경관법제에 관한 연구 : - 싱가포르, 미국, 일본과의 비교를 중심으로 -

경관법제의 계획·관리 체계를 해외 사례와 비교해 연구했다.

On May 17, 2007, the Landscape Act was enacted as the basic law on landscapes, enabling active landscape formation and comprehensive planning and management of landscapes. Subsequently, in August 2013, the law was completely revised and new regulations were introduced centered on issues that had been discussed since the law was enacted, such as a basic landscape policy plan, mandatory landscape planning, and the introduction of a landscape review system.

More than a decade later, various issues are still being raised in landscape management and administration, including the improvement of the landscape law system, the implementation of landscape plans, the effectiveness of landscape review, public participation, and the operation of landscape administration. First of all, it is necessary to examine the various meanings and characteristics of the concept of landscape and to clarify it through the discussion and normative meaning of landscape. Landscape is already deeply embedded in our lives. They are so important that our quality of life is transformed by them.

However, in order for landscapes to play a clear role in our lives, it is necessary to consider landscapes in a legal sense and explore the legal issues. In particular, it is necessary to comprehensively review foreign cases and precedents on landscape interests and rights to landscape. Based on the understanding of landscape rights, which is the right to the landscape, it will be possible to contribute to the improvement of the national landscape and the realization of a beautiful and pleasant local environment by recognizing the landscape, which is a public interest, as one of the basic rights of each citizen.

This paper examines the landscape management system under the Land Planning Act through the situation before the enactment of the Landscape Act in Korea, and after the enactment of the Landscape Act by specifically analyzing the structure, system, and regulatory contents of the current Landscape Act, and draws out the major issues before and after the enactment of the Landscape Act. As international examples of landscape legislation, Singapore, the United States, and Japan are selected to compare their landscape legislation. First, Singapore has been able to improve its urban landscape to a world-class level in a relatively short period of time.

This was made possible by strong policy promotion at the government level and the establishment of a coherent urban planning system through professional support organizations. Singapore's case is difficult to implement in a democratic country like Korea, but it is worth examining from the technical and policy perspectives of specific landscape management. Next, we compare the landscape management systems of the United States and Japan, which operate landscape-related legislation based on modern urban planning systems. Broadly speaking, landscape legal systems can be divided into two types: the U.S.

model, which manages landscapes through the general urban planning system of zoning based on the local government system, and the Japanese model, which enacts and operates landscape laws for the specific purpose of comprehensive management of landscapes distinct from the general urban planning system. In the U.S., cities and counties exercise their autonomy to implement various landscape-related policies tailored to the characteristics of each city. The local government system was also established early in Japan.

With the enactment of the Landscape Law in 2003, a master plan for the conservation and utilization of landscapes was created at the national level, and local governments utilize various legal means to manage landscapes according to local conditions. Korea also enacted the Landscape Act in 2007, and in this respect, it can be seen as adopting a landscape management system closer to that of Japan. Through a comparative legal examination of these three countries, each with its own characteristics, the following suggestions for improvements to Korea's Landscape Act were derived. First, it is necessary to improve the concept of landscape and establish landscape rights.

The concept of landscape in the current Landscape Law focuses on objective values. If we consider the pursuit of active landscape administration and the basic rights of landscape, the concept of landscape in the Landscape Act should include not only the objective value of the physical environment but also the subjective value, and above all, it is necessary to recognize landscape rights. Second, the rationality of property rights restrictions must be secured. The restriction of property rights in landscapes is related to the public interest aspect of landscape protection.

For reasonable restriction of property rights, it is necessary to analyze the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights and the precedents of the United States and Japan to establish clear standards and procedures. Third, it is necessary to strengthen the status of the Landscape Law in the urban planning system by linking it with the landscape-related legal system. Comprehensive consideration of the role of landscape should be systematically strengthened, and the legally binding nature of landscape plans should be secured, in line with the original intent of the Landscape Act.

Fourth, it is necessary to refine and supplement the contents of scenic districts in the Act on the Planning and Utilization of National Land. Landscapes vary widely in terms of regional characteristics and content, so it is necessary to allow local governments to exercise wide discretion in designating and defining scenic areas. Fifth, binding regulations are needed to ensure the effectiveness of landscape plans. The Landscape Act should include regulations on behavioral restrictions and restrictions on the form of the landscape. In addition, various methods of direct and indirect support through related projects and policy support should be devised to persuade resident