Cases of Judicial Decisions Related to the Human Health Effects of Low-Dose Radiation in Korea
Article information
Abstract
Background
This study is a comparative analysis of legal decisions by the Korean judiciary regarding human health effects of radiation exposure in lawsuits related to the linear no threshold hypothesis of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), particularly following the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011.
Materials and Methods
The legal cases related to radiation exposure and human health effects were searched and compiled using legal databases such as ‘national law information center,’ ‘case note,’ and ‘LBOX.’ Keywords such as ‘radiation,’ ‘human health effects,’ ‘lawsuit,’ ‘radiation effects,’ and ‘disease’ were used to search for relevant legal cases, leading to the identification of a total of nine legal decisions. The original texts of these cases were analyzed. The analysis categorized the cases based on the distinction between the plaintiff, radiation doses, types of diseases, and the results of the lawsuits.
Results and Discussion
Four lawsuits ruled that there is a causal relationship between radiation exposure and human health effects. These rulings were made in 2016 (two cases), 2018, and 2022. In cases where the radiation exposure doses were precisely recorded as 1.71 mSv and 2.09 mSv, the rulings also concluded that there was a causal relationship between radiation exposure and human health effects. In contrast, five lawsuits concluded that there was no causal relationship between low-dose radiation exposure and human health effects, ruling that a radiation exposure of 12.25 mSv was not related to the disease.
Conclusion
Judicial rulings on radiation risks must be consistent and equitable. The ICRP recommends standards for radiation protection and dose limits. Based on these recommendations, the executive branch must establish consistent guidelines, and judicial rulings must maintain consistency in accordance with these standards.
Introduction
Radiation used in medicine, industry, and nuclear power generation is inherently dangerous, yet it is essential for public welfare, human health, and safety. The state must guarantee the people’s right to safety from radiation hazards. This right is not at the discretion of the legislator but is a constitutional obligation that necessitates legislation aimed at securing and realizing safety rights [1, 2]. All state functions—legislative, administrative, and judicial—must be exercised to uphold human dignity to the greatest extent possible [3]. State power serves as a means to guarantee and realize human dignity and each fundamental right [4]. Thus, all state functions should aim to fulfill the fundamental rights of the people [5].
Legislators have the freedom to choose the most appropriate means to fulfill the state’s duty of protection. Given the specialized nature of radiation technology and its associated risks, the state must actively intervene through laws to prevent potential harm. The government bears the responsibility of protecting citizens from the risks that arise from radiation technology use. To concretely fulfill this responsibility, the government enforces relatively stringent regulations under individual laws such as Nuclear Safety Act, Medical Service Act, and Veterinarians Act to manage the relatively high levels of radiation risks associated with the use of radiation technology. To manage the relatively low levels of radiation risk associated with naturally occurring radioactive materials in the environment, relatively lenient regulations are enforced under individual laws such as Drinking Water Management Act, Indoor Air Quality Control Act, Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act, Marine Environment Management Act, and Act on Protective Action Guidelines against Radiation in the Natural Environment. To prevent disasters that might have a low probability of occurrence but entail high levels of radiation risk, preventive regulations are enforced under laws such as Act on Physical Protection and Radiological Emergency, Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety, and Act on Counter-Terrorism for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security. Other laws related to radiation hazard regulation concerning administrative organizations include Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission and Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety Act. Regarding the restoration, compensation, and support for radiation hazard damage, there are laws such as Nuclear Liability Act, Act on Indemnity Agreements for Nuclear Liability, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Act on Assistance to Electric Power Plants–Neighboring Areas, and Special Act on Assistance to the Locations of Facilities for Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste. For promoting public trust and citizen participation concerning radiation hazards, there are laws such as Act on the Control and Supervision on Nuclear Power Suppliers for the Prevention of Corruption in the Nuclear Power Industry and Act on Nuclear Safety Information Disclosure and Communication. In relation to the risk management of nuclear power plants, laws such as Electric Utility Act, Building Act, and Framework Act on Firefighting Services regulate radiation hazards through their respective provisions. In South Korea, radiation risks are regulated based on laws; however, it adopts a complex regulatory system that involves multiple individual laws and various supervising ministries, rather than a single unified law. On another aspect, laws related to the promotion and development of radiation technology and nuclear energy include Nuclear Energy Promotion Act, Radiation and Radioisotope Use Promotion Act, Act on the Promotion and Management of Non-Destructive Testing Technology, Fusion Energy Development Promotion Act, and Radioactive Waste Management Act.
Many countries tend to cite, apply, and regulate International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations on radiation protection and risk management [6]. The Nuclear Safety Act in Korea applies the fundamental principles of the ICRP recommendations, and the dose limits are specifically referenced. Recommendations regarding technical standards are also incorporated into the enforcement decree, enforcement rules, and notices of the act [7]. The primary aim of the ICRP’s Recommendations is to contribute to an appropriate level of protection for people and the environment against the detrimental effects of radiation exposure without unduly limiting the desirable human actions that may be associated with such exposure [8]. Because of the variety of radiation exposure situations and the need to achieve a consistency across a wide range of applications, the commission has established a formal system of radiological protection aimed at encouraging a feasible and structured approach to protection. ICRP believes that the basis for, and distinction between, scientific estimations and value judgements should be made clear whenever possible, so as to increase the transparency, and thus the understanding, of how decisions have been reached [8]. At radiation doses below around 100 mSv in a year, the increase in the incidence of stochastic effects is assumed by the ICRP to occur with a small probability and in proportion to the increase in radiation dose over the background dose. Use of this so-called linear no threshold (LNT) is considered by the ICRP to be the best practical approach to managing risk from radiation exposure and commensurate with the ‘precautionary principle’ [9]. The commission considers that the LNT remains a prudent basis for radiological protection at low doses and low dose rates [10]. In the absorbed dose range up to around 100 mGy (low linear energy transfer [LET] or high LET) no tissues are judged to express clinically relevant functional impairment. For occupational exposure in planned exposure situations, the commission continues to recommend that the limit should be expressed as an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5-year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. For public exposure in planned exposure situations, the commission continues to recommend that the limit should be expressed as an effective dose of 1 mSv in a year. However, in special circumstances, a higher value of effective dose could be allowed in a single year, provided that the average over defined 5-year periods does not exceed 1 mSv per year [6–8]. The Nuclear Safety Act, which has the character of a basic law regulating radiation risks in Korea, also regularizes and applies the dose limit principles of the ICRP recommendations. This dose limit incorporates the meaning of probabilistic effects. The probabilistic nature of stochastic effects and the properties of the LNT make it impossible to derive a clear distinction between ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous,’ and this creates some difficulties in explaining the control of radiation risks. Nevertheless, the ICRP recommends that the major policy implication of the LNT is that some finite risk, however small, must be assumed and a level of protection established based on what is deemed acceptable. This forms the basis of ICRP’s radiation protection system and is related to the basis of the three basic principles of justification, optimisation and dose limitation.
All scientific facts contain uncertainty, but the precautionary principle is concerned with the uncertainty of the causal relationship between a given risk factor and the damage incurred. This uncertainty must be such that the causal relationship itself is questioned [11]. If the uncertainty of scientific knowledge increases and its content continues to change, it is difficult for administrative decisions to rely entirely on scientific knowledge [12]. However, the measurement, assessment, and interpretation of radiation risk must be objective and based on scientific knowledge.
However, in Korea, in lawsuits related to the human health effects of radiation, there are legal rulings that do not recognize causality even when the radiation exposure level is relatively high. There are also legal rulings that recognize causality even when the radiation exposure level is relatively very low. Case law on lawsuits regarding radiation risk is increasing. Lawsuits regarding radiation risk and human damage related to radiation exposure within the scope of the LNT hypothesis have been appearing since the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011. The assessment of radiation risk cannot be approached solely scientifically and is related to legal proceedings. In Korea, there have been various social losses due to negative radiation rumors, and subsequently, conflicting judgments in judicial decisions are increasing. A legal decision is a document that explains and justifies the official act of a judge, which is to judge and decide on a legal dispute [13]. This study aims to identify and examine court cases in Korea related to the causal relationship between radiation exposure and human health effects under the LNT hypothesis, which have increased following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.
Materials and Methods
The legal cases related to radiation exposure and human health effects were searched and compiled using legal databases such as the national law information center, case note, and LBOX. Keywords such as ‘radiation,’ ‘human health effects,’ ‘lawsuit,’ ‘radiation effects,’ and ‘disease’ were used to search for relevant legal cases, leading to the identification of a total of nine legal decisions. The original texts of these cases were analyzed. The analysis categorized the cases based on the distinction between the plaintiff, radiation doses, types of diseases, and the results of the lawsuits. The entire set of identified and organized legal cases is presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Case Law Recognizing the Causal Relationship between Radiation Exposure and Human Health Effects
Case Law Denying the Causal Relationship between Radiation Exposure and Human Health Effects
Results
1. Legal Precedents Acknowledging Causality of Human Health Effects Due to Radiation Exposure
There are four legal cases that acknowledge probability or causality regarding causality of human health effects due to radiation exposure. These cases include two from 2016, one from 2018, and another from 2022. Case 3 is a ruling in which a radiation worker exceeded the dose limit. However, it is a ruling in which it is difficult to definitively establish a causal relationship between the radiation exposure and the disease. In case 1, the defendant was not a radiation worker, and no record of radiation exposure dose was available; however, substantial causation for the human health effects attributed to radiation exposure was acknowledged. In case 2, a radiation worker was exposed to 1.71 mSv of radiation, and in case 4, another radiation worker was exposed to 2.09 mSv. In both cases, a significant causal relationship was recognized despite the exposures falling within the valid range defined by the LNT hypothesis. These cases collectively suggest that courts are increasingly willing to acknowledge causation in radiation exposure cases, even at low-dose levels within the LNT hypothesis. This evolving judicial approach reflects growing concerns about low-dose exposure and its implications for occupational health in radiation-intensive industries (Table 1).
1) Case 1: lawsuit regarding cancellation of medical treatment disapproval
The plaintiff, who served as a laboratory analyst in an oil analysis lab, was diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm in the left bronchial tube. He applied for medical treatment through the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, citing his work environment as a contributing factor to his illness. From 2008 to 2009, the plaintiff worked in an area that involved handling ionizing radiation without wearing appropriate protective clothing. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff’s condition was caused by exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and ionizing radiation.
The defendant denied the application for medical treatment, asserting that there was no causal relationship between the plaintiff’s illness and his work environment or duties.
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, acknowledging that his illness was indeed causally linked to his work conditions. The court noted that the plaintiff had worked for 2 years in an environment with ionizing radiation, which is classified as a group 1 carcinogen by the international agency for research on cancer [14].
2) Case 2: lawsuit regarding cancellation of payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses
The plaintiff, a family member of the deceased, asserted that the deceased had been responsible for tasks related to nuclear power plant facilities, including raw nuclear material replacement work. After retiring, the deceased was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and ultimately died from septic shock while undergoing treatment.
The plaintiff contended that the deceased’s death was caused by radiation exposure (specifically cesium) and therefore constituted an occupational accident. As a result, the plaintiff filed a claim for survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.
The defendant, however, refused to recognize the claim as an occupational disease, citing the findings of the occupational disease assessment committee, which determined that the causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the disease was minimal. The court found that the medical basis for the path leading to the disease was unclear. Although the recorded cumulative radiation exposure was relatively low at 1.71 mSv, the deceased had been exposed to ionizing radiation over 358 business trips (totaling 1,586 days) to nuclear power plants over a span of 21 years. This exposure suggested a significant likelihood of contributing to the disease. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that even if the radiation exposure was not the direct cause of the leukemia, it could be inferred that the disease’s progression was exacerbated by the overwork and stress the deceased experienced in his work around the time of diagnosis. Therefore, the court concluded that there was a significant causal relationship between the disease that led to the deceased’s death and his occupational duties [15].
3) Case 3: lawsuit regarding refusal of registration as a person of national merit, etc
The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff enlisted in the air force and was assigned to a flight unit, where the plaintiff assisted in attaching film to aircraft during non-destructive radiological inspections. However, the plaintiff was exposed to a large amount of radiation due to not wearing radiation protection equipment. After this work, the plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia. The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by military service and applied for registration as a person of national merit or as an individual eligible for compensation.
The defendant contends that it is difficult to assert that the injury was directly caused by the performance of military duties or education and training, or that it was exacerbated by natural causes. Therefore, a decision was made not to grant eligibility for national merit or compensation.
The court confirmed that the plaintiff was exposed to 0.358 Gy of radiation while assisting in non-destructive radiological inspections, which is approximately equivalent to 358 mSv. This level of exposure is comparable to the total radiation received from undergoing 3,850 chest X-rays. The court ruled that, given the estimated radiation exposure dose of 358 mSv, the plaintiff was indeed exposed to radiation exceeding the allowable amount during his work in non-destructive radiological inspections [16].
4) Case 4: lawsuit regarding cancellation of disapproval of medical care benefits
The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff had worked as a radiographer for over 20 years and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, prompting the plaintiff to apply for medical care benefits from the defendant.
The defendant argued that the maximum radiation exposure dose the plaintiff received from 2008 to 2018 was only 2.09 mSv. Due to the low amount of radiation exposure the plaintiff received while working as a radiographer, the defendant initially denied the application for medical care benefits.
The court noted that ionizing radiation is a well-known occupational risk factor associated with lympho-hematopoietic cancers, including multiple myeloma. Additionally, the plaintiff was continuously exposed to ionizing radiation over a long period and often performed radiographic procedures without protective equipment. Furthermore, there were frequent instances of the plaintiff conducting work without a personal radiation dosimeter. The court clarified that the probability of causation does not refer to the likelihood of developing cancer after radiation exposure but rather to the probability that the cancer already present was caused by radiation exposure. Therefore, a low causal probability does not imply that the disease was not caused by radiation exposure; it merely indicates that the likelihood of the disease being caused by radiation exposure is low. Since the LNT hypothesis also receives considerable support in the context of low-dose radiation exposure, the court concluded that there was a significant causal relationship between the disease and the plaintiff’s work [17].
2. Legal Precedents Failing to Acknowledge Causality of Human Health Effects from Radiation Exposure
There are five legal cases that did not recognize probability or causality regarding the human health effects of radiation exposure. In case 1, a radiation worker was exposed to 12.25 mSv. In case 4, another radiation worker was exposed to less than the dose limit. In case 5, a radiation worker was exposed to 2.53 mSv, but since this exposure was within the scope of the LNT hypothesis, a substantial causal relationship was not recognized. In case 2, residents near nuclear power plants were exposed to less than 1 mSv of radiation, and in case 3, a firefighter near a nuclear power plant was exposed to less than 0.00207 mSv of radiation. This exposure was also within the range of the LNT hypothesis, so a significant causal relationship between radiation exposure and disease was not recognized (Table 2).
1) Case 1: lawsuit regarding cancellation of non-payment disposition for survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses
The plaintiff, a surviving family member of the deceased, claimed that the deceased died of stomach cancer while working for Korea Electric Power Corporation. The plaintiff sought payment of survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses, arguing that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident.
The defendant, Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service, confirmed that the deceased had been exposed to approximately 12.25 mSv of radiation from August 3, 1985, to June 30, 1992, during the plaintiff’s regular work duties as determined by the company. However, based on a causal probability analysis regarding the radiation exposure, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim, asserting that the deceased’s stomach cancer was not work-related.
The court ruled that the deceased had worked at the power plant, where radiation exposure was a risk, for approximately 6 years and 11 months, during which he received a total radiation dose of 12.25 mSv. The court found no causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his employment, noting that he was diagnosed with stomach cancer about 22 years after his initial exposure to radiation. Furthermore, it concluded that the level of radiation exposure was not excessive [18].
2) Case 2: lawsuit for damages
The plaintiffs, residents living near a nuclear power plant, claimed compensation for damages after being diagnosed with various health conditions: plaintiff A was diagnosed with colon cancer, plaintiff B with thyroid cancer, and plaintiff C with autism spectrum disorder. They argued that their illnesses resulted from radiation exposure from the power plant, which had been operated by the defendant for over 20 years.
The defendant contended that radiation exposure from the power plant was maintained below the legal management level and therefore there was no correlation between the plaintiffs’ diseases and the radiation exposure.
The court stated that prior studies had not established a dose-response relationship between radiation exposure and the occurrence of rectal cancer in relation to colon cancer for plaintiffs A. Furthermore, it noted that there was no research indicating that the incidence of congenital autism increases with radiation exposure of 1 mSv or less per year. As a result, the court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to acknowledge a causal relationship between the radiation exposure from the power plant and the diseases claimed by the plaintiffs [19].
3) Case 3: lawsuit regarding cancellation of disapproval of public service medical treatment
The plaintiff, an employee at the 119 Safety Center located 6.5 km from a nuclear power plant, claimed that the plaintiff was dispatched to respond to a fire at the facility. During this incident, the plaintiff participated in firefighting training and was directly exposed to high doses of radiation while transporting a patient who had died during nuclear reactor operations. Additionally, while working at the 119 Safety Center, the plaintiff reported continuous exposure to low-dose radiation emitted from the nuclear power plant, which the plaintiff argued contributed to the plaintiff’s diagnosis of thyroid cancer. The plaintiff asserted that there was a significant causal relationship between the plaintiff’s public service duties and the plaintiff’s illness.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s annual radiation exposure in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant ranged from 0.00207 mSv/year to 0.00642 mSv/year, based on measurements taken at the boundary of the restricted area. This exposure level was significantly lower than the average natural radiation dose of approximately 2.4 mSv/year that individuals receive in their daily lives.
The court ultimately ruled that there was no scientific evidence to demonstrate that low-dose radiation (100 mSv or less) has a direct effect on human health. Furthermore, there was no conclusive evidence indicating that radioactive substances, such as iodine-131 and tritium, emitted from the nuclear power plant were absorbed into the plaintiff’s body, resulting in internal exposure [20].
4) Case 4: lawsuit regarding cancellation of disapproval of medical care
The plaintiff claimed that after participating in the replacement of the pressure tube in a nuclear reactor, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mixed cell solid classical Hodgkin lymphoma affecting the lymph nodes in the plaintiff’s head, face, and neck. The plaintiff subsequently applied for the first medical treatment benefit through the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.
The defendant denied the application on April 14, 2016, asserting that there was no causal relationship between the plaintiff’s illness and his work.
The court ruled that the radiation dose received by the plaintiff was significantly lower than the legal effective dose limit for radiation workers, which is set at 100 mSv over 5 years, with no more than 50 mSv in any given year. Consequently, the court found it difficult to establish that the disease was caused solely by this level of radiation exposure [21].
5) Case 5: lawsuit for approval of occupational medical treatment
The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff performed auxiliary work, such as adjusting the C-ARM (a real-time X-ray imaging device), in the anesthesiology and pain medicine department of a hospital to confirm the exact surgical site. During the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff was exposed to a cumulative ionizing radiation dose of 2.53 mSv. Subsequently, the plaintiff was diagnosed with glioblastoma and applied for approval of occupational medical treatment. The defendant contended that it was difficult to establish a medical causal relationship between the plaintiff’s disease and the plaintiff’s job performance, leading to the rejection of the plaintiff’s application.
The court ruled that there has not yet been scientific proof that low-dose radiation of less than 100 mSv directly affects the human body. It also found no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff’s work intensity or environment was more burdensome than that of typical workers in the same industry, nor that the plaintiff’s disease progressed more rapidly than the natural progression rate during the course of the plaintiff’s employment [22].
Discussion
Law is a practical norm established for the well-being and order of society. Therefore, it is a norm that all citizens should know and put into practice. Nevertheless, many legal texts are difficult for the general public to understand and have sentences with unusual structures, and this is one of the factors that makes it difficult to put the law into practice in the national life. In addition, there are problems with clarity in expressions related to law [23]. In particular, in judicial judgments related to specialized scientific and technological fields such as radiation risk, making objective assessments can be particularly challenging. It is a long-standing responsibility of the community to objectively understand the realities of conflict and seek solutions for resolution. A platform for fair resolution must function effectively and be stable for all members, operating under the premise of orderly acceptance of results through established norms, and adhering to the judgments of the judiciary [24].
The debate between judicial independence and strengthening accountability has been ongoing for a long time, beginning in the United States [25, 26]. However, while accountability is a term widely used worldwide today, its meaning remains unclear and controversial. As a result, it is challenging to find a universally agreed-upon definition, and the term is applied in various contexts and forms depending on the individual or academic field [27–29]. The goal of judicial accountability is to uphold the rule of law, foster public confidence, and ensure institutional responsibility [30]. Judicial accountability is achieved through the voluntary efforts of the judiciary, as well as through oversight mechanisms that monitor and check the judiciary. Control over the judiciary can be classified based on the subject and object of control [31]. In Korea, there is currently no standard or organization for assessing radiation risk in judicial judgments. It is necessary to first understand the fundamental legal theories and then examine the litigation and judgments related to radiation risks.
There are two significantly opposing ideologies within the law: one stems from the communitarian concept of altruism and mutual consideration, while the other arises from the concept of egoism, self-sufficiency, and moral judgment, which contradicts the former [32]. There is a similar characteristic to the duality of radiation. All nine cases in the case law resulted in different judgments due to the limitations in interpreting the LNT hypothesis as recommended by ICRP. In other judgments as well, diseases such as leukemia and cancer, which are suspected to be caused by electromagnetic waves, are non-specific conditions that arise not from a single substance but from a variety of factors, making it challenging to prove causality [33]. While various cancers are causally related to radiation exposure, establishing a causal relationship for the risk of developing cancer remains difficult. The LNT hypothesis posits that there is no clinical basis for asserting human damage from radiation risk; it merely suggests a probability of a causal relationship.
When examining the individual laws related to radiation risk, it becomes clear that radiation regulation in our country is based on legal principles and is explained through the principle of regulation by law. However, it is not governed by a single integrated law; instead, it employs a complex regulatory framework involving several individual laws and various relevant ministries [34]. Legislation in the fields of radiation technology and nuclear power generation deals with highly technical matters, making administrative legislation the predominant approach. Individual laws related to radiation risk exhibit various issues, including problems with terminology, system structure, risk management, and overall effectiveness. Many laws concerning radiation in our country tend to be problem-solving-oriented, resulting in a legal system that often lacks cohesion due to frequent revisions [35]. The reality is that public officials responsible for administration are highly dependent on administrative rules, to the extent that it can be said that administration is fundamentally based on these rules [36]. As the field of administrative action has become increasingly sophisticated and specialized, it has become more challenging to request discretionary judgments from administrative executors, leading to a reliance on guideline-based administrative execution as the primary approach. Consequently, it is essential to evaluate whether the legal system is reasonably structured at the regulatory law level. This raises questions such as: Is the scope of the physical objects that radiation risk-related laws intend to regulate specific and clear? Are the categories of perpetrators subject to these regulations unclear or overlapping? Are the regulatory standards presented consistently and clearly? Are the regulatory requirements defined clearly and reasonably? Is the basis for the regulatory means established in a legally valid manner? Are the goals intended to be achieved through these regulations effectively met? To prevent radiation risks, individual laws must go beyond simple risk prevention or the removal of obstacles, addressing issues of risk assessment, risk management, and risk-related communication. As a legal principle, the principle of safety permeates radiation risk regulation, and it must be articulated within the framework of public law. Such public law discussions must be sufficiently logical and balanced in order for legislation to be enacted, thereby preventing potential confusion in both administrative and judicial processes.
However, Korea lacks a comprehensive specialized agency that uniformly measures, evaluates, and manages radiation risks across all administrative departments. Aside from the Nuclear Safety Act and Act on Protective Action Guidelines against Radiation in the Natural Environment, there is no dedicated committee or organization responsible for evaluating radiation risks in individual laws. As a result, interpretations regarding the human health effects of radiation may vary depending on the specific law and the relevant administrative department [37]. This variability creates an environment where different judgments can arise in judicial decisions. Legislators must consistently adhere to the value criteria established for regulating specific situations, not only within a single law but also across other laws that govern the same subject [38]. However, significant differences exist in the systems and statuses of laws that directly regulate radiation risks associated with its use and those that address the radiation risks posed by natural radioactive materials in daily life. Changes in legal provisions are often prompted by the emergence of new technologies, evolving socioeconomic conditions, advancements in academic research, and public demands. As cases of judicial judgments regarding the human health effects of radiation continue to increase, legislation must be enacted to ensure there are no contradictions between individual regulations or laws governing radiation risks. Individual laws should not exist independently; instead, they should be organically connected to other laws and regulations to create a cohesive legal system. These regulations must form a harmonious and balanced relationship. Given that radiation presents both risks and benefits for socioeconomic development, its regulation should adopt a risk-benefit approach focused on activity management. Effective regulation is one that achieves its intended goals while minimizing any negative impacts on the market [39, 40]. For this reason, regulatory standards for radiation risks vary by country and do not adhere to a unified format. The reasons for these differences are believed to stem from variations in each country’s nuclear power policies, differences in the scientific evidence regarding radiation-induced damage, and variations in legal cultures across nations [41]. To effectively exercise regulatory authority, sufficient scientific evidence that meets the criteria outlined in the law must be secured [42]. Regulation conducted without adequate evidence constitutes arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act [43]. Generally, the expertise of safety regulatory agencies is closely tied to the issue of securing the necessary knowledge to ensure technical safety. When the nature of risk is understood as a technical element, obtaining technical expertise based on value-neutral and objective knowledge becomes a critical task [44].
Conclusion
In Korea, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission is the administrative body responsible for regulating radiation risk and possesses the organizational capacity to assess radiation risk. However, most administrative departments lack a dedicated organization for evaluating radiation risks. The decisions made regarding risks can influence administrative procedures; however, from the perspective of the rule of law, issues such as a lack of transparency in the appointment of experts, opaque procedures, and unclear legal effects of expert voting are problematic. Therefore, to reasonably assess the risks associated with scientific and technological developments, it is essential to involve experts in risk decision-making and to clearly designate the individuals responsible for these decisions [45].
The administrative organization responsible for regulating radiation risks, which are directly related to national safety, must maintain independence from stakeholder pressure. It should prioritize expertise to prevent regulatory failures and conduct its regulatory activities with transparency and openness, as these values are essential for securing public trust [46]. Furthermore, in judicial decisions, judgments concerning radiation risks must be consistent and fair. ICRP recommends standards for radiation protection systems and dose limits, which should be unified through coordination among administrative departments [47]. Consistency in judicial judgments regarding radiation risks is also essential. It is urgent to diagnose and improve the entire system of legislation, administration, and judiciary before the lack of consistency in judicial rulings regarding radiation risks increases further.
Notes
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Ethical Statement
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Author Contribution
Conceptualization: Han E. Methodology: Han E. Formal analysis: Han E. Visualization: Han E. Writing - original draft: Han E. Writing - review & editing: Han E. Approval of final manuscript: Han E.