The Constitutional Court of South Korea ruled on Thursday concerning the constitutionality of several key provisions related to the nation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, significantly impacting the country’s future climate policy. The Court has mandated that the government formulate concrete emission reduction plans through 2049, in response to concerns raised by climate campaigners regarding the insufficiency of current measures.
This ruling stemmed from four consolidated climate litigation cases that began in March 2020, initiated by Youth 4 Climate Action, a group advocating on behalf of the Korean arm of the global school climate strike movement. The plaintiffs, now numbering 255 including many young individuals, argued that the government’s inadequate GHG reduction targets infringed upon citizens’ fundamental rights, especially affecting future generations.
The Court found that Article 8, Section 1 of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act, which sets a 35 percent reduction target from 2018 levels by 2030, does not meet constitutional requirements. While the 2030 target itself was deemed acceptable, the lack of specific targets for 2031 to 2049 was seen as failing to protect against future climate risks adequately. The Constitutional Court highlighted the principle of prohibition of excessively deficient protection, requiring the state to take effective measures to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights.
The omission was considered a violation of the prohibition of insufficient protection and the principle of statutory reservation. The Court has maintained Article 8 until it can be revised by February 28, 2026, to ensure that current climate policies continue to function.
Furthermore, the Court upheld Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree, which specifies a 40% reduction target for 2030, stating that it does not contravene constitutional rights. This decision reaffirms the government’s short-term climate goals while emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive long-term planning. The Court reviewed sectoral and annual GHG reduction targets outlined in the First National Plan for Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth, concluding that these targets did not substantially infringe upon environmental rights although there were varying opinions among the justices.
The ruling has sparked a wave of emotional responses from plaintiffs and activists, who chanted, “The verdict is not the end, but the beginning.” This sentiment underscores a hope that the decision will spur substantial changes in South Korea’s climate policies and inspire global action. Activists and lawyers celebrated the ruling, expressing optimism that it will encourage similar legal challenges across Asia and beyond.
Han Je-ah, one of the youngest plaintiffs at 12 years old, described the ruling as “joyful and satisfying like a wish coming true,” emphasizing the immediate reality of the climate crisis. She expressed hope that the decision would prevent future generations from having to initiate similar constitutional complaints.
This decision followed two public hearings in April and May that involved input from civic groups, scholars, and government representatives. The South Korean government and National Assembly are now tasked with strengthening climate policies before the February 2026 deadline to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling, in line with the nation’s objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.