The Court ruled that the government’s failure to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the period from 2031 to 2049 in the law is unconstitutional. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
SEOUL, Aug. 30 (Korea Bizwire) – The Constitutional Court of South Korea made a significant ruling on August 29, declaring Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality unconstitutional.
This decision marks the first time the court has recognized that inadequate government response to the climate crisis can be viewed as a violation of environmental rights.
The Court derived the state’s responsibility from the preamble of the Constitution, which pledges to “secure safety, freedom, and happiness for ourselves and our posterity for all time.”
It declared that the state’s measures to address the climate crisis should not overly burden future generations, as this is necessary not only to guarantee the freedom of future citizens but also to ensure equal protection of basic rights between current and future generations.
The Court also emphasized Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which states that all citizens have the right to a healthy and pleasant environment.
It interpreted this to include the state’s duty to respond to the climate crisis by reducing its causes and adapting to its consequences.
Based on these interpretations, the Court ruled that the government’s failure to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the period from 2031 to 2049 in the law is unconstitutional.
This is the first judicial decision declaring that the state has a responsibility to adequately respond to the climate crisis.
The Court added that “as future generations face constraints in participating in the democratic political process, judicial review needs to be more stringent in enforcing legislative duties in this area.”
This emphasizes the judiciary’s responsibility to protect the basic rights of future generations who will be more affected by the climate crisis but have limited participation rights.
This decision marks the first time the court has recognized that inadequate government response to the climate crisis can be viewed as a violation of environmental rights. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
However, the ruling has limitations. The Court effectively delegated the setting of specific reduction targets to the government’s discretion, leading to criticism that it’s a “half-measure” decision.
The Court concluded that it’s difficult to judicially intervene in the emission targets set by the government.
It stated, “It is difficult for the Constitutional Court to determine that a specific numerical target for a ‘specific year’ set by the legislature or executive, considering various factors comprehensively, does not correspond to Korea’s share in contributing to global greenhouse gas reduction efforts.”
The Court’s logic suggests that it will be challenging for courts or the Constitutional Court to intervene judicially in the future if the government sets its own greenhouse gas emission targets.
The attempt to confirm the unconstitutionality of the government’s specific sector-wise and year-wise reduction plans, if deemed unlikely to achieve the targets, also failed.
Based on these interpretations, the Court ruled that the government’s failure to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the period from 2031 to 2049 in the law is unconstitutional. (Image courtesy of Pixabay/CCL)
While five out of nine justices opined that the government’s plan would not achieve the goal of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030, the other four judges disagreed, preventing the required majority for a unconstitutionality ruling.
Lee Young-kyung, secretary general of Energy Justice Actions, commented, “Today’s ruling is very welcome but somewhat disappointing to us.”
She added, “We will remember today’s ruling when the government avoids its responsibility by emphasizing only citizen action and treating responses to heat-related illnesses and disasters as individual responsibilities.”
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
