The decision of the Constitutional Court comes after four lawsuits filed by 254 people.
The Government of South Korea has received a sentence requiring him to specify how he will carry out his climate goals for 2049. The sentence comes as a result of four complaints related to damages derived from climate change. They presented them 254 personasmany of them jointly. Among the complainants, the parents of an unborn baby.
This sentence represents a partial victory for climate defenderswho claim that the fact that the country does not reduce your emissions faster constitutes a violation of human rights.
What does the sentence say?
This Thursday, the Constitutional Court of South Korea ordered the Government to reinforce its climate goals con action plans more concrete between now and 2049.
The Court did not require the South Korean Government to establish a more ambitious goal for 2030 within the framework of his Carbon Neutrality Law and also rejected plaintiffs’ requests seeking more specific plans to ensure enforcement.
However, the Court did accept the plaintiffs’ argument that the country needed to establish plans to reduce emissions between 2031 and 2049 and ordered the Government to modify its Carbon Neutrality Law before February 28, 2026, to include such plans.
The Court, which weighs the constitutionality of lawsissued the ruling based on four cases brought by 254 plaintiffs, including many young people who were children or adolescents when they began filing lawsuits against the Government and legislators in 2020.
Insufficient objectives
They alleged that South Korea’s current goal of reduce carbon emissions by 2030 by 35% compared to 2018 levels is inadequate to manage the impact of climate change and that such objectives were not supported by sufficient implementation plans.
They also noted that the country has not yet established plans to reduce carbon emissions after 2031despite its pending objectives of achieving the carbon neutrality to 2050.
The plaintiffs alleged that South Korea’s allegedly lax climate policies violate their human rights by leaving them vulnerable to future environmental deterioration and climate-related damage.
What repercussions could this case have?
Sejong Younlegal advisor of the case in Seoul, told the magazine ‘Nature’ at the time the sentence was presented: “If we have a favorable precedent in South KoreaI think it will really be a trigger to extend this trend.”
“It will send a message: all countries have to take measures to tackle this global crisisand there are no exceptions,” he added. In the countries of Asia Oriental Litigation is often considered a last resort. But the researchers say that a satisfactory result will encourage other countries in the region to act.
