This study, in perspective of institutional approach on public conflicts, has compared conflict prevention mechanism being executed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. With background of long traditional negotiation culture,...
This study, in perspective of institutional approach on public conflicts, has compared conflict prevention mechanism being executed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. With background of long traditional negotiation culture, the US is being operated by negotiated rulemaking in prevention of conflicts. The UK, with strong background of citizen autonomy, has lively accepted opinions via customary civil discussion. Germany has guaranteed civil participation by system with the process of determinate plan and the principal of comparative profit(Abwagungsgebot). France is preventing conflicts with CNDP(Commission Nationale du Débat Public).
Comparison of the four countries in conflict prevention mechanism, introduction of the public debate institution such as CNDP to reach a social consensus-building is considered desirable. Since many national projects in Korea are decided only by president election campaign or central government’s decisions, the need of building mutual and fair systematic device is vital. However, to prevent public conflicts, not only the legal-institutional approach is required but also consensus-building and cultural-behavioral approach. To maintain positive effects by public debate in prevention of conflicts, the participants in policy-making process and stakeholders need to understand and accept the importance of forming agreement and value of process by public debate.