hazardous agents. Conclusions: Regulatory control is an essential way to prevent accidents, but it is more important to create an environment in which all stakeholders, including individual lab members, are allowed to participate actively in safety and health management activities.