South Korea’s Top Court Says Climate Change Law Lacks Basic Human Rights Protections

In a landmark ruling on Thursday, South Korea’s top court stated that the country’s climate change law does not safeguard basic human rights or contain targets to protect future generations.

Petitions were filed in the constitutional court by roughly 200 plaintiffs — some young climate activists, including infants — going back to 2020, reported Reuters. They argued that the government had violated the human rights of its citizens by not taking enough action to curb the climate crisis.

“Responding to the climate crisis means reducing its risks, controlling factors that could exacerbate the crisis, and building safety nets to sustain life and society,” said activist Kim Seo-gyeong with Youth 4 Climate Action, as The Guardian reported. “I look forward to seeing how this constitutional complaint will change the standards for climate response and what transformations it will bring.”

The court instructed the legislature to revise its carbon neutrality act before the end of February of 2026, reported Reuters.

Climate activist groups said it was Asia’s first high court ruling regarding the climate action of a government and could set a precedent. Similar lawsuits have been brought in Japan and Taiwan.

The ruling was celebrated by plaintiffs, lawyers and activists with cheers, applause and slogans such as “The verdict is not the end, but the beginning.”

“I have always believed that this complaint represented the wishes of many people. Today’s outcome feels like a wish has come true, and I am both happy and proud. Just as we have come together to fight for a better future amid the climate crisis, I hope more people will join us moving forward,” said 12-year-old plaintiff Jeah Han, as The Guardian reported.

The court did reject plaintiffs’ claims that the South Korean government’s goal of a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 levels — as required by the carbon neutrality act — were a violation of constitutional rights, saying the near-term goal was adequate.

“There is some disappointment regarding the parts that were not upheld today. However, it is clear that today’s ruling represents meaningful progress in protecting everyone’s rights beyond the climate crisis,” a joint statement by the plaintiffs said. “The decision we face today is not just a victory for the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit; it is an achievement for all those who have been excluded from the national climate response process while confronting the climate crisis.”

Solicitor Sejong Youn said the main argument for unconstitutionality was that regulation of the reductions targets would put an excessive burden on future generations without consideration of their rights.

“Therefore, a new greenhouse gas reduction pathway that addresses this unconstitutionality must be presented within the timeframe set by the constitutional court,” Youn said, as The Guardian reported.

The court said the country’s carbon neutrality act failed to show “any quantitative levels” for its reduction goals between 2031 and 2049, reported Reuters.

“Since there is no mechanism that can effectively ensure gradual and continuous reductions until 2050, it stipulates reduction targets that would transfer an excessive burden to the future,” a statement from the court said.

Soongsil University law professor Koh Moon-hyun told Reuters that the ruling could lead to change in other countries.

“The court must have looked at rulings in Europe and changed its stance,” Moon-hyun said. “It has created a chance for South Korea to drop its nickname as a climate villain.”

South Korea has a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by mid-century, but has lagged behind other countries in adopting renewables and is still the second-biggest G20 coal polluter after Australia, according to data.

“Today’s ruling is not simply a verdict on ‘greenhouse gas reduction,’” said Lee Young-kyung, executive director of Climate Crisis Emergency Action, as reported by The New York Times. “It is a declaration, through the Constitution and the government’s responsibility, that our dignified lives must be protected. It is the beginning of a just response to the climate crisis.”