South Korea’s Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that much of the country’s climate goals were unconstitutional, handing a landmark victory to young environmental activists, who wept for joy on the court steps.
The first such case in Asia, brought by children and teenagers who named an embryo as a lead plaintiff, claimed that South Korea’s legally binding climate commitments were insufficient and unmet, violating their constitutionally guaranteed human rights.
“Just now, the Constitutional Court ruled that it is unconstitutional that there is no government goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 2031 to 2050,” said Yoon Hyeon-jeong, one of the young activists involved.
“It was ruled that our right to live a safe life from the climate crisis should be guaranteed,” she added, barely managing to finish her sentence as she choked up with tears.
The court ruled that the government’s limited climate targets violate the constitution as they do “not sufficiently protect the basic rights of the people,” the legal representatives of the plaintiffs said after the hearing.
The case — known as “Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea” after the in-utero nickname of an embryo, now toddler, involved — included four petitions by children.
In 2021, South Korea made a legally binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 290 million tons by 2030 — and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
To meet this goal, the country needs to reduce emissions by 5.4 percent every year from 2023 — a target they have so far failed to meet.
As a result of the ruling, Seoul will now have to revise its climate goals, said Youn Se-jong, a lawyer for the plaintiffs
“The National Assembly and the government of the Republic of Korea will have to revise regulations related to the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and present greenhouse gas reduction goals considering the rights of future generations,” Youn said.
“With today’s ruling, we have confirmed that climate change is a matter of our fundamental rights and that everyone has the right to be safe from it,” he said.
“Ordinary people like us have come this far. We have led the constitutional petition to protect our rights without relying on authority and power. It took us five years,” said youth climate activist Kim Seo-gyeong, 21.
Kim was part of the group that filed the first of the cases in 2020, and said the ruling was a validation for young people who found themselves “living in the climate crisis.”
‘Wish came true’
Seoul’s Ministry of Environment said in a statement that it respected the court’s decision.
The ministry said it plans “to faithfully implement follow-up measures”.
The plaintiffs had argued that unless Seoul moved more quickly on climate goals, future generations would not only have to live in a degraded environment, but also have to bear the burden of undertaking massive greenhouse gas reductions.
This, the case claims, would mean that the state has violated its duty to protect their fundamental rights.
Similar climate cases globally have found success.
A youth-led effort recently succeeded in the U.S. state of Montana, while another is being heard at the European Higher Court.
In Germany, in 2021 climate targets were ruled insufficient and unconstitutional, and lawyer Lee Chi-sun said the two cases were very similar.
“Just as Germany has further strengthened its reduction targets for 2040 and revised the goal for 2045 after their ruling, we expect Seoul’s 2030 reduction targets will be strengthened” and expanded, he said.
Other cases have not fared so well globally — a child-led suit in California over alleged government failures to curb pollution was thrown out in May.
The Thursday ruling is the first in Asia to question a country’s national greenhouse gas reduction targets “and the court’s ruling can set an important precedent for other courts in Asia to rule on similar cases,” said Lin Yan-Ting, a climate activist who is a plaintiff for a similar case in Taiwan, filed in January.
Outside the Seoul court 12-year-old plaintiff, Han Jeah — who started the case aged 10 — said the verdict was “like a wish came true.”
“We have the right to live safely and happily even in the climate crisis. This right should be protected under any circumstances and cannot be infringed upon by anyone,” Han Jeah said.
“So I wanted to show people through this lawsuit how much we (young people) know and how deeply we worry about climate change.”
