The South Korean government will need to revise its climate action implementation plan following a constitutional court ruling in favour of the plaintiffs, who argued that their fundamental rights were violated due to a lack of sufficient protection against climate change.
To continue reading, subscribe to Eco‑Business.
There's something for everyone. We offer a range of subscription plans.
- Access our stories and receive our Insights Weekly newsletter with the free EB Member plan.
- Unlock unlimited access to our content and archive with EB Circle.
- Publish your content with EB Premium.
The ruling marks the first time a court in Asia has ruled over the adequacy of a government’s climate action plan.
In a decision announced on 29 August, South Korea’s constitutional court found that Article 8, Section 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis – the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act – does not conform to the Constitution.
“Article 8, Section 1 of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act does not provide a quantitative level of any form regarding the reduction targets for the years 2031 to 2049, failing to effectively guarantee gradual and continuous reductions up to 2050, the target year for carbon neutrality,” the press release by The Constitutional Court of Korea noted.
“Thus, [greenhouse gas] reduction targets are governed in a way that shifts an excessive burden to the future,” it added.
Presently, under Article 8, Section 1, the government has set specific emissions targets only up till the year 2030. The reduction targets and implementation measures are to be updated every five years – a provision the court found to be incompatible with the Constitution.
“Not prescribing any approximate quantitative levels and having the government decide on the matter every five years violated the principle of statutory reservation,” the court’s press release said.
However, the court stopped short of declaring an unconstitutionality decision, which would render Article 8 invalid immediately.
This means that South Korea would not have any legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target until the National Assembly comes up with a new law, which is not the intention of the plaintiffs, explained Sejong Youn, a leading attorney for the litigation cases.
In this case, the verdict of non-conformity acknowledges the unconstitutionality of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act, while allowing it to remain in effect until the mandated deadline for amendment, which the court has set as 28 February 2026.
All other claims challenging the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act and the First National Plan for Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth were dismissed by the court.
These included whether the national GHG emissions reduction ratio of 40 per cent from 2018 baseline levels failed to reach the fair share that South Korea should contribute to global efforts, or shifts an excessive burden to future generations in terms of the effects of climate change.
“There is some disappointment regarding the parts that were not upheld today. However, it is clear that today’s ruling represents meaningful progress in protecting everyone’s rights beyond the climate crisis,” said a joint statement released by the plaintiffs’ group after the verdict.
A landmark ruling
A total of 255 individuals were represented in the four climate litigation cases the constitutional court heard: the Youth Climate Litigation, the Citizen Climate litigation, the Baby Climate litigation, and the Litigation Against the Government’s Carbon Neutrality Implementation Plan.
Filed separately over the period of 2020 to 2023, all cases challenged the adequacy of the government’s climate commitments, though under slightly different legal provisions. The cases were merged by the constitutional court in February.
About a third of the plaintiffs were children or teenagers at the time of filing, according to the Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC), whose representatives are in contact with partners on the ground.
Notably, the Baby Climate Litigation case concerned 62 children under the age of five represented by their parents, including one child born after the case was filed.
They claimed that the government’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act are insufficient, and will result in a “disastrous level of climate change” that would violate their constitutional right to protection from the threat of climate change.
The Youth Climate Litigation case – the first of the four cases filed – argued on similar grounds. The 19 youth activists from the Youth4ClimateAction campaign group contended that the nation’s climate change law and enforcement of that law are under-protecting their basic rights, including the right to live and the right to a clean environment.
“My generation has for too long passed to much younger generations – and those not yet born – the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The court rightly recognises that this is deeply unfair. This decision, grounded in the national constitution, will force government and private companies to take much more seriously their duty to fight climate change right now,” said Mike Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Presently, South Korea’s overall rating on its climate commitments is “highly insufficient” according to the latest update on the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) portal, which measures government climate action against the Paris Agreement goals.
South Korea’s policies and actions against modelled domestic pathways are deemed to be “highly insufficient”. The nation’s NDC target, when compared with its fair-share contribution to climate action, is also “highly insufficient”. Source: Climate Action Tracker
A domestic emissions reduction of at least 59 per cent by 2030 will be needed for the nation to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5°C, noted CAT. This compares with current goals of reducing emissions by 40 per cent from a 2018 baseline.
How will the ruling affect the rest of Asia?
The long-awaited ruling comes four years after the first case was filed in March 2020, and the verdict is expected to set a precedent for climate litigation in the region.
“As a significant judicial decision in Asia, the Constitutional Court of South Korea’s decision will have a substantial impact in Japan as well. We are confident that this decision will act as a strong boost in Japan’s judicial realm,” said Mie Asaoka, attorney-at-law and president of Kiko Network, a Japanese non-profit to prevent climate change.
Asaoka also highlighted the lawsuit filed earlier this month in the Nagoya District Court by 16 Japanese youths against 10 thermal power companies – including the nation’s largest power generation company Jera Corporation – to ask for the companies to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to a level that is compliant with science-based global climate goals.
In Taiwan, a similar case calling for stronger carbon reduction targets to protect human rights against climate change is also pending review by the territory’s constitutional court.
The recent spate of climate litigation cases rides on a global growth trend since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, though the growth rate has slowed, based on a recent policy report published by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
The South Korean court’s verdict resonates with other significant rulings, such as the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in April 2024, which found that the Switzerland government had failed to protect fundamental rights against climate change, with critical gaps in establishing a relevant domestic regulatory framework.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasises the extent of reductions by 2030 will be a crucial determinant of the success or failure of climate change response. We hope that the constitutional court’s judgement will mark the beginning of substantial climate action before the window of opportunity closes,” said Youn.
