By Sejong Youn
Last August, South Korea’s Constitutional Court declared the country’s climate law unconstitutional on the grounds that it shifts an excessive burden onto the youthful plaintiffs and future generations, violating their fundamental rights. August 29, 2024 was an emotional day at the court as it marked the end of a four-and-a-half-year journey of legal proceedings and campaigns for the Youth4Climate Action plaintiffs. This was the first climate litigation filed in South Korea, and the first win.
The group Youth4Climate Action was organized by teenage students in South Korea in 2018. After a series of school strikes and demonstrations, and particularly after a few meetings with politicians and government officials where it became clear that the youth had been invited only for photo-ops, the youth decided to change their strategy. They decided to sue the government.
The youth activists were angry for good reason. South Korea set its first greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target in 2009, but nevertheless continued to increase its emissions until 2018. It issued permits for new coal power plants while other countries announced plans to phase out coal. Climate Action Tracker, an independent research organization, evaluated South Korea’s GHG target to be in line with a 3 degree average global temperature increase by the end of the century, instead of the 1.5 degree limit sought by climate scientists.
The plaintiffs saw this as a form of discrimination, just like unjust discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or social class. The only difference is that this discrimination is based on time.
The plaintiffs saw this as a form of discrimination, just like unjust discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or social class. The only difference is that this discrimination is based on time. Current generations enjoy the benefits associated with GHG emissions, but the resulting harm is disproportionately allocated to future generations. Therefore, when today’s political majority chooses not to take action, the youth and future generations are forced to bear the consequences. To make matters dramatically worse, the consequences are irreversible. Future generations will have no choice but to permanently bear the impacts while having contributed little or nothing to the calamitous situation.
The Youth4Climate Action plaintiffs filed their complaint in March 2020. Their central claim was that the GHG reduction target set by the Green Growth Framework Act (later updated to include the law’s 2021 successor, the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act) and its enforcement decree is insufficient, with the result that it violates the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, including the rights to life, health, environment, and inter-generational equality.
Related materials:
Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, Aug. 29, 2024
Korean Climate Litigation Decision Analysis Memo, Plan 1.5
At the time of the filing, very few thought this claim had actual merit besides its novelty in the Korean legal community. However, during the four and a half years the case was pending in the court, we saw significant changes around the world. Following the world’s first climate litigation win in the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, the Irish Supreme Court (2020), the German Constitutional Court (2021), and the European Court of Human Rights (2024) all ruled in favor of plaintiffs arguing the insufficiency of State action on climate change.
In fact, this trend is not surprising at all, considering that the scientific community is continuously raising the level of urgency and yet the actions taken on climate change fall short of what is required to avoid catastrophic results. Because the majority of society, as reflected in the political decisions of legislatures and executives, still refuses to take action on climate change, the judicial branch in many countries is stepping forward to protect the rights of the minority.
Because the majority … still refuses to take action on climate change, the judicial branch in many countries is stepping forward to protect the rights of the minority.
The Korean Constitutional Court decision stands in line with the global trend as it specifically focuses on the undue burden put on future generations. The court pointed out that while the Framework Act set 2050 net zero carbon emissions as the long-term target, it only prescribed a 2030 interim target and was silent on any quantifiable targets during the period 2031 to 2049. The law delegated to the executive the role of setting interim targets at five-year intervals. The court ruled that this legal framework is unconstitutional because the decision-making process of the legislative and the executive is prone to prioritizing short-term interests over long-term risks. Without a full pathway all the way up to the final “net zero” year of 2050, excessive burdens will be shifted to the future every time a new interim target is set. The court further ruled that the pathway should be at least outlined in a legal statute from the legislative branch, and not be delegated to the executive to decide, because GHG reduction targets have far-reaching impact on the fundamental rights of both current and future generations and therefore require a higher level of democratic legitimacy.
In accordance with the order from the Constitutional Court, the National Assembly is now obligated to amend the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act and prescribe a full reduction pathway up to 2050. The amended targets must be based on scientific facts and international standards, must reflect Korea’s “fair share” in light of the global efforts, and must not shift excessive burden to the future.
Now the ball is back in the politicians’ court.
Now the ball is back in the politicians’ court. The political chaos triggered by President Yoon Suk Yeol’s brief declaration of martial law and impeachment by the National Assembly will likely slow down the legislative amendment process, but the deadline set by the court still stands. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are back at the drawing board, designing campaigns to change the opinion of the majority in the government and society. It was after the decision that we all realized, or remembered, that a win at the court was not the end, but indeed another beginning. But this time, supported by the court’s ruling, it should be different.
Taking a further step back, we can see this decision as part of a larger picture. In January 2024, youth plaintiffs in Taiwan filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court of Taiwan disputing the adequacy of their government’s GHG reduction target. In August 2024, youth plaintiffs in Japan filed a civil claim against Japan’s largest power companies, seeking an order to increase their GHG reduction targets. The Korean Youth Climate decision was the first win outside Europe against a national climate target, but it may be followed by many more.
***
Sejong Youn is the director of Plan 1.5, a Korean non-profit climate policy organization, and was legal counsel for plaintiffs in the Korean Youth Climate Litigation.
Suggested citation:
Sejong Youn, “Young Climate Activists Win Big in South Korea,” USALI Perspectives, 5, No. 4, December 19, 2024, https://usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/young-climate-activists-win-big-in-south-korea.
The views expressed in USALI Perspectives essays are those of the authors, and do not represent those of USALI or NYU.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
