Insofar as administrative agencies exercise powers that substantially affect individual rights and impose fiscal obligations upon the citizenry, the delineation of their structural composition and scope of authority must find its foundation in legislative enactment [1, 2]. The Government Organization Act prescribes the structure and authority of administrative agencies as a foundational requirement for the implementation of specific administrative functions [3]. These agencies are organized in a goal-oriented and efficient manner to enable the rational fulfillment of administrative objectives and are granted a degree of autonomy to manage their respective functions independently and cooperatively [4]. The constitutional basis for the establishment of central administrative agencies in South Korea is found in Article 66(4) of the Constitution, which provides that the executive power shall be vested in the government headed by the President. Furthermore, Article 96 of the Constitution states that the establishment, organization, and scope of duties of each administrative ministry shall be prescribed by statute, thereby affirming the principle of legality in administrative organization. Pursuant to this principle, Article 2 of the Government Organization Act provides the statutory foundation for the establishment and organizational structure of central administrative agencies [2, 3]. The organizational principles of administrative bodies are derived from constitutional state doctrines —including democracy, the rule of law, the social state principle, and republicanism—and encompass legality, accountability, fairness, purposiveness, professionalism, independence, and efficiency [5]. To protect constitutionally guaranteed rights and achieve administrative efficiency, the decision-making structure of administrative organizations that directly affects administrative actions must be designed to correspond with the nature and purpose of administrative functions to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency [6, 7]. When designing administrative organizations, separating authority between regulatory and policy functions often narrowly confines regulation to the enforcement of regulatory statutes [5]. However, regulation may take various forms, manifesting either as legislation enacted by the legislature or as administrative measures grounded in such legislation [8]. Although criteria for assessing the effectiveness of regulatory agencies may vary, it is generally accepted that governance structure, decision-making, organizational dynamics, human resource composition, and financial systems must be evaluated comprehensively. In the case of administrative bodies responsible for risk management, it is proposed that risk functions be separated and that institutional and personnel independence, excellence, and transparency be ensured [9]. Administrative agencies with flexibility and institutional capacity are well suited for risk regulation [7], which is justified in terms of the public interest as it seeks to ensure safety, maintain order, and promote public welfare [10]. Radiation technology and nuclear energy lie within highly specialized and technical domains, yet carry inherent radiation risks that warrant proactive state intervention to prevent potential harm. Core functions of regulatory bodies include strict oversight based on rigorous standards and the capacity to respond swiftly and professionally to radiation-related incidents. Effective regulation must prevent environmental contamination and ensure human safety [11]. Radiation risk regulators, pursuant to the Nuclear Safety Act, must prevent radiation-related harm and safeguard public safety. Essential to this mandate are appropriate organizational structures, procedural frameworks, expert integration, and cooperation with risk-generating parties in the public interest [10]. Scientific knowledge is indispensable in administrative decision-making concerning radiation risk. Given that such decisions require comprehensive assessments and fact-based determinations, scientific expertise must be accorded primary weight in ensuring effective radiation safety governance. In the context of radiation risk regulation, challenges arise regarding procedural frameworks for risk assessment amid scientific uncertainties such as the linear no-threshold hypothesis, the normative formats to be applied, and the generation of foundational knowledge. South Korea’s regulatory approach has predominantly relied on ad hoc legislative responses, resulting in frequent amendments that undermine systemic coherence and uniformity. Absent a comprehensive basic statute on radiation risk, the Nuclear Safety Act governs nuclear power plant safety and high-level radioactive materials, whereas low-level environmental radiation is managed under various administrative rules delegated across multiple ministries, lacking robust regulatory instruments and normative consistency. Most subordinate regulations, excluding those under the Nuclear Safety Act, do not explicitly incorporate international standards, responding reactively to emergent risks. Given that Korea’s radioactive pharmaceuticals, technology, and nuclear power sectors extend into international trade, compliance with export destination safety standards is imperative. Accordingly, appropriate organizational structures and enforcement procedures aligned with the nature and objectives of radiation risk regulation must be established. This study represents a pioneering comprehensive exploration of administrative agencies regulating radiation risk in Korea, underscoring its significance.

This study is qualitative research that collected data through consultations, analysis of previous studies, and searches to identify domestic administrative agencies and relevant laws regulating radiation risks. To increase the reliability of the process of systematizing sporadically related administrative agencies and their functions, a verification procedure through consultations with experts from the relevant administrative agencies was conducted. The specialized field concerning the regulation and management of radiation was addressed through ad hoc consultations with government officials who had been responsible for radiation regulation and with radiation experts, while the specialized field concerning regulatory law was addressed through ad hoc consultations with public law scholars, through which the scope of the relevant individual statutes was derived. The legislation related to radiation risk regulation and associated administrative agencies was confirmed by utilizing the search engine of the National Law Information Center of the Ministry of Government Legislation (https://law.go.kr/). The search terms used included administrative agencies, government organizations, administrative organization law, legislation, radiation risks, regulation, management, radiation, radioactive materials, radiation-generating devices, radiation equipment, radioactive isotopes, nuclear fuel, reactors, radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and specific radioactive isotopes (tritium, radon, cesium, iodine, and strontium), among others. As a result, all individual statutes in which radiation constitutes the object of regulation were selected. Twelve administrative agencies were identified as being involved in radiation risk regulation, with a total of 32 individual laws under these agencies. The functions of these administrative agencies regarding radiation risk regulation were systematically identified and organized based on the 12 administrative agencies and their associated 32 laws. A limitation of this study is that, due to the historical background of South Korea’s legislative process, which has not consistently accounted for systematic coherence, it is difficult to assert that all administrative agencies related to radiation risks have been fully identified. In particular, administrative agencies and laws under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pertaining to national defense, nuclear weapons, strategic materials, and related matters are excluded from the scope of this study. One limitation of this study lies in the definitions of concepts employed. As the terminology relating to government and administrative organization is not used consistently across the titles of statutes, legal terminology, prior studies, and individual scholars, this study sought to establish terminological consistency according to the context of each discussion. Nevertheless, the terminology used in the cited literature was quoted as originally employed in each source. This approach was adopted because the constitution, the Government Organization Act, and the terminology used by actual executive ministries define and employ such terms differently, as set forth below. The conceptual framework of the government organization in Korea originates from the constitution, which holds the highest legal authority, and is further specified by the Government Organization Act, under which the executive ministries are established. Within the constitution, concepts related to the government and governmental organization are primarily articulated through the terms ‘the Executive’ (Article 52), ‘the executive branch’ (Section 2), and ‘the executive ministries’ (Article 86). The Government Organization Act employs a broader and more diverse set of terms, including ‘government organization’ (the title of the act), ‘national administrative agencies’ (Article 1), ‘the Ministry’ (Article 2), ‘Administration, Agency, and Office’ (Article 2), and ‘administrative agencies’ (Article 18), to denote the government and its organizational components. These terms are not always used in a strictly differentiated manner according to their respective legal status. Rather, they tend to be employed interchangeably across constitutional and statutory contexts.

All administrative actions are executed through organizational structures. Even when exercising the same authority, the outcomes may vary significantly depending on the organization through which the action is carried out, as decision-making procedures and modes of execution differ according to organizational form [5]. Radiation and nuclear technologies advance rapidly, making it difficult to regulate all aspects through statutes; consequently, regulatory authority is necessarily delegated broadly to administrative rules. In practice, substantive regulation is generally codified in subordinate legislation [55].

In the context of radiation risk regulation, broad implementation through administrative notifications has revealed limitations with respect to legitimacy, as regulatory measures are not always subjected to transparent procedures and deliberation through formal legislative processes. In conclusion, multiple administrative agencies regulate and measure radiation without a robust legal foundation for risk management. Regulation of radiation risks is essential for public health and safety and is fundamental to maintaining social order and promoting public welfare. In technical fields, legislators cannot easily anticipate technological developments for prior standardization. Even when there is intent to standardize promptly, uncertainties abound with respect to technical reliability, social impact, and regulatory coherence, making consensus on detailed rules difficult. The legislative process is further complicated by intricate procedures and competing interests. Given the rapid pace of technological development, statutory regulations risk being disconnected from practical realities [56]. As a part of general administrative law, regulatory administrative law is not limited to individual administrative domains but encompasses the overall exercise of administrative functions to achieve regulatory objectives. It presupposes a broad concept of regulation, in which public authorities intervene in private activities or social processes to achieve certain purposes [57]. The principle of the rule of law requires that administrative actions be clear, predictable, and legally stable, establishing general and abstract relationships between the state and private parties to prevent abuse of authority. Article 4 of the framework act on administrative regulation provides that regulations must be based on statutory authority.

Each statute has a corresponding administrative agency, and established practices exist for legal interpretation and application. The mandates and objectives of relevant administrative agencies differ. When individual statutes and administrative agencies governing the same technology, product, or service diverge, conflicts frequently arise [56]. Accordingly, the convergence of radiation technologies necessitates either inter-ministerial integration or close coordination between distinct administrative agencies. Management of radiation risks in radiation technologies and nuclear power requires administrative cooperation across multiple ministries or, alternatively, consideration of structural integration.

The principal administrative agency regulating radiation risks in South Korea is the NSSC, which delegates technical regulatory responsibilities to the KINS. These agencies operate under the act on the establishment and operation of the NSSC and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety Act. However, these statutes function exclusively within the legal framework under the jurisdiction of the NSSC. Excluding the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of National Defense, 12 governmental agencies are involved in the regulation and management of radiation risks. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Nuclear Safety Act under the NSSC, individual statutes administered by other agencies lack legally defined concepts for risk evaluation standards and measurement methodologies for radiation.

Accordingly, there is a pressing need to establish a legal foundation for the risk management tools employed by multiple administrative agencies involved in radiation risk regulation. Alternatively, consideration could be given to redefining the legal status of the NSSC or enacting the Nuclear Safety Act as a foundational statute governing radiation risk regulation.